JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.23/2015 by the Sessions Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur, C.G., by which the appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2015 at about 3:30 pm, at village Budupara Irpa, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, C.G., the appellant assaulted his father's elder brother-Jaggu, aged about 40 years (hereinafter called as 'deceased') with axe, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries over his body and died and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Further case of the prosecution is that deceased had done some work of excavation in the field of appellant herein and the appellant had not paid Rs.50/- to him and on account of dispute of that wages, appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased- Jaggu with axe, as result of which he suffered grievous injuries over his body and died. The matter was reported by PW-2 Sannu and PW-7 Maniram to PW-12 Paresh Benjam, Village Sarpanch. Thereafter, village panchayat meeting was convened and in presence of PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu, appellant is said to have given extra-judicial confession that he has committed murder of deceased. Pursuant to this, merg intimation Ex.P-10 was recorded, FIR Ex.P-9 was registered against the appellant and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-21. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-6 and the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-14 Dr. Pradeep Baghel, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-22. According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was coma with cardio-respiratory arrest due to internal haemorrhage and mode of death was homicidal in nature. From the spot, axe & stone were seized vide Ex.P-15. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (unexhibited), no blood has been found on the seized axe and stone. 3. From the spot, axe & stone were seized vide Ex.P-15. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (unexhibited), no blood has been found on the seized axe and stone. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and brought on record 25 documents. The defence has examined none and not exhibited any document. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on extra-judicial confession given by him allegedly before the village panchayat meeting in presence of PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu, which is a very weak piece of evidence and 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. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu is true and voluntary. As such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for the consideration would be whether the death of deceased- Jaggu was homicidal in nature ? 10. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and held the death of deceased- Jaggu to be homicidal in nature relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. 9. The first question for the consideration would be whether the death of deceased- Jaggu was homicidal in nature ? 10. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and held the death of deceased- Jaggu to be homicidal in nature relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. Pradeep Baghel (PW-14) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-22) in which cause of death is said to be coma with cardio-respiratory arrest due to internal haemorrhage and nature of death is said to be homicidal. Considering the statement of Dr. Pradeep Baghel (PW-14) as well as the postmortem report (Ex. P-22) and the grievous injury suffered by the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased- Jaggu to be homicidal in nature and we hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court. 11. Now, the question is whether the appellant is the author of the crime in question for which the trial Court has relied upon that the appellant has given extra-judicial confession in village panchayat meeting in presence of PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW- 13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu and made the sole basis for conviction of the appellant as their statements have duly been supported by FIR (Ex.P-9) & merg intimation (Ex.P-10). 12. Now, the next question is whether the conviction of the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession is in accordance with law or not? 13. Admittedly, next day of offence, village panchayat meeting was convened in which PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu were present. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession. 14. 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. 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 ] 15. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered their 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. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial 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. 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.” 16. The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan (supra) has further been followed with approval in the matter of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, judgment dated 16/03/2023 and very recently in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (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.” 17. In the most recent judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Moorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 SCC Online SC 1027 in which the principle laid down in Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra) has been relied upon. 18. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.” 17. In the most recent judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Moorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 SCC Online SC 1027 in which the principle laid down in Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra) has been relied upon. 18. In the matter of State of Punjab v. Keval Krishan, 2023 SCC Online SC 746, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in para 20 as under:- “....20. Insofar as the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the accused is concerned, the same was provided by PW-3, a member of the Panchayat wherein the deceased resided. Ordinarily a person makes a confession either to absolve oneself of the burden of guilt or to seek protection under the hope that the person to whom confession is made would protect him. Normally a confession to absolve oneself of the guilt is made to a person on whom the confessor reposes confidence. The High Court noticed that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the accused had any prior relations with PW-3 or that the accused hoped for, or sought, any help from PW-3 and, therefore, made the confession to him. Notably, the accused denied making any such confession. For the reasons above, including other, which need not be put on record, the High Court discarded the circumstance of the accused making a confession before PW-3 on 25.12.1998. Otherwise also, an extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and solely on its basis a conviction is not ordinarily to be recorded.....” 19. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-stated judgments, it is quite vivid that appellant is said to have given extra-judicial confession before PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu who were present in the village panchayat meeting. However, the statement of PW-12 Paresh Benjam, who is the Sarpanch of village, would show that after the incident, village panchayat meeting was convened and panchnama was also prepared and it has also been decided in the village meeting that one person of the village has to be sent to the Police Station, otherwise Police would come and harass the villagers and pursuant to decision taken in the village meeting and accordingly appellant was sent to Police Station. In para 7, he has clearly stated that appellant came to the Panchayat meeting, on being called, as such it would show that appellant did not appear voluntarily in the panchayat meeting to make extra-judicial confession. Similarly, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra) and 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 and would not make the same open in a public place and that too in the meeting convened by the villagers in village panchayat in the presence of so many persons with whom he has no close relation. As such, in the instant case, extra-judicial confession has been shown to be made by the appellant before the village panchayat meeting in which he was called by the villagers to appear and attend the panchayat meeting where he has allegedly given extra-judicial confession, which cannot be voluntarily and true and furthermore, it is a weak piece of evidence and requires thorough corroboration and in absence of corroboration, the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant in the village meeting cannot made the sole basis for conviction. Moreover, panchanama was also prepared, but the said panchnama has not been brought on record. The extra-judicial confession if corroborated by other piece of evidence on record, acquires more credibility. Moreover, panchanama was also prepared, but the said panchnama has not been brought on record. The extra-judicial confession if corroborated by other piece of evidence on record, acquires more credibility. Since in this case, it is held that extra-judicial confession is not made voluntarily before the panchayat meeting and he was made to appear before the panchayat meeting and more particularly, alleged confession was made by the appellant before the village panchayat meeting in presence of PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami, son of the deceased and PW-16 Mangdu brother of the deceased, therefore, it would be improbable to hold that appellant had made any kind of extrajudicial confession in public meeting in presence of villagers that is true and voluntary. 20. In that view of the matter, in absence of any corroboration to the evidence of extra-judicial confession, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction recorded by the trial Court only on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant which is neither true nor voluntary and does not inspire confidence. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court is totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2015, passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be setaside. 21. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside. He is acquitted of the said charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. The appellant is reported to be in jail, we direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/case. 22. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. 23. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and action.