JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant-accused herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 102/2014 by which appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 17.07.2014 at about 6:30 pm at village Annpurna (Shankarpara), Police Station Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) appellant assaulted his father's brother [uncle (Bade Pita)] Vikul Singh on his neck by axe by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and thereby, committed the said offence. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that Vikul Singh (now deceased) used to curse the appellant to die under the influence of liquor, due to which appellant had grudge against Vikul Singh. On the date of offence, the appellant had seen Vikul Singh going towards the field so he followed him armed with axe and assaulted him by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. The incident was informed to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2) by the appellant and thereafter he (PW-2) informed the incident to Babu Singh (PW-1). Babu Singh (PW-1) reported the matter to the police. Merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs. P/1 & P/2, respectively. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/7) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/11) proved by Dr. G.L. Miri (PW-4), cause of death is fracture of thyroid cartilage (trachea) mode of death to be asphyxia due to chocking of windpipe by blood and nature of death is homicidal. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant (Ex.P/8), axe has been seized vide Ex.P/9. Seized Articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 4. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant herein abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5. 4. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant herein abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents and defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 6. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. Mr. Suresh Tandan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He further submits that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession which he had allegedly given to Babu Singh (PW-1), Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2), Kawal Sai (PW-7) and Chain Sai (PW-8), but it is not true and voluntary and, therefore, conviction of the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2014 and there is no direct evidence against the appellant and appellant deserves to be acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession which was given by the appellant herein to Babu Singh (PW-1), Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2), Kawal Sai (PW-7) and Chain Sai (PW-8) and, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question is as to whether the death of Vikul Singh was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded the finding in affirmative on the basis of postmortem report (Ex.P/11) which is proved by Dr. 10. The first question is as to whether the death of Vikul Singh was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded the finding in affirmative on the basis of postmortem report (Ex.P/11) which is proved by Dr. G.L. Miri (PW-4) and which is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 11. Now, the next question is, whether the trial Court has rightly held the appellant to be the author of crime in question? 12. The case of the prosecution is based on the extra judicial confession given by the appellant to Babu Singh (PW-1), Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2), Kawal Sai (PW-7) and Chain Sai (PW-8) and pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P.8), axe has been seized vide Ex.P/9. 13. We shall now consider the said pieces of evidence found proved by the trial Court which have been the basis of appellant's conviction, one by one. Extra Judicial Confession 14. It is the 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 ] 15. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered the 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. (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, un-ambigous 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. 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 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 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. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.” 16. (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 vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, 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.” 17. In the matter of Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, 2023 Live Law (SC) 171 principles of law have been laid down by their Lordships qua evidentiary value of extra judicial confession in paragraphs 13 and 15 as under: “13. The trial Court observed that where the prosecution case is entirely based on extra-judicial confession and the prosecution seeks conviction of the accused on that extrajudicial confession, the evidence of the witnesses before whom the alleged confessional statement was made, requires a greater scrutiny to pass the test of credibility. 15. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. 15. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahadevan and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 . This Court, in the said case, after referring to various earlier judgments on the point, observed thus: “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 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.” 18. The appellant is said to have given extra-judicial confession firstly to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2). (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.” 18. The appellant is said to have given extra-judicial confession firstly to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2). Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2) in his statement before the Court has stated that when he was grazing cattle, appellant came there and told him “look what I have done” then he went on the spot and saw the dead body of Vikul Singh, but in Para 4 of his cross-examination he has accepted that no such extra-judicial confession has been given by the appellant to him and he has only stated that the deceased used to curse and abuse the appellant under the influence of liquor. As such, no extra judicial confession has been made by the appellant to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2). He also stated that he has informed Babu Singh (PW-1) that appellant had killed Vikul Singh (now deceased), however, Babu Singh (PW-1), close relative of the appellant and the deceased, who lodged the FIR (Ex.P/2) and Merg intimation (Ex.P/1) has not stated in the FIR and merg intimation that such extra-judicial confession has been made by the appellant to him, he only relied upon the extra-judicial confession allegedly given by the appellant to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2) while lodging the FIR (Ex.P/2) and Merg intimation (Ex.P/1), as such, no extra judicial confession has also been made by the appellant to Babu Singh (PW-1). 19. Kawal Sai (PW-7), to whom appellant had also given extra-judicial confession, in Para 4 of his statement before the Court has stated that on being inquired, appellant informed him that since Vikul Singh used to curse and abuse him under the influence of liqour, on that account he (appellant) killed him (deceased), as such, there is no true and voluntary extra-judicial confession which has been given by the appellant to Kawal Sai (PW-7). Similarly, Chain Sai (PW-8), in his statement before the Court, has only stated that appellant has informed him that he has killed Vikul Singh, but no date, time and place has been mentioned. 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. 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 about his guilt to someone who is totally a stranger to him. In that view of the matter, extra-judicial confession given by the appellant to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2), Kawal Sai (PW-7) and Chain Sai (PW-8) is not established beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot be true and voluntary and is a weak piece of evidence. 20. Next piece of evidence is that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/8), blood stained axe has been recovered (Ex.P/9), which was sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution, as such, it could not be proved that weapon of offence was stained with human blood. 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 781 held that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood and held in Para-24 as under: “24. In the instant case, then, we could have placed some reliance on the recovery, had the prosecution at least proved that the blood was of human origin. As observed supra, while discussing the evidence of PWs 9 and 16, the prosecution has tried to concoct the case from stage to stage. Hence, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of recovery of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.” 22. Hence, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of recovery of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.” 22. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 17 SCC 273 considering the nature, scope and applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has held that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and has observed the following in paragraph 26 of the judgment: “26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case. We have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the house where alleged bloodstains were found belonged exclusively or was possessed exclusively by the appellant, we have further pointed out that the discovery was absolutely farcical. There is one other very relevant factor ignored by both the courts that the prosecution never made any attempts to prove that the clothes belonged to the appellants. There is literally no evidence to suggest anything to that effect. Therefore, even if we accept the discovery, it does not take us anywhere near the crime. Both the courts below have ignored this very important aspect. Once these two important circumstances are disbelieved, there is nothing which would remain to support the prosecution theory.” 23. Returning to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is quite vivid that the extra-judicial confession made to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2), Kawal Sai (PW-7) and Chain Sai (PW-8) is not true and voluntary. Further, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/8), blood stained axe has been seized vide Ex.P/9, which was sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record, as such, it could not be proved that weapon of offence was stained with human blood. Further, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/8), blood stained axe has been seized vide Ex.P/9, which was sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record, as such, it could not be proved that weapon of offence was stained with human blood. In view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Balwan Singh (supra) & Mani (supra), recovery is no use to the prosecution. Consequently, we are unable to uphold the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and he is entitled for benefit of doubt, as such, his conviction for offence under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 18.07.2014, we direct that he be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter. 24. This criminal appeal is allowed. 25. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.