JUDGMENT : K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-sole accused is directed against the judgment, dated 26.04.2016, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam at Sompeta whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and accordingly he was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused not guilty of the charge under Section 201 IPC and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge. 2. The substance of the charges framed against the appellant/sole accused are that on 31.11.2011 at about 4.00 PM at Badagam village, Kanchili mandal, he did commit murder of Udaya Gowd @ Ujwal Gowd (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) by chopping neck and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and having knowledge that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the accused caused certain evidence of the offence to disappear with an intention of screening the body of the deceased, dug out a pit and buried the dead body, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Bodagam village, Kanchili mandal. Accused is brother-in-law by courtesy of PW-4. PW-5 is daughter of PW-4. PW-6 is brother of the deceased. PW-7 is wife of the deceased. The deceased is son of paternal uncle of PW-8. 10 years prior to the incident, wife of the accused left him and the accused was staying alone in his house. The accused had vegetable creepers around his house. The deceased was moving in the surroundings of Bodagam Hill area by driving his cattle for grazing for the last two or three months prior to the date of the incident. He used to leave his cows for grazing in the morning and secure them in the evening. The accused had a dispute with the deceased as the latter drove his cattle into agricultural field and caused damage to the crops. He used to leave his cows for grazing in the morning and secure them in the evening. The accused had a dispute with the deceased as the latter drove his cattle into agricultural field and caused damage to the crops. On 30.11.2013 afternoon, the deceased drove his cattle into agricultural field of the accused and caused damage to standing crop like turmeric, maize, vegetable creepers, etc. At about 4.00 PM, the accused came back to the house by driving back his goats from the hill and witnessed that cattle of the deceased grazing his crops. When the accused asked the deceased about it, the deceased adamantly replied to show where his cattle grazed the crops. Unable to tolerate the same, the accused chopped the deceased with a sharp knife at the neck on both sides and as a result, the deceased heaped down and died on the spot. After hearing shouting, PW-4 went out of her house and saw the accused chopping neck of the deceased with knife, and as she got scared, she went into the house. Later, with an intention of causing disappearance of the evidence, the accused dragged the dead body of the deceased to nearby Tamarind tree, dug out a pit and buried the body. At about 8.00 PM, the deceased disclosed about commission of the offence to PW-3. PW-3 informed the same to PW-2 over phone. Thereafter, PW-2 contacted PW-1, who was the Sarpanch of Timilangi village, Kanchili mandal. On 01.12.2013 at about 1.00 PM, PWs. 2 and 3 went along with the accused to house of PW-1, where the accused gave confessional statement Ex.P1. On 01.12.2013, PW-14-Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchili police station received statement of the accused from PW-1 along with Ex.P2-report, and basing on the same, registered a case in crime No. 135 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC under Ex.P16- FIR. PW-15-Inspector of Police, Sompeta Circle took up investigation, sent requisition to the Tahsildar to depute V.R.Os. to act as mediators, examined and recorded statements of the accused and the witnesses, got exhumed the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and seized the knife used by the accused in commission of the accused. PW-12-Tahsildar, Kanchili mandal conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P13-inquest report. to act as mediators, examined and recorded statements of the accused and the witnesses, got exhumed the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and seized the knife used by the accused in commission of the accused. PW-12-Tahsildar, Kanchili mandal conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P13-inquest report. PW-13-Civil Assistant Surgeon, C.H.C. Sompeta conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P15- postmortem examination report. According to the Doctor, cause of death of the deceased is due to hemorrhage and shock on account of cutting of the right neck great vessels and separation of cervical spine antemortemly. PW-15 arrested the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. 4. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs. 1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were got marked, besides case properties M.Os.1 and 2. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred. 5. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 6. The Criminal Appeal was filed by Smt. M. Padma Latha Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant. She was not turning up for arguing the case and this Court was given to understand that she is not regularly practicing in this Court. In view of the same, this Court directed the High Court Legal Services Committee to re-allot the present Criminal Appeal to Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel. 7. Heard Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, learned State Brief appearing for the appellant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 8. In view of the same, this Court directed the High Court Legal Services Committee to re-allot the present Criminal Appeal to Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel. 7. Heard Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, learned State Brief appearing for the appellant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that except PW-4, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased; that the said witness PW-4 was examined after lapse of 3 days and there is any amount of ambiguity whether the said witness PW-4 has really witnessed the occurrence, for the reason that though she claims that she witnessed the incident, she did not come forward to inform the same to anybody, and therefore, PW-4 appears to be a planted witness to suit the prosecution case. It is her further submission that one more circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW-3, who in turn informed the same to PW-2 and who in turn contacted PW-1, Sarpanch of Timilangi village, Kanchili mandal. According to the learned counsel, extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it was quite unnatural and improbable that the accused goes to a stranger and makes such confession, and in the absence of any positive evidence, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have relied on the extrajudicial confession to base the conviction. The learned counsel contended that basing on surmises and conjectures, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty, and hence, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. She relied on decisions in Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 1926 of 2011, dated 08.11.2023 and Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 1714 of 2010, dated 05.07.2023 and submitted that in the absence of any positive evidence, the Courts ought not to have relied upon extrajudicial confession. 9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that PW-4 is an eye witness to the incident and his evidence is reliable and there is nothing to discard the evidence of PW-4. 9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that PW-4 is an eye witness to the incident and his evidence is reliable and there is nothing to discard the evidence of PW-4. According to him, basing on the evidence of PW-4, coupled with the extra-judicial confession, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 10. Accused is brother-in-law by courtesy of PW-4. According to PW-4, house of the accused is situated after four houses opposite to her house. Ten years back, wife of the accused left him and he was staying alone at his house. According to PW-4, the deceased had one brother, but she does not know his name. According to her, the accused has vegetable creepers around his house, and in the evening, she returned home after grazing of her goats, and by that time, the deceased was feeding his cattle on the fields of the accused; that on hearing the shoutings, she came out of her house and saw the accused chopped neck of the deceased with knife and thereby she got scared and went into the house. She states that she does not know about the dead body of the deceased, and after three days, the accused, along with police, Tahsildar and his staff, came to accused house. After lapse of three days, statement of PW-4 was recorded by police. 11. The evidence of PW-4 appears to be unreliable for the reason that having witnessed the occurrence, she had neither come forward to give a report in police station nor informed about the incident to others, which would go to show the attitude of the witness. In view of the subsequent conduct of the witness, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the said witness is trustworthy or reliable. Admittedly, the offence came to light pursuant to the alleged confession of the accused before PW-3 on the same day evening. PW-4 was examined by police after lapse of three days. She admitted in cross-examination that she did not inform to anybody in the village. In common parlance, if a person witnesses the occurrence, the immediate reaction would be to inform relatives or to the elders of the village like Sarpanch, with regard to the said incident. PW-4 was examined by police after lapse of three days. She admitted in cross-examination that she did not inform to anybody in the village. In common parlance, if a person witnesses the occurrence, the immediate reaction would be to inform relatives or to the elders of the village like Sarpanch, with regard to the said incident. In the case on hand, PW-4 never bothered to inform about the incident to anybody till the dead body was exhumed, and having done so, coming up with the version after lapse of three days that she saw the accused causing death of the deceased, appears to be highly doubtful. In view of the aforesaid reasons, evidence of PW-4 is not trustworthy and the same cannot be placed in the category of ‘wholly reliable’. 12. PW-5 is daughter of PW-4. She stated that she saw a chopped injury on the neck of the deceased. She further deposed that she got scared, went inside the house and locked the door. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW-5 on the ground that the said witness has been examined at a belated stage and much credence cannot be given to the evidence of PW-5. If the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 is eschewed from consideration, then the only aspect that remains for consideration is with regard to the extrajudicial confession that has been made by the accused to PW-3. 13. This Court perused the evidence of PW-3. According to him, on 30.11.2013 at about 8.00 PM, the accused went to his house and informed that he killed the deceased while he was driving the cattle after grazing; he saw the deceased left his cows and he caused damage to his creepers around his house inspite of warning him twice or thrice earlier, and hence he got angry and chopped the deceased with knife and thereafter buried the dead body beneath Tamarind tree. In cross-examination, PW-3 categorically stated that he is not acquainted with the accused. Therefore, PW-3 is a stranger to the accused. In view of the same, there is any amount of doubt as to how the accused would go to Rangoi village and confess with regard to the incident to a stranger PW-3. If really such is the case, the accused would have confessed before Sarpanch of the same village. Therefore, PW-3 is a stranger to the accused. In view of the same, there is any amount of doubt as to how the accused would go to Rangoi village and confess with regard to the incident to a stranger PW-3. If really such is the case, the accused would have confessed before Sarpanch of the same village. Going to another village and confessing before a stranger appears to be unnatural. 14. According to PW-3, he in turn informed about the confession to PW-2, who is known to Sarpanch of Tamilangi village, which is a different village than the village where the accused was residing. On the next day i.e. 01.12.2013, PWs. 2 and 3 took the accused to PW-1 of Timilangi village where the accused is alleged to have made confessional statement Ex.P1 to PW-1. 15. It is settled proposition of law that extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. At the same time, if it is found to be true, correct and trustworthy, it can be acted upon and there is no legal bar to base a conviction basing on an extrajudicial confession. Whether extrajudicial confession can be a sole basis for conviction or whether it should be corroborated on material particulars, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The circumstances established by the prosecution are to be conclusive in nature with complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading to an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused who committed the crime. 16. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have been consistent in holding that in a case of extrajudicial confession, it must be of sterling quality. Having caused the death of the deceased, the question of the accused going and making confession before a stranger appears to be very unnatural and improbable. In Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: (paragraphs 12 and 13) “22. The law with regard to extra-judicial confession has been succinctly discussed in Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P. (2012) 6 SCC 174 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 42, wherein this Court has also referred to its earlier judgments, which read thus : (SCC pp. 195-197, Paras 56-63) “56. This Court has had the occasion to discuss the effect of extra-judicial confessions in a number of decisions. 195-197, Paras 56-63) “56. This Court has had the occasion to discuss the effect of extra-judicial confessions in a number of decisions. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 59 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.” 57. In Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 8 SCC 158 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1249 the Court held that: (SCC p. 162, Para 8) “8........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.” 58. Again, in Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 6 SCC 108 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1421 the Court stated the dictum that: (SCC p. 109, Para 4) “4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made.” 59. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965 stated the principle that: (SCC p. 192, Para 19) “19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.” The Court further expressed the view that: [State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965, SCC p. 192, Para 19] “19.......Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused......” 60. In Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 264, the Court, while holding that reliance on extra-judicial confession by the lower courts in absence of other corroborating material, was unjustified, observed: (SCC pp. 265-266, Paras 87 & 89) “87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession. (ii) truthfulness of the confession. (iii) corroboration. *** *** *** 89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof.” 61. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79 held that: (SCC p. 611, Paras 29-30) “29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide: Thimma & Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC 105 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 320, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902 ; Sivakumar v. State, (2006) 1 SCC 714 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 470; Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 262 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1320 and Mohd. Azad v. State of West Bengal, (2008) 15 SCC 449 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1082] 30. In the present case, the extra-judicial confession by Balwan has been referred to in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge, and it has been corroborated by the other material on record. We are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872.’ 62. Dealing with the situation of retraction from the extra-judicial confession made by an accused, the Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 740 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 881 held as under: (SCC pp. 772-773, Para 53) “53. It appears therefore, that the appellant has retracted his confession. When an extra-judicial confession is retracted by an accused, there is no inflexible rule that the court must invariably accept the retraction. But at the same time it is unsafe for the court to rely on the retracted confession, unless, the court on a consideration of the entire evidence comes to a definite conclusion that the retracted confession is true.” 63. 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 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. 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 West Bengal, (2011) 11 SCC 754 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620 and Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 223].” 23. From the evidence of PW-2, we find that it cannot be said that the extra-judicial confession is one which could be found to be credible. There appears to be no reason as to why the accused persons would go 100 km away and confess to him. Apart from that, his conduct also appears to be unnatural. Though IO Amritpal Singh (PW-11) was known to him and the telephone which was installed in his house was in a working condition, he did not find it necessary to inform him through telephone. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the courts below have erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to PW-2.” 17. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that it is difficult to believe that the accused would go to a different village and makes a confession before a stranger PW-3. In the absence of any other evidence to point the guilt towards the accused, it is difficult to place an implicit reliance on the alleged extra-judicial confession to base conviction. 18. Apart from the same, it is the evidence of PW-7, who is none other than wife of the deceased. According to her, 2 years back, the deceased went to graze cows and thereafter he did not return home. According to her, Savara people beat the deceased; that she does not know their names and she cannot identify the persons. She further deposed that on the next day, they went in search of the deceased and came to know that they (Savara people) killed the deceased by beating him. She deposed that they went to police station on the next day of missing of her husband and signed on a paper in police station. She further deposed that on the next day, they went in search of the deceased and came to know that they (Savara people) killed the deceased by beating him. She deposed that they went to police station on the next day of missing of her husband and signed on a paper in police station. She further categorically stated that after one month, she had seen the dead body of her husband at her home, and she did not see any injuries on the dead body of the deceased. She further deposed that the deceased had no disputes with anybody. 19. Admittedly, the said witness PW-7 has not been treated as hostile by the prosecution. According to her, dead body of the deceased was seen by her after lapse of one month from the date of lodging report by her in police station. It is her further evidence that no injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. Since the said witness has not been treated as hostile by the prosecution, her evidence has to be taken into account and read along with the evidence of other witnesses. On a plain reading of the evidence of PW-7, there is any amount of ambiguity as to how genesis of the incident is said to have taken place. PW-7 categorically stated that on coming to know about missing of her husband (deceased), on the very next day, she filed a report before police. There is no reference to the said report given by PW-7. It has not seen the light of the day. 20. On a conspectus of the entire evidence on record, there is any amount of doubt as to how the incident that is said to have taken place, as suggested by the prosecution. An implicit reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of prosecution witnesses or on the extrajudicial confession made by the accused, to base conviction. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered these aspects in proper perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused. Hence, the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned Judgment are not sustainable in the eye of law. 21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered these aspects in proper perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused. Hence, the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned Judgment are not sustainable in the eye of law. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/sole accused, in the judgment dated 26.04.2016 in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam at Sompeta. The appellant/sole accused is found not guilty of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and is acquitted of the said charge and he is set at liberty. The appellant/sole accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/sole accused shall be refunded to him.