JUDGMENT : Appellant Rama Paharia has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.1996, and order of sentence dated 06.07.1996, passed by Shri R.P. Verma, Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1994, arising out of Sunderpahari P.S. Case No. 47/1993 corresponding to G.R. No. 1082/1993, holding the appellant guilty of the offences under section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for life for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was passed under section 201of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant Nara Paharia, alleging therein that the wife of the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia had died eight days prior to the occurrence. The deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia alleged that elder brother of the informant namely Kudo Paharia and his wife Soni Paharin has cast spell of witchcraft on his wife, due to which, she died. On 16.12.1993, his elder brother Kudo Paharia and his wife Soni Paharin had gone to Chandna Hat. While they were returning from there, the present appellant and the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia intercepted them on the way and assaulted them. The deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia and the present appellant had also shot them by arrow. Soni Paharin somehow managed to reach her house and she informed that both the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia and the present appellant Rama Paharia had assaulted them. Thereafter, she succumbed to her injuries. 3. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 28.02.1994. On 24.06.1994, Learned C.J.M., Godda after cognizance, committed the case to the court of sessions as the case was exclusively triable by a session court. 4. Charge was framed against the appellant on 13.07.1994. The contents of the charge was explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Jabra Paharia (P.W-1) is a hearsay witness. He has proved his signature on the inquest report of Kudo Paharia, which is Ext.1. He has also proved his signature on the seizure lists which are Ext.1 series. Rama Paharia (P.W-2) is also hearsay witness. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Jabra Paharia (P.W-1) is a hearsay witness. He has proved his signature on the inquest report of Kudo Paharia, which is Ext.1. He has also proved his signature on the seizure lists which are Ext.1 series. Rama Paharia (P.W-2) is also hearsay witness. However, he has stated that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before him. Loknath Paharia (P.W-3) is also a hearsay witness. Chandu Paharia (P.W-4) is another hearsay witness. Rama Paharia (P.W-5) and Surja Paharia (P.W-6) were tendered by the prosecution. Nara Paharia (P.W-7) is the Informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution case. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha (P.W-8) has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased persons. He has proved the postmortem reports, which are Ext.-2 series. Kamleshwari Prasad Singh (P.W-9) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the Informant which is Ext.-3. He has also proved the formal F.I.R which is Ext.-4. He has further proved the inquest report of the deceased Kudo Paharia which is Ext.-5. He has finally the proved seizure list relating to seizure of blood stained rock and shaft of the arrow which are Ext.6 series. He has proved the place of occurrence from where the dead body of Kudo Paharia was recovered. 6. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. Defence is the general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 7. On the basis of both oral and documentary evidence available on the record, learned Sessions Judge, Godda held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 8. Present appeal was filed by the present appellant Rama Paharia and also by Ramesh Paharia. However, Ramesh Paharia died during the pendency of this criminal appeal and as such, criminal appeal as against Ramesh Paharia stood abated. 9. Shri Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The appellant Rama Paharia has been held guilty only on the basis of the fact that the deceased Soni Paharin had made dying declaration, stating about the involvement of the present appellant Rama Paharia. P.W.-2-Rama Paharia had stated that the appellant had confessed his guilt before him. The appellant Rama Paharia has been held guilty only on the basis of the fact that the deceased Soni Paharin had made dying declaration, stating about the involvement of the present appellant Rama Paharia. P.W.-2-Rama Paharia had stated that the appellant had confessed his guilt before him. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that both dying declaration and extra judicial confession of the appellant are very weak pieces of evidence and conviction of the appellant on the basis of these two pieces of evidence, cannot be sustained without any other corroborative evidences. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra Versus Hemant Kawadu Chauriwal and others reported in [(2015) 17 S.C.C 598] and Irfan alias Naka versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060] on the point that conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased. Learned Amicus Curiae has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakharam Shankar Bansode versus State of Maharashtra, reported in [1994 SCC (Cri) 505], where it has been held that conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of extra judicial confession in absence of other corroborative evidence. On these grounds, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant Rama Paharia be acquitted of the charge. 10. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P. submitted that the deceased Soni Paharin had made dying declaration before the Informant, stating that the present appellant and the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia had shot her and her husband by arrow, resulting in their death. She also submitted that the present appellant had made confession before Rama Paharia (P.W-2) regarding his complicity in the death of both the deceased persons. It was finally submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It was accordingly prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 11. Now, it has to be ascertained, whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt? In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be further ascertained, i. Whether the deceased Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin had died homicidal death? ii. Whether the appellant had caused homicidal death of the deceased persons? 12. In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be further ascertained, i. Whether the deceased Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin had died homicidal death? ii. Whether the appellant had caused homicidal death of the deceased persons? 12. Case of the prosecution is that the deceased Kudo Paharia and his wife Soni Paharin had died homicidal death. In order to prove this fact, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Jabra Paharia (P.W-1) is the witness of inquest. He has stated that he saw the dead body of Soni Paharin which was lying in her house and that of Kudo Paharia. However, he has not stated anything regarding the injuries found on their person and cause of their death. Kamleshwari Prasad Singh (P.W-9), who is the Investigating Officer of this case, has stated that he had prepared the inquest report of the deceased Kudo Paharia which is Ext.5. From perusal of the inquest report (Ext.-5), it transpires that there was sharp pointed injury on the chest of the deceased Kudo Paharia. Injury was also found on the other parts of the body. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the inquest report of Soni Paharin was prepared. Neither Kamleshwari Prasad Singh (P.W-10) has stated that he has prepared the inquest report of Soni Paharin, nor her inquest report has been formally adduced in evidence. 13. Dr.Ajay Kumar Jha (P.W-8) has performed postmortem on the dead body of Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin. He has stated that on 18.12.1993 at about 10.15 A.M, he performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Kudo Paharia and found the following injuries. I. Rigor mortis was present over all the four limbs and mouth was open and eyes were also open. Mouth and chest smeared with blood and right ear was found chopped off. Left ear was cut, but present with the head. II. On examination, I found the following injuries which were ante-mortem in nature:- i. Scalp lacerated on fore-head in the middle 1½“x ½“x ¼“ ii. Thoracic wall punctured on front of chest right side at third intercostals space 2”x ½“ in continuation to interior of chest directed medially and backward. According to this witness, death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to punctured wound on chest and heart caused by sharp pointed weapon such as arrow. Thoracic wall punctured on front of chest right side at third intercostals space 2”x ½“ in continuation to interior of chest directed medially and backward. According to this witness, death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to punctured wound on chest and heart caused by sharp pointed weapon such as arrow. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ext.-2 Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha (P.W-8) has further stated that on the same day at 9.30 A.M, he has performed postmortem on the dead body of Soni Paharin and found the following ante-mortem injuries. i. Bruises on both temporal region 2”x1”. ii. Punctured wound on left lateral wall of chest near left xilla. About 1”x ½“communicating with interior in fourth intercostals space directed medially. iii. Abrasions varying from pea size to 2” on front and back of chest. According to this witness, death of Soni Paharin was caused due to shock and hemorrhage due to punctured wound caused by sharp pointed weapon such as arrow. He has also proved the postmortem report of Soni Paharin which is Ext. 2/1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no sharp pointed weapon was found inside the dead bodies. From perusal of the postmortem reports (Ext. 2 series), it appears that findings of Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha (P.W-8) regarding the injuries found on the persons of the deceased and cause of their death fully corroborates his oral testimony recorded during the trial on this point. As per the postmortem reports, the right ear of the deceased Kudo Paharia was chopped off and his left ear was cut but attached to his head. He had also sustained lacerated wound on his forehead. There was punctured wound on his chest. The deceased Soni Paharin had sustained bruises on her temporal region. There was punctured wound on left lateral wall of chest. There was abrasion on front and back of chest. From the nature of these injuries, it can be safely concluded that the injuries found on the persons of the deceased were neither self-inflicted nor accidental. Accordingly, we come to the finding that the deceased Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin had died homicidal death. 14. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant Rama Paharia and the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia had caused homicidal death of the deceased Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin. Accordingly, we come to the finding that the deceased Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin had died homicidal death. 14. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant Rama Paharia and the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia had caused homicidal death of the deceased Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin. In order to prove this fact, prosecution has relied upon the statement of Rama Paharia (P.W-2) and that of Nara Paharia (P.W-7), stating that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before Rama Paharia (P.W-2) and the deceased Soni Paharin made dying declaration stating the complicity of the appellant in the murder of the deceased persons before Nara Paharia (P.W-7). 15. On perusal of oral testimony of Rama Paharia (P.W-2), it transpires that he had stated that on the next date of the occurrence, the appellant Rama Paharia was apprehended. Both Rama Paharia and Ramesh Paharia confessed their involvement before him in the murder of Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before him and several persons including Loknath Paharia who is Mukhiya of the village. 16. Loknath Paharia (P.W-3) in his deposition before the Court had not stated anything about the fact that the appellant Rama Paharia had made extra judicial confession before him. In fact, he had stated that both the Informant Nara Paharia (P.W-7) and Rama Paharia (P.W-2) had come to him and told him about the complicity of the present appellant and the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia in the murder of Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin. The prosecution has not examined any other witness before whom the appellant is said to have made extra judicial confession. 17. Rama Paharia (P.W-2) has made sweeping statement that the appellant Rama Paharia had made extra judicial confession before him. But he has not stated as to what exact words were narrated by the appellant in his extra judicial confession and for that matter, what was the confession of the present appellant before him. Loknath Paharia (P.W-3) before whom this witness claims that the appellant has made extra judicial confession has not supported this fact. 18. But he has not stated as to what exact words were narrated by the appellant in his extra judicial confession and for that matter, what was the confession of the present appellant before him. Loknath Paharia (P.W-3) before whom this witness claims that the appellant has made extra judicial confession has not supported this fact. 18. In the case of Sahadevan and Another versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in [ (2012) 6 SCC 403 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the Court must ensure that same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. 19. In the case of Sakharam Shankar Bansode (Supra), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which reads as under: “4. It is well settled now that a retracted extra judicial confession, though a piece of evidence on which reliance can be placed, but the same has to be corroborated by independent evidence ………..” (Emphasis supplied) 20. The evidence adduced by the prosecution on the point of extra judicial confession of the appellant before Rama Paharia (P.W-2) is that the appellant has confessed his guilt. Though, the prosecution has made out a case that both the deceased persons died due to injury sustained by arrow. Nara Paharia (P.W-7) has stated that when he had tried to take the arrow out of the body of the deceased Soni Paharin, it broke and the arrowhead remained inside the body. Kamleshwari Prasad Singh (P.W-9), the Investigating Officer, has made seizure of the wooden shaft of the arrow lying near the dead body of Soni Paharin. He has not seized the remaining portion of the arrow. The arrow, by which Kudo Paharia was shot, as claimed by the prosecution, has also not been recovered. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha (P.W-8) though had opined that both the deceased persons had punctured wound on the chest, but he had admitted that no sharp pointed weapon was found in the dead bodies. The fact that the deceased persons were shot by arrow and died due to injury caused by arrow is not proved. There is nothing on the record by way of material particulars to corroborate the statement of Rama Paharia (P.W-2) regarding the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before him. 21. The fact that the deceased persons were shot by arrow and died due to injury caused by arrow is not proved. There is nothing on the record by way of material particulars to corroborate the statement of Rama Paharia (P.W-2) regarding the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before him. 21. Another piece of evidence on which the prosecution is relying is so-called dying declaration of the deceased Soni Paharin. Nara Paharia (P.W-7) has stated that Soni Paharin had told him that the present appellant Rama Paharia and the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia had shot her by arrow and thereafter she fell on the cot and died. She had not stated anything about Kudo Paharia. The dying declaration of the deceased Soni Paharin is not corroborated by material facts. She has stated in her dying declaration that both the present appellant Rama Paharia and the deceased appellant Ramesh Paharia had shot her by arrow. However, the doctor (P.W-8) who had performed postmortem on her dead body had found only one punctured wound on her chest. If both Rama Paharia and Ramesh Paharia had shot her by arrow, there should have been two punctured wounds. Furthermore, broken shaft of the arrow was found at the place of occurrence where Soni Paharin had died. The arrowhead, as per the prosecution case, remained inside her body, but the doctor at the time of postmortem, did not find it in her body. Nara Paharia (P.W-7) in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased had told him about complicity of the accused persons in a very feeble voice. He has further denied in his cross-examination that he had tried to take out the arrow out of the dead body of the deceased Soni Paharin. He has further admitted that there was no wooden shaft of the arrow. Kamleshwari Prasad Singh (P.W-9) has stated that the Informant Nara Paharia had made statement as recorded in the case diary that he had tried to take out arrow out of the body of Soni Paharin, but the arrow broke and when he tried to take out the remaining portion, Soni Paharin died. 22. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that apart from the statement of Nara Paharia (P.W-7) that the deceased Soni Paharin had made dying declaration before him, no other witness has supported the fact that the deceased Soni Paharin made dying declaration. 22. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that apart from the statement of Nara Paharia (P.W-7) that the deceased Soni Paharin had made dying declaration before him, no other witness has supported the fact that the deceased Soni Paharin made dying declaration. It also appears from the record that the deceased Soni Paharin died just after making dying declaration and she was speaking in a very feeble voice. The dying declaration of the deceased Soni Paharin is not corroborated by material particulars as she has stated that both the accused persons had shot her by arrow, but only one punctured would was found in her body. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased Soni Paharin was in a proper frame of mind and was coherent while making her dying declaration. In the case of Irfan alias Naka (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “63. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration.” 23. From the discussion made above, it is apparent that apart from the purported dying declaration of the deceased Soni Paharin and so-called averment of Rama Paharia (P.W-2) that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before him, there is nothing on the record to corroborate both these pieces of evidence by material facts. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant that he had caused homicidal death of the deceased Kudo Paharia and Soni Paharin. Learned Trial Court has wrongly held the appellant guilty for their homicidal death. 24. This appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Appellant is on bail. He along with his bailors are discharged from the liability towards the bail bonds. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 25. 24. This appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Appellant is on bail. He along with his bailors are discharged from the liability towards the bail bonds. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 25. Before parting, we would like to record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, during course of hearing of this appeal. The Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, by way of remuneration, for his services rendered as an Amicus Curiae.