JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2016 passed by learned First Upper Sessions Judge Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No. 187/2014 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently: Conviction Sentence U/s 302 of IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 6 months U/s 201 of IPC R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 months U/s 199/193 of IPC R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 2 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that from 07:30 PM on 26.05.2014 to 8 AM on 27.05.2014 at village Mirouni, the appellant herein caused the death of his adoptive father Karmaha by strangulating him and in order to screen himself, he lodged a report at the Police Station by giving false information and registered merg intimation vide Ex.P/21. 3. It is admitted position on record that deceased Karmaha had kept Sarhibai as his wife and since they were issueless, deceased Karmaha had adopted the appellant, who was the son of Sarhibai's sister Bhooribai. Further case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2014, deceased Karmaha was under the influence of liqour and in the intervening night of 26-27.05.2014, while Karmaha was sleeping on the cot, appellant strangulated him and caused his death. During investigation, summons were issued to the witnesses vide Ex.P/1 and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/2. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/3 and the dead body of deceased Karmaha was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Manoj Kumar Rathore (PW-3) and as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/9), cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to throttling and nature of death is homicidal. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and first information report was lodged against the appellant vide Ex.P/22 and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Karmaha to be homicidal in nature and further finding the appellant to be the author of the crime in question, proceeded to convict him for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 199/193 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting the appellant only on the basis of motive of offence, which has not been found established and extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to Sahniram (PW-2), Smt. Kara Bai (PW-5), Sitaram (PW-6) and Pitaru Marar (PW-8) which has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the conviction of the appellant is neither well-founded nor well-merited and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to Sahniram (PW-2), Smt. Kara Bai (PW-5), Sitaram (PW-6) and Pitaru Marar (PW-8) is true and voluntary, as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for the consideration would be whether the death of deceased Karmaha was homicidal in nature? 10. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and held the death of deceased Karmaha to be homicidal in nature relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. Manoj Kumar Rathore (PW-3) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) in which cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to throttling and nature of death is said to be homicidal. Considering the statement of Dr. Manoj Kumar Rathore (PW-3) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) in which cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to throttling and nature of death is said to be homicidal. Considering the statement of Dr. Manoj Kumar Rathore (PW-3) as well as the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) and the grievous injury suffered by the deceased on his neck, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased Karmaha to be homicidal in nature particularly when it has not been seriously questioned by learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court. 11. The next question for consideration would be whether the appellant is the author of crime in question and whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 199/193 of IPC? 12. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence available on record and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, mainly on motive of offence found to be proved by the trial Court and the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to Sahniram (PW-2), Smt. Karabai (PW-5), Sitaram (PW-6) and Pitaru Marar (PW-8). 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 has laid down the five golden principles that constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, which state as under: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. xxx xxx xxx (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be prove. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be prove. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” Motive of offence: 14. Admittedly, deceased Karmaha and his wife Sarhibai were issueless and so they adopted the appellant herein, who was the son of Sarhibai's sister Bhooribai and the appellant and his wife maintained the appellant from childhood and later on, married him as well and the appellant and his wife had a one year old son. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant used to quarrel with the deceased as he wanted the property belonging to the deceased, which the trial Court has found established by the testimony of Kuber Tandan (PW-1), Sahniram (PW-2) and Smt. Kara Bai (PW-5). In our considered opinion, the finding recorded by the trial Court that appellant had motive to commit the offence on account of property dispute is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court. Extra Judicial Confession: 15. 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 vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 ] 16. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered their earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh vs. 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. [See: Sahadevan and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 ] 16. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered their earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh vs. 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 vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 11 SCC 754 and Pancho vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165 ]. The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred 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 percepts 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. (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.” 17. The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan (supra) has further been followed with approval in the matter of Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, judgment dated 16.03.2023 and very recently in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs. State of Bihar, 2023 Live Law (SC) 197 wherein the following principle of law has been laid down by their Lordships in paragraph 5 of the report: “EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION 5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.” 18. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships in Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra), it is quite vivid that extra-judicial is said to have been made by the appellant firstly to Sahniram (PW-2) who is cousin of the deceased although he appears to be stranger to the appellant. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships in Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra), it is quite vivid that extra-judicial is said to have been made by the appellant firstly to Sahniram (PW-2) who is cousin of the deceased although he appears to be stranger to the appellant. A careful perusal of the statement of Sahniram (PW-2) would show that in paragraph 6 he did not disclose as to when the police party had come to the village for investigation and further in his cross-examination, he did not disclose that the appellant has given extra-judicial confession to him and revealed the said fact after a fairly long time which goes to show that it can be a matter of afterthought and it would be unsafe to rely upon Sahniram (PW-2) as a witness for extra-judicial confession. The next witness is Smt. Kara Bai (PW-5), who is the elder sister of deceased Karmaha. Though she has stated that appellant had given extra-judicial confession to him but she has clearly stated that she did not inform about the said fact to the police in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/12), thus, her statement before the Court cannot be trusted wholeheartedly. The third witness is Sitaram (PW-6) and he is the driver of the vehicle in which the dead body of Karmaha was escorted for postmortem. He, being a complete stranger to the appellant, it would be difficult to believe that the appellant would make extra-judicial confession to him, that too, in the presence of police. The fourth and last witness is Pitaru Marar (PW-8), who is another one of deceased Karmaha's cousin. He has clearly stated in paragraph 3 of his statement before the Court that immediately after the incident when he went to the house of the deceased, the appellant confessed that he has strangulated his adoptive father and caused his death, however, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he gave his statement to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. four days after the incident had occurred and he has only admitted that appellant has admitted that he has given extra-judicial confession to him. 19. 19. Thus, in our considered opinion, the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to Sahniram (PW-2), Smt. Kara Bai (PW-5), Sitaram (PW-6) and Pitaru Marar (PW-8) does not inspire confidence and does not appear to be true and voluntary and it suffers from material discrepancy and inherent improbability. As such, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellant in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sahadevan (supra) and Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra) and in that view of the matter, we are unable to base the conviction of the appellant on extra judicial confession which leaves motive of offence as the only incriminating circumstance found proved against the appellant. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, 2012 (4) SCC 124 has clearly held that motive may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but it cannot take the place of conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that the presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong, also cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are unable to convict the appellant on the basis of motive of offence without any other corroborating circumstance found proved against him. Conclusion: 20. As a fallout and conclusion of the aforesaid legal analysis, we set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 199/193 of IPC and we acquit the him from the charges levelled against him on the principle of benefit of doubt. He be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 21. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands allowed. 22. Let a certified copy of this order along with the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned for necessary information and action, if any.