JUDGMENT : Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District-Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No. 21/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he has to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month. 2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, are that on 19.12.2018 at about 09:00 pm to 10:00 pm, the appellant/accused has committed the murder of his father-Punit Ram Vatti by assaulting him with the aid of axe (Tangiya) on his head and neck and thereafter went to the house of his uncle (Santuram Vatti), the complainant, on the same day at 11:00 pm and informed him that he murdered his father as he often used to quarrel with him and had earlier lodged the report against him. The complainant, Santuram Vatti went to his brother’s house, namely, Anturam Vatti and thereafter, they went to the house of the appellant, where they found the deceased lying near bed of his veranda in pool of blood. He lodged the Merg Intimation (Ex.P-5) and based upon which, the FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. in connection with Crime No.84/2018. Inquest of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P-8 and on the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.P-14), an axe (Tangiya) was recovered on 21.12.2018 vide seizure memo (Ex.P-15) from the possession of the appellant. The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy on 20.12.2018, which was conducted by Dr. S. N. Dhruw (PW-1), who opined vide his report (Ex.P-1) that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and coma due to head injury (excessive bleeding) and was found to be homicidal in nature. An axe (Tangiya) alleged to have been used and bloodstained tracksuit of the appellant was sent for its chemical examination, where human blood was found on the alleged axe (Tangiya) vide FSL Report (Ex.P-24). An axe (Tangiya) alleged to have been used and bloodstained tracksuit of the appellant was sent for its chemical examination, where human blood was found on the alleged axe (Tangiya) vide FSL Report (Ex.P-24). The Appellant was arrested and the statement of the witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and, the final report was accordingly submitted by the investigating officer before the concerned Magistrate, who in turn, has committed the matter to the Court of Sessions in exercise of the powers enumerated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. for its trial. 3. The appellant has denied the charges so framed and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, while none was examined by the appellant in rebuttal. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before his uncles, namely, Santuram Vatti (PW-4), Anturam Vatti (PW-10) and brother-Nageshwar @ Nagesh Vatti (PW-11) and that by placing his reliance further upon the recovery of axe (Tangiya) from the appellant based upon his disclosure (Ex.P-14), where human blood was found as per FSL Report (Ex.P-24), held that the appellant was an author of the crime in question and, in consequence, convicted him for the commission of murder of his father-Punit Ram under Section 302 of I.P.C. and awarded him the sentence as mentioned herein-above. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the Court below holding that the appellant is an author of the alleged crime by placing its reliance upon the extra judicial confession made by him before his relatives is apparently contrary to law, particularly, when the alleged confession was not duly established by the prosecution in accordance with law as there is vast contradiction in the statements of those relatives. It is contended further while referring to the statement of the attesting witnesses to the alleged seizure memo (Ex.P-15) that even recovery of the alleged axe (Tangiya) cannot be held to be recovered from him as it was already in possession of the police. It is contended further while referring to the statement of the attesting witnesses to the alleged seizure memo (Ex.P-15) that even recovery of the alleged axe (Tangiya) cannot be held to be recovered from him as it was already in possession of the police. However, without considering the said fact in its proper manner and that by relying upon the FSL Report (Ex.P-24), the trial Court has committed a serious illegality in convicting the appellant as such. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the Court below. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased-Punit Ram was conducted by Dr. S.N. Dhruw (PW-1), who has submitted the postmortem report (Ex.P-1), while opining that the cause of death was head injury (shock and coma) due to excessive bleeding and was found to be homicidal in nature. After due consideration of the said postmortem report which is duly supported by the said doctor, the trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and, we accordingly, affirmed the same. 10. It is now to be considered as to whether the appellant-Surya Kumar was the author of the alleged crime or not. 11. Santuram (PW-4) is the brother of the deceased-Punit Ram and it was stated by him that his nephew, the appellant, had come to him in the morning at 6:00 a.m. and informed that he killed his father with the aid of axe (Tangiya). He states further that upon knowing the said fact, he went to deceased’s house along with the appellant, where he has seen the dead body of his brother lying with pool of blood and informed the said incident to the villagers and they came with him and have seen the dead body of his brother-Punit Ram. In his cross-examination, it was, however, stated by him that he came to know from the villagers that someone has killed his brother-Punit Ram and it was deposed further that he does not know that who killed his said brother. 12. In his cross-examination, it was, however, stated by him that he came to know from the villagers that someone has killed his brother-Punit Ram and it was deposed further that he does not know that who killed his said brother. 12. Anturam (PW-10) is the another brother of the deceased-Punit Ram and according to him, the appellant, his nephew, on the date of incident had come to his house in the night at about 10:00 pm and informed that he killed his father-Punit Ram and on the next day morning, he went to his house along with the Kotwar and Sarpanch of the village, where the dead body of the deceased was found. 13. Nageshwar @ Nagesh Vatti (PW-11) is the brother of the Appellant-Suryakumar and according to him, he (Surya Kumar Vatti) came to him at about 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm, when he was sleeping in his friend’s house and informed that he killed his father. He states further that after receiving the said information, he went to his uncle Anturam’s house along with the appellant and informed him regarding the commission of the alleged crime and thereafter, they went to the deceased’s house where they have seen the dead body of the deceased-Punit Ram, which was lying with pool of blood. 14. What is therefore, reflected from a bare perusal of their testimonies that a vast contradictions are there pertaining to the extra judicial confession as made by the appellant. According to the appellant’s brother-Nageshwar @ Nagesh Vatti (PW-11), the alleged extra judicial confession was made to him in the night at about 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm and thereafter, he informed regarding the alleged incident to his uncle Anturam (PW-10) and both alongwith the appellant then went to the deceased’s house where they have seen the dead body which was lying with pool of blood. However, if we examine the statement of said Anturam (PW-10), it would reveal that in fact, he was informed by his nephew (Appellant-Surya Kumar) regarding the alleged incident and not by said Nageshwar @ Nagesh (PW-11). That apart, a third version to this effect has, however, been made by the deceased’s another brother i.e., Santuram (PW-4), the complainant, as according to him, the alleged extra judicial confession was made by the appellant to him in the morning around 6:00 am. That apart, a third version to this effect has, however, been made by the deceased’s another brother i.e., Santuram (PW-4), the complainant, as according to him, the alleged extra judicial confession was made by the appellant to him in the morning around 6:00 am. Pertinently to be noted here further at this juncture that the Merg Intimation (Ex.P-5), lodged by said Santuram (PW-4) followed by F.I.R. (Ex.P-6), would, however, reveal the fact that he (Santuram Vatti) was informed by his nephew/Appellant-Surya Kumar in the night on the fateful day that he killed his father-Punit Ram. There is, thus, vital contradictions with regard to their statements as made by them before the Court and, therefore, based upon such material contradictions with regard to the alleged extra judicial confession as made by the appellant-Surya Kumar, it would be unsafe to made him liable for the commission of the alleged crime. 15. It is a settled principles of law that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259, wherein it has been observed at para-10, which reads as under- “10. An extrajudicial 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 extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. The courts generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extrajudicial confession.” 16. While following the aforesaid principles, it was observed further by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahadevan and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403 , at paragraphs 15.8 and 16 as under- “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, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial 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. The extra-judicial 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 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 extra-judicial 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 extrajudicial 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.” 17. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme court, it is, thus, evident that the sanctity of extra judicial confession would depend upon veracity and credibility of the witnesses to whom it was made. As observed herein-above, since there are material contradictions with regard to the alleged extra judicial confessions made by the appellant-Suray Kumar, it would, therefore, be difficult to hold that he is liable for the commission of alleged crime based upon it. 18. Now in so far as the further reliance of the trial Court convicting the appellant by placing its reliance upon the recovery of the alleged axe (Tangiya) from the appellant vis-a-vis the F.S.L. report (Ex.P-24) is concerned, the same is, however, noted to be rejected. 18. Now in so far as the further reliance of the trial Court convicting the appellant by placing its reliance upon the recovery of the alleged axe (Tangiya) from the appellant vis-a-vis the F.S.L. report (Ex.P-24) is concerned, the same is, however, noted to be rejected. It appears that the weapon (Tangiya) was alleged to have been recovered vide Ex.P-15 at the instance of the Appellant-Surya Kumar, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-14), in presence of its attesting witness, namely, Dukharam Markam (PW-5) and Chhedilal Netam (PW-9), but they have not supported the prosecution version as Dukharam Markam (PW-5) in his evidence has stated that the alleged weapon (Tangiya) was recovered from the “Badi”, while it was already in possession of the police as reflected from the evidence of said Chhedilal (PW-9). Therefore, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that it was duly recovered from the appellant, as alleged by the prosecution. 19. Be that as it may, the alleged weapon “Tangiya” was sent for chemical examination, where, according to the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P-24), it was found to be stained with human blood. It is, however, to be noted at this stage that while seizing the alleged weapon on 21.12.2018 from the “Badi” of the appellant, it was sealed and was sent for its query report on 10.01.2019 to the medical officer at Vishrampuri, District-Kondagaon, but the same was, however, found to be handed over on 14.01.2019 by constable-Amarneous Bakhla (Constable No. 628). The said weapon was thus retained by him for a considerable period of 4 days and the prosecution has failed to examine him in order to establish the fact as to why it was retained by him as such for the reasons best known to it. It is to be noted here further that when it was handed over to the said Medical Officer (PW-1), it was, however, not found to be in a sealed condition as evidenced by para 6 of his testimony and, in his query report (Ex.P-2), he opined for its chemical examination. It is surprise to note further that when it was sent for chemical examination through constable Sahasram Sidar, the same was again found to be in a sealed cover. 20. It is surprise to note further that when it was sent for chemical examination through constable Sahasram Sidar, the same was again found to be in a sealed cover. 20. What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid materials that after the seizure of the alleged weapon in a sealed condition, the same was found to be un-sealed when it was sent for its query report and, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact as to how it was un-sealed when it was sent for its query report and how it was sealed again when it was sent for chemical examination. No explanation whatsoever has been led by the prosecution to this effect. Therefore, under such circumstances, no reliance could be placed upon the said F.S.L. Report (Ex.P-24) in order to attribute the appellant for the commission of alleged offence. The entire finding of the Court below convicting the appellant for committing the murder of his father, thus, deserves to be and is hereby quashed. 21. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District-Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No. 21/2019, is hereby set aside. The appellant is thus acquitted from the said charges and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.