JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of common judgment dated 28/08/2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 89/2013, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014 has been preferred by the accused Geeta Yadav under Section 374(2) of CrPC questioning the impugned judgment whereby she has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 335/2015 has been preferred by the husband of the deceased, Kartik Ram Yadav (P.W.-1) under Section 372 of CrPC seeking compensation under the provisions of Sections 357 and 357(A) of CrPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27/07/2013 at about 2:30 AM at village Kumarra within the ambit of Police Station Chhuriya, accused Geeta Yadav caused the death of her mother-in-law Smt. Shail Bai by pouring kerosene oil over her and setting her ablaze while she was sleeping and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence. 4. Further case of the prosecution is that deceased Smt. Shail Bai had sustained grievous burn injuries and she was taken to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon for treatment but looking to her serious condition, she was referred to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai wherein she succumbed to her injuries and died on the same day. The information regarding her death was given to the Police Station wherein merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/16. Inquest was conducted vide Ex. P/1 and her dead body was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. V.S. Baghel (P.W.-11) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/10), cause of death is said to be shock due to extensive burn and inflammation injuries. Upon merg inquiry, husband of the accused Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) informed the police that accused Geeta Yadav has made extra-judicial confession before the village Kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3), Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) and Raju Yadav (P.W.-6) that she poured kerosene oil over the deceased and set her on fire. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was taken into custody. Her memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex. P/3 and a bamboo stick which was burnt from one side was seized from her vide Ex. P/4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was taken into custody. Her memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex. P/3 and a bamboo stick which was burnt from one side was seized from her vide Ex. P/4. The said bamboo stick was sent for forensic examination along with the other seized articles and in the FSL report (Ex. P/21), fractions of kerosene oil was found on it. After due investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was admitted to the Sessions Court for trial in accordance with law. Accused Geeta Yadav abjured the guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and brought on record 22 documents. Statement of the accused was taken under Section 313 of CrPC wherein she denied guilt, however, she examined none in her defence and brought on record only 3 documents. 6. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, holding the death of deceased Smt. Shail Bai to be homicidal in nature and further holding the accused Geeta Yadav to be the author of crime in question, proceeded to convict her for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced her as aforesaid. 7. Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014, would make a two-fold submission :- i) the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to the village kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3) would not be admissible in evidence as village kotwar is a police officer in terms of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. ii) the said extra-judicial confession would also not be admissible in evidence as it was not made voluntarily by the accused in view of the statement of Raju Yadav (P.W.- 6) who has clearly stated that accused made extra-judicial confession before the village kotwar only because her father-in-law pressurized her to do so, as such, it is liable to be discarded and since there is no other evidence available on record, the accused could not have been convicted by the trial Court only on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession. 8. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence as prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence as prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 335/2015, would submit that considering that appellant's wife Smt. Shail Bai had been murdered and offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC has been committed, the trial Court ought to have directed for compensation in favour of the appellant Kartik Ram Yadav, as such, appropriate compensation be granted to the appellant in accordance with law, to which Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that the manner in which deceased Smt. Shail Bai died i.e. in the house at night where the appellant was sleeping, it is surprising that appellant did not raise any alarm while the deceased was burning in fire and further did not give any explanation as to how his wife died, which raises suspicion on him and as such, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation and his appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of deceased Smt. Shail Bai was homicidal in nature ? 12. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and held the death of deceased Smt. Shail Bai to be homicidal in nature relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. V.S. Baghel (P.W.-11) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex. P/10) and has stated that cause of death is shock due to extensive burn and inflammation injuries and nature of death is homicidal. Considering the postmortem report (Ex. P/10) as well as the statement of Dr. V.S. Baghel (P.W.-11), we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased Smt. Shail Bai to be homicidal in nature. We hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court. 13. Now, we shall consider each of the appeals one-by-one. Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014 :- 14. V.S. Baghel (P.W.-11), we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased Smt. Shail Bai to be homicidal in nature. We hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court. 13. Now, we shall consider each of the appeals one-by-one. Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014 :- 14. Accused Geeta Yadav has been convicted by the trial Court on the basis of the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by her to village kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3), her husband Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) and her brother Raju Yadav (P.W.-6). It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/accused that extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the accused before the village kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3) would not be admissible in evidence and would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 15. The question as to whether extra-judicial confession made to the village kotwar would be admissible in evidence or not came up for consideration before the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of State of M.P. v. Premlal, 1986 SCC Online MP 137 and after considering the issue and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it was resolved by holding that extra-judicial confession made by an accused to the Kotwar is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer and so it is not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and it has been held as under :- “The following question has been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench for consideration :- “Whether the extra-judicial confession made by an accused to the Kotwar is admissible in evidence ?” XXX XXX XXX Accordingly, we express our opinion in the affirmative that the extra-judicial confession made by an accused to the Kotwar is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer and so it is not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act.” 16. As such, following the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Full Bench of M.P. High Court in Premlal (supra), we hereby reject the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and hold that the extra-judicial confession made by accused Geeta Yadav to the village Kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3) is admissible in evidence and it is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 17. 17. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused is not truthful and voluntary. 18. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. [See : Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 ] 19. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered the earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 as under :- “15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10) “10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.” 15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. (2011) 11 SCC 754 and Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165 .) The principles 16. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. (2011) 11 SCC 754 and Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165 .) The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extrajudicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused : (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.” 20. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases including Sahadevan (supra), it is quite vivid that date of offence is 27/07/2013 and extra-judicial confession is said to have been made by the accused to Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3), Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) and Raju Yadav (P.W.-6) on 06/08/2013. Village Kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3) has clearly stated before the Court that immediately after the incident, accused Geeta Yadav had gone to her parents' house and she was not present in the funeral of her mother-in-law and thereafter, her parents came and left her with her husband. Village Kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3) has clearly stated before the Court that immediately after the incident, accused Geeta Yadav had gone to her parents' house and she was not present in the funeral of her mother-in-law and thereafter, her parents came and left her with her husband. Pursuant thereof, on 15-16/08/2013, accused Geeta Yadav went missing and did not come back to her house, then her husband Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) and her brother Raju Yadav (P.W.-6) traced her and anyhow she was brought back to her house and on being enquired as to where she had gone, she gave no reply, however, all of a sudden, she made a statement that on the date of the incident, she had poured kerosene oil over the deceased and set her ablaze. Thereafter, she was taken to the Police Station and she was enquired by the Police and at that time, Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) and Raju Yadav (P.W.-6) were also present, however, both have been examined before the Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have not been declared hostile also. 21. Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4), husband of the accused, in his statement before the Court, has clearly stated in paragraph 7 that mental condition of the accused was not good and further in paragraph 9, he has stated that immediately after 1-2 months of marriage, accused was being treated by a witchdoctor. If the statement of village kotwar, Manohar Manhar (P.W.-3) is examined, it is quite vivid that immediately after the incident, the accused did not make any extra-judicial confession and after more than two weeks, she made the said extra-judicial confession that she poured kerosene oil over the motherin- law, deceased Smt. Shail Bai and set her on fire. Considering her mental condition and considering that she was undergoing treatment by a witchdoctor as per her husband's statement, it would be unsafe to base her conviction on the sole testimony of village kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3) particularly when there is no other legal evidence available on record to support the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant. 22. Though pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused, bamboo stick which is burnt from one side has been seized vide Ex. P/4 and as per FSL report (Ex. 22. Though pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused, bamboo stick which is burnt from one side has been seized vide Ex. P/4 and as per FSL report (Ex. P/21), fractions of kerosene oil has been found on it, but unless it is fully established that it is the accused who is the author of crime in question mainly on the basis of memorandum and seizure and FSL report, it cannot be held that accused is the author of crime in question particularly when the seizure witnesses Sundar Lal (P.W.- 2) and Firatu Ram (P.W.-5) have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and more particularly when the conduct of the husband of deceased Kartik Ram (P.W.-1) is also not free from blemish. 23. As such, from the aforesaid legal discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused Geeta Yadav to village kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3), Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) and Raju Yadav (P.W.-6) is not truthful and voluntary and it suffers from material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities and therefore, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC solely on that basis. We hereby set aside the conviction of the accused Geeta Yadav for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and acquit her on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Criminal Appeal No. 335/2015 :- 24. By way of this appeal, appellant Kartik Ram Yadav, who is the husband of deceased Smt. Shail Bai, seeks grant of compensation. However, it is crucial to notice the conduct of the appellant herein at the time of the incident. Admittedly, deceased Smt. Shail Bai had been set on fire at about 2:30 AM on 27/07/2013 while she was sleeping and the appellant was also sleeping in the same room in the house in question. As per the MLC report (Ex. P/11), deceased Smt. Shail Bai had suffered 98% burn injuries and it is surprising that while she was getting burnt and had sustained severe burn injuries, the appellant did not come to know about it even though he was sleeping in the same room. As per the MLC report (Ex. P/11), deceased Smt. Shail Bai had suffered 98% burn injuries and it is surprising that while she was getting burnt and had sustained severe burn injuries, the appellant did not come to know about it even though he was sleeping in the same room. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should step in and grant compensation to the appellant, particularly when the accused Geeta Yadav has already been acquitted by us in Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014. 25. In the matter of Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that occasion to consider question of award of compensation would arise only after court records conviction of the accused and observed as under :- “66. To sum up : while the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused.” 26. Thus, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant Kartik Ram (P.W.-1) seeking compensation for her wife Smt. Shail Bai's death deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in view of the subsequent conduct of the appellant as discussed above and in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad (supra) as the accused Geeta Yadav has already been acquitted by us herein-above. Conclusion :- 27. In view of the aforesaid legal analysis, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit accused Geeta Yadav from the charges levelled against her by extending her benefit of doubt. Conclusion :- 27. In view of the aforesaid legal analysis, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit accused Geeta Yadav from the charges levelled against her by extending her benefit of doubt. Since she is already on bail, she need not surrender, however, her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained under Section 437A of CrPC. 28. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014 stands allowed whereas Criminal Appeal No. 335/2015 stands dismissed.