JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’), the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Jeevan Yadav, calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment & order dated 10.1.2018 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (in short ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.97 of 2017, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence 1. Under Section 450 of IPC. 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for Ten years. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In default of payment of fine amount, to suffer additional One year’s Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. Under Section 302 of IPC. 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.300/-. 3. In default of payment of fine amount, to suffer additional One year’s Rigorous Imprisonment. Both the Sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the appellant, in the intervening of 21/22.5.2017, is said to have committed house-trespass by entering into the hut/makeshift shop of Nilesh Jaiswal situated at the footpath in front of Shyam Petrol Pump on the Laxmipur main road under the jurisdiction of Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh and caused murder of Nilesh Jaiswal by a sharp edged weapon, thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 3. According to the prosecution case, Nilesh Jaiswal (deceased), used to reside at Turipara, Raigarh along his brother Sunil Jaiswal (PW-6) and their family and they used to sell vegetables and fruits in the said shop. On 21.5.2017, at about 9:30 pm, Nilesh Jaiswal had left his shop for having meal at his house and returned to the shop at about 10:00 pm to stay there in the night and thereafter his brother Sunil Jaiswal (PW-6) is said to have left for the house for having meal. In the same night, their guest, Bhupendra Singh (PW-15), was also sleeping in the place adjoining to the said shop. It is further case of the prosecution that in the morning at about 4:50 am, when Sunil Jaiswal (PW-6) returned to the shop, he found his brother, Nilesh Jaiswal, seriously injured with multiple injuries on his face, head and left hand. It is further case of the prosecution that in the morning at about 4:50 am, when Sunil Jaiswal (PW-6) returned to the shop, he found his brother, Nilesh Jaiswal, seriously injured with multiple injuries on his face, head and left hand. He escorted Nilesh Jaiswal to the hospital where after some time he succumbed to the injuries. As per the prosecution case, the appellant had entered into the shop of Nilesh Jaiswal in the night and on account a previous enmity, he assaulted Nilesh Jaiswal with a sharp edged weapon which is used to cut coconut, on account of which Nilesh Jaiswal sustained grievous injuries and died. 4. First Information Report (Exhibit P-11) was lodged by Sunil Jaiswal (PW-6). Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-8) was lodged by Kamleshwar Patel (PW-5), Ward Boy of Kirodimal Government Hospital, Raigarh. Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were issued to the witnesses vide Exhibit P-9 and Inquest was conducted vide Exhibit P-10. Dead-body of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami (PW-4) vide Exhibit P-1 in which he found multiple incised and chop wounds on the face, head and left hand of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal and opined his cause of death to be shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple cranio-cerebral injuries and nature of his death to be homicidal. Spot Map was prepared vide Exhibit P-12. Vide Seizure Memo (Exhibit P-13), an iron chopper (coconut cutting knife), a kathari, a shirt, a full-pant, a vest and some currency notes, all smeared with blood like stains, were seized from the spot. 5. On the basis of the statement, under Section 161 of CrPC, of the witnesses who were acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was apprehended and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Exhibit P-18 in which he confessed to have committing murder of Nilesh Jaiswal with a sharp edged weapon and stealing of a Samsung mobile phone and some money from his pocket. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, a Samsung mobile phone stolen by the appellant from the shop of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal, a mobile phone of Intel company stolen by the appellant on the date of incident, another Samsung mobile phone in which the appellant is said to have taken his selfies, a Scooty vehicle and a bloodstained T-shirt & Capri pant were recovered vide Exhibit P-19. Arrest of the appellant was made vide Exhibit P-20. 6. Medical examination of the seized chopper knife was conducted by Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami (PW-4) who opined for chemical examination of the blood like stains found on the same. Vide Exhibit P-22, the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh had sent the seized articles for chemical examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, which received the articles vide Exhibit P-23. Vide FSL report dated 10.10.2017, after chemical examination of the seized articles, human blood was found on the chopper knife (A), kathari (B), shirt (C), full-pant (D) and vest (E) which were seized from the spot and only blood was found on the T-shirt (F) & Capri pant (G) seized from the appellant. 7. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate Court from where the matter, being triable by the Sessions Court, committed to the Trial Court where charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 302 of IPC as well as under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and read out/explained to the appellant who abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial. 8. During the course of trial, in order to prove the case against the accused appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-17 and exhibited 23 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-23. Statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, in defence, neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been relied upon. Statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, in defence, neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been relied upon. The prosecution in support of its case has also brought on record certain photographs of the appellant taken by him as selfie and also the photographs of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal taken at the spot and the photographs of the place of incident, as Articles 1 to 31. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, by impugned judgment & order dated 10.1.2018, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, while acquitting the appellant of the offence punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, found him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 302 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner as mentioned at the table shown in the opening paragraph of this judgment, which led to filing of the present appeal by the appellant. 10. Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court merely on the basis of the statement of Bhupendra Singh (PW-15) who is held to be an eye-witness to the incident, but in his police statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC he did not implicate the appellant for the offence in question. The said witness, at the very first time, in his court statement, has stated that he has seen the incident and which has been relied upon by the Trial Court despite having recorded a finding that the fact of Bhupendra Singh’s witnessing the incident is not mentioned in his Section 161 CrPC statement. He would further submit that the extra-judicial confession, which has been relied upon by the Trial Court, of the appellant’s confessing before Ajay Vaishnav (PW-10) of his committing murder of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal and taking of selfies on his mobile phone, is a very weak piece of evidence and in absence of corroboration, it would be improper and inappropriate to convict the appellant for the offences in question. Furthermore, on the T-shirt and Capri pant alleged to have been seized from the appellant, only blood was found in the FSL report and the alleged weapon of offence on which human blood was found, was recovered from the spot. The appellant as such is entitled for acquittal of the offences in question extending him the benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly. 11. Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State, per contra, would support the impugned judgment & order and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences in question on the basis of evidence available on record. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant as such deserve to be rejected and the appellant is not entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and his appeal is liable to be dismissed outrightly. 12. We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. The first and foremost question, as to whether the death of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the Trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami (PW-4) who has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal and also proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-1) in which cause of his death has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple cranio-cerebral injuries and the nature of his death to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the Trial Court, holding that the death of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal was homicidal in nature. 14. Now, so far as the evidence of Bhupendra Singh (PW-15) is concerned, the Trial Court in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment has relied upon the testimony of the said witness (PW-15) that he has seen the incident, however, in the same paragraph, the Trial Court recorded a clear finding that the fact of Bhupendra Singh’s witnessing the incident is not mentioned in his police statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Yet, the Trial Court relied upon the testimony of Bhupendra Singh (PW-15) that he has seen the incident and held that his statement in that regard is reliable. 15. In this regard, law is well-settled and we may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court given in the matter of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 3 SCC 164 in which their Lordships have clearly held that if the witness has failed to mention in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC about the involvement of the accused, his subsequent statement before the Court during trial regarding the involvement of the accused cannot be relied upon, and observed in paragraph 31 as under:- “31. If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [See : (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 and (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P., (2003) 3 SCC 175 ]” 16. In view of the settled law and also following the principles of law laid down in Darshan Singh (supra), the finding recorded by the Trial Court relying upon the testimony of Bhupendra Singh (PW-15) that he has seen the incident, is not a correct finding of fact and the same therefore is not sustainable. Accordingly, we hereby set-aside the said finding of the Trial Court. 17. As regards the next incriminating circumstance that has been relied upon by the Trial Court that the appellant has made extra-judicial confession before Ajay Vaishnav (PW-10) of his committing murder of deceased Nilesh Jaiswal and taking photos (selfies) of himself on his mobile with his face and clothes smeared with bloodstains, is again a weak piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon, more particularly when the mobile phone in which selfies were taken by the appellant is not established by the prosecution. 17.1 It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. [See : Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 ] 17.2 In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered their earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 as under:- “15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10) “10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.” *** *** *** 15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The 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 v. State of W.B., (2011) 11 SCC 754 and Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165 .) *** *** *** The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These percepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an 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. 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.” 17.3 The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan(supra) has further been followed with approval by the Supreme Court very recently in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197 wherein the following principles of law have been laid down:- 18. “EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION 19. 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.” 18. Furthermore, in the FSL report, only blood has been found on the T-shirt (E) and Capri pant (F) seized from the appellant and, in absence of human blood on the said articles, its recovery would be of no use to the prosecution in view of the decision of the Supreme Court given in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781 . Similarly, so far as the human blood found on the chopper knife (A) recovered from the spot is concerned, in light of decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 67, only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon, accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, we allow this criminal appeal. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 302 of IPC are set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charges extending him the benefit of doubt. He is reported to be in jail since 24.5.2017. We, therefore, direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. 20. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also supplied with a certified copy of this judgment for information and necessary action, if any, at the earliest.