JUDGMENT : K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-sole accused is directed against the judgment, dated 14.12.2016, in Sessions Case No. 112 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and accordingly he was convicted of the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the charges framed against the appellant/sole accused is that on 31.12.2012 at about 4.00 PM, the accused took Balaga Appalaraju (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) to Madduvalasa project, Vangara on the plea of bathing and while taking bath, the accused kicked on the testicles of the deceased and pushed him into reservoir water, bearing grudge against the deceased as he was getting profits more than the accused and also insulted the accused for not returning Rs.2,000/- which was taken as hand loan by the accused from the deceased and thereby committed murder of the deceased which is an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; and having knowledge that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the accused secreted wearing apparel of the deceased i.e. red colour shirt, cap and Nokia cell phone and thereby caused evidence of commission of the offence of murder to disappear with an intention of screening himself from legal punishment and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: PW-1 is wife of the deceased. She is resident of Sivvam village, Vangara Mandal. Accused is resident of Vangara village and mandal. The deceased used to plough lands of peasants on rental basis. The accused is a close relative to the deceased and he was also living by running a tractor and doing the same business. She is resident of Sivvam village, Vangara Mandal. Accused is resident of Vangara village and mandal. The deceased used to plough lands of peasants on rental basis. The accused is a close relative to the deceased and he was also living by running a tractor and doing the same business. Because of his hard work, the deceased was getting good profits in his profession than the accused, and the same became an eye sore to the accused. The accused took a hand loan of Rs.2,000/- from the deceased, but did not repay it, and for not repaying the same, the deceased insulted the accused in the presence of villagers. On 31.12.2012, PW-23 engaged tractor of the deceased for ploughing his land while PW-3 engaged tractor of the accused. But, due to lack of plough set, the deceased and PW-24 went to land of PW-3, where the accused was ploughing the land of PW-3, and asked the accused to give his plough set. The accused was not inclined to give the same stating that the work was not completed. At about 2.00 PM, the accused and PW-4 went for lunch and asked the deceased to continue plough work with the tractor of the accused. The deceased accordingly continued doing plough work. But, due to lack of diesel in the tractor of the accused, the deceased could not continue the work and the same was informed to the accused over phone. On the instructions of the accused over phone, the deceased left the field of PW-3 and went towards M. Sitarampuram village. PWs. 3, 17 and others noticed the deceased going towards M. Sitarampuram village. At about 3.30 PM on that day, PW-5 noticed the deceased and the accused going towards M. Sitarampuram village on a motorcycle driven by the accused, and on the way, they took Rs.100/- from PW-13 for consuming liquor. They purchased liquor in the wine shop of PW-6 in M. Sitarampuram village, consumed liquor at the shop of PW-7 and since then the deceased was found missing. On 02.01.2013 at 9.00 AM, PW-1 lodged a report with Vangara police stating that on 31.12.2012 at about 2.00 PM, the deceased left the house with tractor along with PW-24 to plough his land but did not return home and found missing. On 02.01.2013 at 9.00 AM, PW-1 lodged a report with Vangara police stating that on 31.12.2012 at about 2.00 PM, the deceased left the house with tractor along with PW-24 to plough his land but did not return home and found missing. Basing on the same, PW-23-Sub Inspector of Police, Vangara police station registered a case in crime No. 1 of 2013 for man missing and during the course of investigation, examined and recorded statements of witnesses and came to conclusion that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. On 03.01.2013 at 12.30 hours, PW-2-V.R.O. of Vangara lodged a report stating that dead body of the deceased was found floating in Madduvalasa reservoir near MRP land. Based on the same, the Inspector of Police, Rajam took up investigation, examined and recorded statements of witnesses, preserved reservoir water for diatom test under cover of scene observation report, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for postmortem examination. On 08.01.2013 at about 7.00 AM, the accused surrendered before PW-14 and another and confessed that he bore grudge against the deceased as the deceased insulted him before others for the amount of Rs.2000/- and due to jealousy over the business and decided to kill the deceased and on 31.12.2012 at about 16.00 hours, he took the deceased to Madduvalasa project and while taking bath, he kicked on testicles of the deceased and pushed him into reservoir water and killed him brutally. Based on the extrajudicial confession, PW-22 altered the Section of law to Sections 302 and 201 IPC and issued altered FIR. On 08.01.2013 at 10.00 AM, he arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement, and pursuant to the same, police seized M.Os.1 to 5 under cover of separate mediators report. PW-22 got the accused remanded to judicial custody and also forwarded seized water and viscera for analysis. On receipt of RFSL report, PW-20-Doctor issued postmortem certificate and final opinion opining that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory failure secondary to drowning. After receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs. 1 to 24 were examined and Exs.P1 to P25 were got marked, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 5. After receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs. 1 to 24 were examined and Exs.P1 to P25 were got marked, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 5. 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 evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 to D6 were got marked. 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 offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the incident in question to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that even if all the circumstances relied on, by the prosecution are taken as true and correct, they do not form a chain, so complete that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the appellant alone and none else; that except recovery of M.Os.1 to 5, there are no incriminating circumstances to show that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased. He further submitted that the accused is alleged to have made Ex.P5-extra judicial confession before PW-14 and another, who are unknown persons to the accused, and except the alleged extra-judicial confession, there is no other corroborative evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that PW-24 categorically stated that he along with the accused and others were detained in police station and were harassed by the police. He further submitted that PW-24 categorically stated that he along with the accused and others were detained in police station and were harassed by the police. He submitted that except the evidence of a witness that the accused and the deceased were seen together, there is no other evidence to connect the accused to the crime; that in the circumstances, the alleged extrajudicial confession alone cannot be the basis for conviction, and that basing on surmises and conjectures, the trial court found the appellant guilty, and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial court. He 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. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there is abundant material to connect the accused to the subject crime. According to him, the extrajudicial confession Ex.P5 made by the accused before PW-14 and another, coupled with the evidence of circumstantial witnesses and the recovery of M.Os.1 to 5, proves the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that because the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused prior to the time of the death, it can be inferred that there was no possibility for any other person to commit murder except the accused, and from the circumstances relied on, by the prosecution, it is clear that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased and that, the trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 8. PW-19 is one of the inquest mediators present when PW-22 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P3-inquest report. According to PW-19, he was present when PW-22 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the inquest mediators could not come to a conclusion with regard to apparent cause of death of the deceased. 9. PW-20 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 04.01.2013 from 10.30 AM to 11.30 AM. According to PW-19, he was present when PW-22 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the inquest mediators could not come to a conclusion with regard to apparent cause of death of the deceased. 9. PW-20 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 04.01.2013 from 10.30 AM to 11.30 AM. According to PW-20, he found the following antemortem injuries: 1. Left side of scrotum is diffusely swollen along with mild swelling of penis and right side of scrotum. 2. Left hand palm thenar region is diffusely swollen. 3. 2 cm diameter abrasion is found on left arm pit. 4. peripheral cyanosis is present. 5. Both lips are diffusely swollen along with tongue and the tongue is protruded, both eyes are protruded from the orbits. The whole body is diffusely swollen and blebs are present all over the body surface. According to the Doctor, cause of death of the deceased is on account of cardio respiratory failure secondary to drowning, and some times, forced injuries on testicles can cause death of a person. Ex.P11 is the post mortem examination report. From the evidence of PWs. 19, 20 and 22 and the recitals in Exs.P3 and 11, homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established. 10. PW-1 is wife of the deceased. The deceased used to attend cultivation work and he worked as a tractor driver since the deceased and PW-1 owned a tractor. The deceased did cultivation pertaining to others apart from their lands. On 31.12.2012 at about 2.00 PM, PW-24 went to house of PW-1 and required tractor for the purpose of ploughing sugarcane in the land. The deceased contacted the accused for the purpose of the tractor and thereafter the deceased and PW-24 left house and went to land of PW-3 where the tractor set was available, and in order to bring the same, they went there. On 03.01.2013 at 12.00 noon, PW-2, Village Revenue Officer of Vangara village, on information that dead body of the deceased was found near Madduvalasa Reservoir, proceeded to the said place and found dead body of the deceased, and he gave a report to the Station House Officer, Vangara police station. 11. PW-3 engaged the accused for ploughing the land belonging to him. 11. PW-3 engaged the accused for ploughing the land belonging to him. On 31.12.2012 at about 2.00 PM, the deceased and PW-24 went there and enquired with the accused about the availability of tractor set, and the accused told that his work was not completed and he cannot provide the tractor set to the deceased. Since it was lunch time, the accused proceeded on a bike belonging to PW-3’s son to have lunch. The deceased ploughed land of PW-3 for four times, but by that time, diesel in the tractor exhausted and the same was informed to the accused by phone. Then the accused informed that he would bring diesel and at that time the deceased also informed that he would also accompany him, and thereafter, the accused along with the deceased proceeded to Seetharampuram on a bike belonging to son of PW-3. 12. PW-4 is son of PW-3. He saw the deceased and the accused going on a vehicle. At about 6.00 PM, the accused alone returned to his field by his bike. When PW-24 enquired about the deceased, the accused informed that the deceased got down at M. Seetharampuram for consuming liquor. 13. PW-5 stated that about four years back at about 3.00 PM, he saw the accused alone going by bike. PW-6 is the employee in Maha Lakshmi Wine Shop, M. Seetharampuram village and he was looking after sales division of the said shop. According to him, on 31.12.2012 at about 3.30 PM, he served liquor to both the deceased and the accused. PW-7 who was running a pan shop near the aforesaid Wine shop, stated that about 3 years back, he served water packets, snacks and glasses to both the accused and the deceased. 14. PW-8 stated that about 4 years back, he met the accused at about 6.00 PM. PW-24 was also present along with the accused. The accused obtained Rs.7,000/- from him on earlier occasion and on that PW-8 demanded the accused to repay the amount. The accused informed PW-8 that he would return the same on the next day since he did not have money at that time. Thereafter, the accused enquired PW-8 whether he saw the deceased. The accused also informed him that the deceased went to Seetharampuram village to consume liquor. The accused informed PW-8 that he would return the same on the next day since he did not have money at that time. Thereafter, the accused enquired PW-8 whether he saw the deceased. The accused also informed him that the deceased went to Seetharampuram village to consume liquor. PW-8 along with PW-24 and the accused went to Seetharampuram village and searched for the deceased till 9.00 PM but not traced him. Then, they consumed liquor. At that point of time, they enquired with PW-6 about the deceased and he told them that the deceased consumed liquor and left their wine shop. Then, the accused stayed at Vangara village and PW-8 and PW-24 returned to Sivvam village. 15. PW-9, who is tractor driver, stated that on 31.12.2012 at 6.00 AM, he along with others went to the land belonging to Mangala Gaddeyya for ploughing, and at about 7.30 PM on that day, they went to Seetharampuram Wine shop. He had beer and Mangala Gaddeyya had liquor and they went to noodles shop, and while they were taking noodles, PW-24, PW-8 and the accused went there and they also took noodles. 16. PW-13 stated that on 31.12.2012 at about 3.30 PM, he has last seen the deceased and the accused going together on a motor bike. PW-16 did not support the case of prosecution and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. PWs. 17 and 18 also deposed that they saw the accused going along with the deceased on a motor bike at different timings. PW-24, in his cross-examination, categorically stated: “On 02.01.2013, the police called me, PW-3 and his son Rambabu (PW-4) and the accused to the police station. It is true that all of us interrogated by the Police and they also manhandled us. It is true that PW-19, Udayana Muralikrishna and Gajendranaidu came to the P.S. and they took us i.e. mine, PW-3 and his son (PW-4) from the Police Station and the accused was detained in the Police Station. It is true that there was an understanding between said elders and the Police and on that all of us freed by the Police and we were told that we should support the Police whatever they say and with that understanding they freed us.” 17. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, law is well settled that all the circumstances must firmly and unerringly point out the guilt towards the accused; that all the circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. All the circumstances should not only be consistent with the case of prosecution but also should be inconsistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein it is held at Para No. 153 as under: “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. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : AIR 1973 SC 2622 , where the following observations were made: “certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the 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. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (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.” The various links in the chain, when taken in isolation, might not connect the accused with commission of the crime, but when taken together may unmistakably point out the guilt of the accused. The Court has to see the cumulative effect of all the proved circumstances. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.” 18. The only circumstance relied on, by the learned Sessions Judge to convict the accused is that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. There is any amount of ambiguity whether the accused and the deceased were last seen together or not on 31.12.2012 for the reason that some of the witnesses deposed that the accused had not been seen going with the deceased on motor bike on the date of the incident and some other witnesses deposed that they saw the accused going alone on the bike. PW-8 categorically deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused was present along with them and in fact it was the accused who was enquiring the whereabouts of the deceased as to whether he had come to Seetharampuram village or not. PW-24 deposed that the accused informed that the deceased had gone to Seetharampuram village. Thereafter, PW-24, PW-8 and the accused together enquired about the deceased and searched for him till 9.00 PM on the said date, but could not trace him. Thereafter, they went to Wine shop and enquired with regard to the deceased. The said Wine shop employee PW-6 told them that the deceased alone came to the Wine shop, consumed liquor and left the place. Thereafter, they went to Wine shop and enquired with regard to the deceased. The said Wine shop employee PW-6 told them that the deceased alone came to the Wine shop, consumed liquor and left the place. If really the accused consumed liquor along with the deceased on the date of the incident, he had gone back to the place where he was ploughing the land. The accused PWs. 24 and 8 were present together. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had already consumed liquor by that time. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused had gone in search of the deceased along with PWs. 24 and 8. When they enquired with PW-6, who is Wine shop employee, he categorically stated that it is the deceased alone, who visited the shop, consumed liquor and left the shop. 19. By virtue of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely inferred that the last seen theory cannot be believed for the reason that there are variations in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses as to whether the deceased had gone along with the accused on the date of the incident or not. The prosecution failed to establish that all the circumstances firmly and unerringly point the guilt towards the accused and that all the circumstances, if taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 20. Apart from the last seen theory, the other accusation that has been made as against the accused is that he is alleged to have made Ex.P5-extrajudicial confession before PW-14. Extra judicial 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. 21. PW-14 is a resident of Kagithapalli village, whereas the accused is a resident of Vangara village. 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. 21. PW-14 is a resident of Kagithapalli village, whereas the accused is a resident of Vangara village. PW-14 admitted in cross-examination that prior to 08.01.2013, he does not know the accused. Keeping that aspect in view, there is any amount of doubt as to how the accused would go to a different village on 08.01.2013 and confess with regard to the incident to a stranger PW-14. Going to another village and confessing before a stranger appears to be unnatural. Further, the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 31.12.2012 whereas the extrajudicial confession that has been made by the accused was on 08.01.2013 at about 7.00 AM. Except the extrajudicial confession, there is no other evidence to connect the accused to the crime. In the circumstances of the case, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the accused before PW-14 cannot be the sole basis to find the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him. 22. Further in the light of the evidence of PW-24 that on 02.01.2013, the police called him, PWs. 3 and 4 and the accused to the police station, and police interrogated all of them and they also manhandled them; that PW-19, Udayana Muralikrishna and Gajendranaidu came to the P.S. and they took them i.e. PW-24, PWs. 3 and 4 from the Police Station and the accused was detained in the Police Station; that there was an understanding between said elders and the Police and on that all of them freed by the Police and they were told that they should support the Police whatever they say and with that understanding they freed them, the theory propounded by PW-14 that after the accused making the confession before him on 08.01.2013, he and L.W.3- Gangadhar took the accused along with confessional statement to Vangara police station and handed over them to police, appears to be incorrect. The accused was already in the custody of police by 02.01.2023, as per the evidence of PW-24. 23. 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. The accused was already in the custody of police by 02.01.2023, as per the evidence of PW-24. 23. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. [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. 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. 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.” 24. 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 make a confession before a stranger PW-14. 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 extrajudicial confession to base conviction. 25. 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 extrajudicial confession to base conviction. 25. 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 or on the extrajudicial confession made by the accused, to base a 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. 26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant/sole accused, in the judgment dated 14.12.2016, in Sessions Case No. 112 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The appellant/sole accused is found not guilty of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and is acquitted of the said charges and he is set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/sole accused shall be refunded to him. 27. The appellant herein/accused was released on bail as per the Order of this Court dated 26.12.2022 in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in the above Criminal Appeal, in view of the Judgment of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. A.M.P. No. 1687 of 2016 in Crl. Appeal No. 607 of 2011, dated 02.11.2016. Hence, the appellant herein/accused is directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam for completing necessary legal formalities.