Case: Lalsing Sutarya Pawara Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Shinde, J.1. The appellant accused herein was tried by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-3, Dhule in Sessions Case No.89 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 18th March, 2008, convicted the appellant accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant was further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. It is against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant accused has preferred the present appeal.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is, as under:Ramdas Kisan Pawara, the informant is brother of the deceased Yadibai. Marriage of Yadibai with Madhu Pawara, resident of Moida, Tal. Sendhawa took place prior to 20 years. The accused Lalsing Sutarya was not doing any work. Therefore, his brother Istrya Pawara ousted him. Therefore, Lalsing had started residing in the house of Yadibai and Madhu Pawara. Two years prior to the incident, accused Lalsing took away Yadibai to unknown place. In spite of search, Yadibai and Lalsing were not found. Thereafter on 17.6.2007 in the evening, Yadibai along with the accused Lalsing were found by Sanju Raju Pawara near the S.T. Stand of Thalner. At that time, Yadibai had worn a yellow sari, and accused Lalsing had worn a white shirt and black pant. When Sanju Pawara returned to his house, he found that accused Lalsing alone had come at the house of his brother. Two days thereafter when Ravindra Pawara had been at the house of Sanju Pawara, he came to know that Yadibai and accused Lalsing were found to Sanju at Thalner S.T. Stand and thereafter the accused Lalsing alone had returned to the house. On 20.6.2007 in the evening Ravindra met Ramdas Pawara the brother of Yadibai and informed the fact about Yadibai and Lalsing, which was disclosed to him by Sanju. Thereafter, they went to the field where the accused Lalsing was doing work. They found the accused Lalsing alone there. The accused Lalsing told them that he along with Yadibai had gone to the market, but thereafter Yadibai alone went to unknown place and he does not know her whereabouts. Thereafter, the son of the landlord arrived there but Lalsing did not disclose the whereabouts of Yadibai to him. However, thereafter when the landlord himself arrived at the spot, the accused Lalsing disclosed to them that he had killed Yadibai and thrown her dead body at the corner of Hatkoi nallah. Thereafter, the police along with the accused Lalsing, complainant Ramdas and others, went to Hatkoi nallah where the accused Lalsing showed them the dead body of Yadibai. On the basis of the report lodged by Ramdas, Crime No.29/2007 came to be registered at Thalner police station. API Daga Khairnar took over and conducted the investigation. During the investigation, the accused gave a confession statement to hand over the wooden log by which he had beaten and killed Yadibai. Thereafter, the API Khairnar along with the panch witnesses, went to Hatkoi nallah, as led by the accused, and at that place the accused took out one wooden log from one tree, and the same was seized by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the I.O. and police went to the hut of the accused, as led by the accused, where the accused took out his shirt and pant from the said hut and handed over to the API Khairnar, who seized the same under panchanama. The seized articles were forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer. During the investigation it was disclosed that as Yadibai was consuming liquor the accused Lalsing was suspecting of her character and therefore, he killed her by beating with the wooden log. After completion of necessary investigation, the I.O. filed charge-sheet in the Court of J.M.F.C., Shirpur. The offences under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. being exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Dhule.3. The learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-3, Dhule framed charge (Exh.9) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses namely, Dr. Prakash Ramesh Gavit P.W.1 at Exh.14, the Medical Officer who performed autopsy on the deceased Yadibai, Ramdas Kisan Pawara P.W.2 at Exh.16 the complainant, Sanjay Shankar Savale P.W. 3 at Exh.18 the panch witness to the seizure panchanama Exh.20, Sanju Raju Pawara P.W.4 at Exh. 27 who had lastly seen the accused in the company of the deceased Yadibai, Ravindra Zunzarsing Pawara P.W.5 at Exh.28 the husband of sister of Sanju, Khatik Sohil Altaf P.W.6 at Exh.29 son of landlord of the accused, Yusuf Usman Khatik P.W.7 at Exh.30 uncle of P.W.6 Sohil, Mangalsing Ramsing Deshmukh P.W.8 at Exh.31, Naik Police Constable Asaram Sonu Vadile P.W.9 at Exh.32, API Daga Deoman Khairnar P.W.10 at Exh.33 the Investigating Officer.5. The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for respective parties, convicted the appellant / accused as stated in the foregoing paragraph.6. We have heard the learned Counsel Smt. Maya Jamdade (appointed) for the appellant accused and the Mr. Godbharle, learned A.P.P. for the State.7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the circumstance taken into consideration by the prosecution that the deceased Yadibai was seen last in the company of the accused is required to be accepted cautiously. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution story, P.W.4 Sanju is examined on the point of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused. He is a child witness and at the relevant time, his age was 11 years and when he deposed before the Court, he was hardly 12 years. The evidence of this witness is not corroborated by any other piece of evidence. It is further submitted that even the prosecution story is taken as it is, P.W.4 Sanju saw the deceased in the company of the accused on 17.6.2007 and the dead body of the deceased was found on 21st June, 2007. The crime was also registered on 21st June, 2007. Therefore, the time gap between the point of time when the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused, as claimed by the prosecution, is not so small so as to believe the evidence of P.W.4 Sanju. It is further submitted that the complainant P.W.2 Ramdas in his evidence has stated before the Court that in their community, even women folk is in the habit of consuming liquor. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant accused has stated that the deceased Yadibai had habit of going out for 8 to 10 days and she used to consume liquor, which appears to be correct. It is further submitted that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should convincingly prove that the chain of circumstances is complete and then only the accused can be convicted. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the extra judicial confession given by the appellant before the P.Ws.2, 5, 6 and 7 and other persons who accompanied them was not voluntary in nature. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that 6 to 7 persons from Pawara community assaulted the appellant and then he confessed the crime. It is further submitted that once extra judicial confession is taken out from the chain of the circumstances, the chain of circumstances becomes incomplete and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Even, according to the prosecution story, the extra judicial confession is given before 6 to 7 persons including P.Ws.2, 5, 6 and 7 and in pursuant to that, the dead body was recovered, which is required to be accepted cautiously. The learned Counsel further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws.2, 5 and 6. As per the evidence of P.W.5 Ravindra, confession made by the appellant was on telephone to the land-owner in whose agricultural field the accused was working at the relevant time. It is further submitted that there was no relationship between the appellant and Yadibai as husband and wife. Therefore, the appellant is not obliged to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Medical evidence has not supported the prosecution story, no blood stains were detected on the seized articles i.e. wooden log and clothes of the appellant and the deceased. The C.A. Report does not support the prosecution story. It is further submitted that recovery of articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is from the open place which is accessible to everybody. It is further submitted that P.W.3 Sanju Savale has not supported the seizure panchanama of clothes of the appellant. It is further submitted that the extra judicial confession is weak type of confession and in the instant case, on perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it clearly emerges that the said extra judicial confession was obtained from the accused by coercion and force. The learned Counsel further invited our attention to the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. To contend that the deceased Yadibai used to consume liquor and used to go out for 8 to 10 days in every month. The sum and substance of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the prosecution case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances is not complete, the last seen together theory is hit by time gap between the registration of crime and the P.W.4 Sanju seeing the deceased in the company of appellant. The alleged extra judicial confession by the appellant was a result of coercion and said confession was obtained by force. The alleged recovery in pursuance to the extra judicial confession loses its importance once the extra judicial confession is discarded. The learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the judgments of this Court as well as Honourable Apex Court on the point of last seen together and also on the point of recording extra judicial confession and the manner in which the circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated by the Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following reported judgments:i) Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & anr. Vs. State of A.P. (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1533 (S.C.);ii) Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2008 ALL MR (Cri) 280 (S.C.);iii) Prabhakaran Vs. State of Kerala (2008 ALL MR (Cri) 288 (S.C.);iv) Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra (2008 AIR SCW 1136);V) State of Rajasthan v/s Rajaram (2003 LawSuit(SC) 746);vi) Keshav vs. State of Maharashtra ((2007) 13 SCC 284 ).8. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent / State submitted that the complainant has categorically stated in his evidence before the Court that the appellant / accused was residing with Yadibai even prior to death of husband of Yadibai. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that a general statement is made by the complainant P.W.2 Ramdas that even women folk consumes liquor in their community and there is no specific statement in his evidence that Yadibai was in habit of consuming liqauor and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Yadibai was in habit of consuming liquor is required to be rejected. It is further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from Hatkoi nallah, at the instance of the appellant and prior to that nobody knew about the dead body of the deceased Yadibai. It is further submitted that at the relevant time and even prior to the incident, for months together the deceased Yadibai and the appellant used to reside together and, therefore, the appellant / accused was bound to explain the circumstances under which Yadibai died. There is evidence of P.W.2 Ramdas and P.W.6 Khatik that deceased and appellant used to live together. P.W.4 Sanju had seen the deceased in the company of appellant on 17th June, 2007. Though he is a child witness, he has deposed before the competent court and his evidence is believed by the trial Court and there is no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.4 Sanju. It is submitted that that on 19th June, 2007 P.W.4 Sanju narrated the fact to P.W.5 Ravindra that deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant on 17th June, 2007. Therefore, there is no considerable time gap between the narration by P.W.4 Sanju to P.W.5 Ravindra. It is further submitted that on 20th June, 2007 P.W.5 Ravindra went to P.W.2 Ramdas complainant and told him that P.W.4 Sanju has told him that Yadibai was last seen in the company of the appellant on 17th June, 2007 and thereafter, Yadibai was not seen. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.4 Sanju that the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 Ravindra and P.W.2 Ramdas complainant, since these three witnesses had informed each other. It is further submitted that in the cross-examination of P.W.2 Ramdas, no suggestion was given to him that Yadibai was in habit of consuming liquor and, therefore, now it is not open for the defence to say that at the relevant time Yadibai had consumed liquor or she was in the habit of consuming liquor. It is further submitted that the extra judicial confession is admissible in the evidence and even, it can form basis of conviction. It is further submitted that the dead body of Yadibai was concealed by the appellant in the trench of the nallah. When P.W.2 Ramdas along with other prosecution witnesses approached the concerned Police Station, two constables were deputed and the accused / appellant, in their presence, had shown the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was identified by P.W.2 Ramdas and clothes of the deceased were also identified by P.W.4 Sanju. It is further submitted that the extra judicial confession is not the result of either tutoring or using threats or any coercion and, therefore, the extra judicial confession is admissible in the evidence. There is spot panchanama and inquest panchanama carried out by the prosecution. The sari wore by the deceased was seized, statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, he had given evasive answers to the questions asked to him. Therefore, the learned A.P.P., relying on the entire prosecution evidence, would submit that the impugned judgment and order cannot be faulted with and, therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.9. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.P.P. for the respondent, we have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. The entire evidence is made available for our perusal.10. We have seen the charge framed by the learned trial Judge. The first charge which was framed against the accused reads as follows:That, on 17/6/2007 at about 8.00 p.m. within the limits of Thalner village, Tal. Shirpur, in the Hatkoi stream-let, you did commit murder of your wife viz-Yadibai Lalsing Pawara, by intentionally or knowingly causing her death, by assaulting her with wooden log on her head and stomach and thereby caused injuries she died and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.Secondly, that at the same date, time and place, you knowing or having reason to believe that the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code punishable with imprisonment for life has been committed, caused certain evidence connected with the said offence viz. after committing murder of your wife hidden the dead body in a long narrow trench of stream-let, with intention to screen the offender from legal punishment and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.11. On careful perusal of the first charge, it is clear that the entire story of the prosecution has been tested by the trial Judge on the basis that Yadibai was wife of the appellant. (Emphasis supplied). However, it is not the case of the complainant or any other prosecution witness that Yadibai was wife of the appellant / accused. P.W. 2 Ramdas, who is complainant and brother of the deceased Yadibai, has stated in his evidence that the appellant / accused and Yadibai had left house of her husband and thereafter whereabouts were not known to the complainant and others who tried to search them. However, they were not found and ultimately, search of Yadibai and accused / appellant was stopped. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is seen that it has not come on record that deceased Yadibai was wife of the accused. Therefore, the relationship of the appellant / accused with deceased Yadibai as mentioned in first charge by the trial Court itself was without any basis. The evidence of P.W.2 Ramdas, complainant was recorded on 20th February, 2008. In his evidence, he has stated that Yadibai was his real sister. All his sisters including Yadibai are married and they are residing at their husbands houses. It is further stated that Yadibais married with Madhu Pawara took place prior to 17 years. She is having one son and one daughter. They are also residing at Wadi, which is place of residence of this witness. This witness has stated that he knows accused. He is brother of his maternal aunts husband. Istrya Sutarya Pawara is husband of his maternal aunt. He was also residing at Wadi. Lalsing was residing at the house of Istrya. However, Lalsing was not doing any work and therefore, Istrya ousted him. Therefore, Lalsing was residing with Yadibai. He resided there for 7 to 8 months and thereafter, Lalsing took away Yadibai. He took search but, they were not found. Six months prior to incident, husband of his sister Yadibai died. Dharsing son of Madhu went to Indore for residence. It has come in the evidence of this witness that on 20th June, 2007, at evening time, Ravindra came to him. Ravindra told him that Sanju stated him that he had seen Yadibai and Lalsing at Thalner S.T. Stand prior to 3 days. Ravindra has also stated to him that Sanju had stated to him that thereafter he had gone to the field of his work and there he saw Lalsing alone. On the next day they had gone to the field where Lalsing was doing labour work. Bhima Ganshya Pawara, Sumarsing Istrya Pawara, had gone ahead by a cycle. This witness and others had gone by walking. They made inquiry with Lalsing about Yadibai. Lalsing stated to them that he along with Yadibai had gone to market, thereafter Yadibai alone went to unknown place and he does not know the whereabouts of Yadibai. Son of the landowner assured them to call his father as Lalsing was not disclosing the address of Yadibai. After arrival of landowner, Lalsing disclosed that he had killed Yadibai and threw her dead body at the corner of nalah. Thereafter they went to police station, Thalner and lodged report there. Initially, they along with police had gone to the spot of incident. They found the dead body of deceased and the witness identified the same and lodged the complaint to the police station. In his cross-e3xamination, it is stated by this witness that Yadibai was residing with the accused however, he has not met Yadibai thereafter. It is specifically admitted by this witness that in their community women as well as gents consume liquor. (Emphasis supplied). It has been further stated that though it was stated to the police that Lalsing had disclosed to them that prior to 2 to 3 days he along with Yadibai had gone to the market and that the witness does not know why it is not mentioned by the police in the complaint. Police did not read over the contents of the complaint to him.12. On careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, certain things are necessary to be taken note of. This witness has never met Yadibai, after she started residing with the appellant. In his community, women as well as gents used to consume liquor. On 20th June, 2007, one Ravindra P.W.5 came to the complainant and on next day the complainant along with other persons went to Lalsing. Lalsing did not disclose whereabouts of Yadibai and, therefore,son of the landowner where deceased Yadibai and appellant were staying, assured the complainant that he will call his father and after arrival of landlord, Lalsing disclosed that he had killed Yadibai and thrown her dead body in Nallah and thereafter, this witness along with other persons went to the Police Station to lodge report and pursuant to confession, the dead body was found and was identified by the complainant.On careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is not in dispute that this witness along with other persons including some prosecution witnesses went to Lalsing to ask the whereabouts of Yadibai. It also emerges from the evidence of this witness that disclosure statement made by the accused is before the complainant, landlord and other persons and at the relevant time, the appellant / accused was not in the custody of the police. According to the complainant, after disclosure by the appellant about the whereabouts of Yadibai, they went to the Police Station to lodge report and thereafter, the dead body was recovered. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that in his community, gents and women consume liquor.13. P.W.3 Sanjay Savale was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He is a panch witness. He stated that on 24th June, 2007, police called him at Thalner Police Station. Chandrakant Patil, another panch also had accompanied him. In their presence, accused showed his readiness to hand over a wooden log used for commission of the offence. He admits his signature on the memorandum panchanama (Exh.19). This witness has stated in detail as to how the accused took the police officers and witnesses to the place where wooden log was concealed and also his clothes were kept. As per seizure panchanama, the accused handed over the clothes from one iron box to the police. But, P.W.3 has not stated so.14. The evidence of P.W.4 Sanju Pawara assumes importance in this case. At the relevant time when he deposed before the Court, his age was 12 years. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of incident, he was residing at Thalner jointly along with his parents, brother, sister and grandmother. He was doing labour work. On 17th June, 2007 at evening time he had gone to market for purchasing at Thalner. At that time, he saw appellant / accused Lalsing along with Yadibai at S.T. Stand, Thalner. Yadibai had worn yellow sari. Accused Lalsing had worn a white shirt and blackish pant. After his return to house, Lalsing alone came at the house. Some time thereafter accused Lalsing alone came at the house of Sonya. At that time there was dark. Accused drank water and went away. This witness has further stated that after 2 3 days, his relative Ravindra came to him. At that time he disclosed to Ravindra that prior to 2 to 3 days he had seen accused Lalsing along with Yadibai at the S.T. Stand, Thalner and that accused alone came to the house of Sonya and then went away. This witness has also identified the clothes of the deceased and accused before the Court. This witness, in his cross-examination, stated that when he went to the house of his brother at 7 p.m. There was dark. He has further stated that he had not visited the house of accused Lalsing and he does not know wife of Lalsing. He has further stated in cross-examination that accused and Yadibai were proceeding towards S.T. But Stand, Thalner when he saw them.15. P.W.5 Ravindra is a star witness of the prosecution in the present case. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that P.W.4 Sanju is his brother-in-law. Sanju and his parents were residing in the field of Thalner and doing agricultural work. Deceased Yadibai was his maternal aunt.On 19th June, 2007he had gone to his father-in-laws house at Thalner. Sanju stated to him that prior to two days he had seen accused Lalsing with Yadibai at ST stand, Thalner. (emphasis supplied). At that time, Sanju also stated to him that accused Lalsing alone came at the house of his father-in-law for drinking water. This witness has further stated that this narration of P.W.4 Sanju created doubt in his mind about the whereabouts of the deceased Yadibai.This witness has further deposed that to make further inquiry about Yadibai, he went to accused Lalsing. Lalsing was alone and on inquiry with Lalsing, he told that Yadibai had gone some where as guest prior to 2 3 days. He further made inquiry from female workers working in the agricultural field and from them he came to know that Lalsing had informed them that Yadibai had consumed liquor and was lying somewhere else. Thereafter, this witness went to village Wadi to P.W.2. He along with his maternal uncle, his brother and other 4 5 persons from his community went to the house of Lalsing. Upon inquiry with Lalsing, he gave vague answers about the whereabouts of Yadibai. The son of the landowner had arrived there and he also made inquiry with Lalsing. At that time also accused gave vague answers. In further stated, In our presence, accused, on telephone informed to his landowner that he had killed Yadibai by inflicting blow of wooden log on her stomach and head, and threw her body at Hatkoi Nala. (emphasis supplied). Thereafter, he further stated that theyproduced the accused Lalsing before the P.S.O. of Thalner Police Station. Thereafter, accused showed the police the place where dead body of Yadibai was lying. This witness has further stated that at that time he was also present. He identified the dead body of Yadibai. Yellow sari was on the person of Yadibai.In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that prior to the incident he had not seen Lalsing accused at Thalner. This witness, in his statement has stated that in presence of him along with other persons, accused on telephone informed to his landlord that he had killed Yadibai by inflicting blow. However, other witnesses have stated in their deposition that the landlord himself came to the agricultural filed and in his presence, the accused Lalsing disclosed that he has killed Yadibai and threw her dead body at Hatkoi Nala. Therefore, though this witness is a star witness of the prosecution, his version is required to be accepted cautiously in the light of statements of other prosecution witnesses before the Court. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that P.W.4 Sanju for the first time on 19th June, 2007 told him that he had seen Yadibai in the company of accused Lalsing on 17th June, 2007 at Bus stand. This witness has also taken one day to inform this fact to P.W.2 Ramdas the complainant. This witness went along with complainant to lodge the F.I.R. on 21st June, 2007. Therefore, net result is that F.I.R. was lodged after four days from the day on which P.W.4 Sanju had seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of Lalsing, the accused.16. P.W.6 Khatik Sohil Altaf is son of the agricultural owner. In his examination-in-chief before the Court, he has stated that he had sent his brother to agricultural field on 21st June, 2007. His brother returned from the field and informed this witness that 6 7 persons were quarreling with accused. (emphasis supplied). Therefore, he went to the field. There he found that 6 7 persons were asking the accused about the whereabouts of Yadibai and he was reluctant to disclose the same. Therefore, he called his uncle Yusuf i.e. P.W.7 in the field by giving message through mobile phone. Thereafter, his uncle P.W.7 Yusuf arrived in the field by Maruti van. His uncle told Lalsing to disclose the whereabouts of Yadibai. If he refuses to disclose, then the persons gathered there would beat him. Thereafter, accused Lalsing disclosed that he had killed Yadibai at Hatkoi Nallah. Thereafter, they took the accused to Thalner police station. Thereafter, this witness along with two policemen, accused Lalsing went to Hatkoi Nallah where they found dead body of Yadibai. P.W.6 in his cross-examination has specifically stated, Yadibai used to reside outside her house for a period of 4 to 8 days. (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, this witness given important admission that deceased Yadibai was in habit of residing outside her house for a period of 4 to 8 days.17. P.W.7 Yusuf is uncle of P.W.6 Khatik. In his examination-in-chief, this witness stated that on 21st June, 2007, son of his brother i.e. P.W.6 Khatik by telephonic message informed him that 5 6 Pawara people were beating accused in the field. Thereafter, by his Maruti van he rushed to the field. The accused disclosed before them that he had killed Yadibai and threw her dead body and thereafter, they produced the accused before the Police Officer.18. P.W.8 Mangalsing Ramsing Deshmukh was working as Naik Police Constable at Thalner Police Station at the relevant time. According to him, when he was on duty, P.W.2 Ramdas complainant and other 4 5 Pawara community people came to the Police Station. Thereafter, he along with accused Lalsing, complainant Ramdas and other persons went towards Hatkoi Nallah. Accused showed them the dead body of Yadibai. The complainant Ramdas identified the dead body of his sister Yadibai. The witness waited near the dead body and others went back to the police station. Some time thereafter PSI Khairnar arrived at that place. He drew inquest panchanama.19. P.W.9 Asaram Sonu Vaidle in his examination-in- chief has stated that on 21st June, 2007he was attached to the Police Station as PSO. At that time at about 2 p.m. 5 to 6 persons came to Police station by a Maruti van. Out of them, Ramdas Kisan Pawara told him that accused Lalsing had killed his sister Yadibai and thrown her dead body in Hatkoi Nalah. He called Head Constable Pawar, police Naik Deshmukh and sent them with the said persons. At about 2.45 pm, Head Constable Pawar along with the said persons returned back and disclosed that dead body was found. Thereafter he recorded complaint of Ramdas Pawara as per his say and read over contents to him, thereafter he put his thumb impression and the witness also signed it. The complaint (Exh.17) was shown to this witness before the Court and he was able to acknowledge the contents of the complaint.Therefore, it follows from the evidence of this witness that the complaint was lodged by P.W. 2 Ramdas after they went along with accused and saw the dead body and then they returned back to lodge the complaint. Therefore, alleged disclosure of concealment of the dead body of Yadibai by accused was made before the complainant and other persons and at the relevant time, the accused was not in the police custody.20. P.W.10 Daga Deoman Khairnar was attached to Thalner Police Station as A.P.I. He took over the investigation on 21st June, 2007 at about 4.05 p.m. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated details about the investigation which was carried out by him. He has stated that wooden log was recovered at the instance of accused Lalsing. He has further stated that accused showed them one tin shed and entered into it, took out one shirt and a pant hidden by him in one iron box and handed over to him and he seized the same.At this juncture, it is important to mention that P.W.3 Sanjay, who was panch witness to the panchanama of seizure of clothes has not stated in his deposition that shirt and pant were hidden in one iron box. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the accused entered in tin-shed and brought one shirt and pant. He had not stated that the said shirt and pant were hidden in one iron box.21. The statement of accused Lalsing was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In his statement, he has specifically stated that Yadibai used to consume liquor and she used to remain outside house for 8 to 10 days.22. After taking into account the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it emerges that the prosecution theory entirely depends upon three broad circumstances. It is not in dispute that whole prosecution story is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, this Court observed in the case of Dinesh s/o Bhagwan Bharwad vs. State of Maharashtra (2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2072), as below:5 The case in hand is based upon circumstantial evidence. In dealing with the circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court since 1952 till date has consistently held that the following conditions must be fulfilled before the case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence;-i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely may be fully established,ii) 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,iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, andv) 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 that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 166, the Apex Court has held that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court.It is also to be born in mind that the case in hand is a case of circumstantial evidence and if two views are possible on the evidence of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him.The Honourable Supreme Court in case of Hanuman Govind Nargundkar and anr. Vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1952 SC 3431, held that in dealing with circumstantial evidence, the Rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilty of the accused.Therefore, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court while dealing with the circumstantial evidence, we proceed to examine the case in hand. The prosecution has claimed that P.W.4 Sanju had seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of the accused Lalsing on 17th June, 2007 at S.T. Stand, Thalner. It is an admitted position that at the relevant time i.e. on the date of the incident, this witness was of 11 years age and when he deposed before the Court, his age was 12 years. On careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, we find that there is no corroboration to the evidence of this witness. Though the learned A.P.P. has tried to submit that the statement of P.W.4 Sanju that he had last seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of accused is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, in our opinion, these witnesses have deposed before the Court only on the basis of the narration of P.W.4 Sanju i.e. hearsay evidence. There is no any other witness who has stated that he had also seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of the accused Lalsing. The Honourable Supreme Court, time and again, has laid down that the evidence of the child witness should be carefully evaluated and should find corroboration before being relied upon. The Supreme Court has taken this view in case of State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit and another, reported in (2000)3 SCC 70 . Yet in another reported judgment in the case of State of State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 745 , the Apex Court held that the testimony of the child witness needs to be carefully evaluated and must find adequate corroboration before it is relied upon. In case of Acharaparambath Pradeepan and another Vs State of Kerala, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 643 , the Apex Court held that the evidence of child witness needs corroboration. The corroboration is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. Therefore, what follows from the authoritative pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court, while evaluating the evidence of child witness,great care has to be taken and corroboration to his evidence is rule of prudence than of law. On careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, in the instant case, it appears to us that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.4 Sanju. Even if it is considered that the evidence of P.W.4 Sanju is reliable, still question remains about the time gap between last seen together and the registration of offence. It is an admitted position that the P.W.4 Sanju had seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of accused on 17th June, 2007 at S.T. Stand, Thalner and offence was registered on 21st June, 2007. Therefore, there is considerable time gap of four days in registering the F.I.R. On careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it appears to us that the prosecution has not brought on record anything to show that during the interregnum period i.e. from 17th June, 2007 to 21st June, 2007 there was no other possibility by which Yadibai died. In other words, the prosecution has not placed anying on record to rule out the possibility of death of Yadibai by some other reason from 17th to 21st June, 2007 i.e. from the date on which P.W.4 Sanju saw the deceased last in the company of the accused till offence was registered.Another point, which is necessary to be considered in this case is about the place where P.W.4 Sanju had last seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of the accused. It is the prosecution case that P.W.4 Sanju had seen the deceased in the company of accused at the S.T. Bus Stand, Thalner. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and another, (2007) 3 SCC 755. In paragaph 34, the Apex Court held:34. ............., then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case. (Emphasis supplied).On careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we do not find that such evidence is brought on record by the prosecution to rule out the possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of the incident or before commission of the crime, in the intervening period. The prosecution has also not demonstrated that the accused was in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where he was last seen together with the deceased and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party. Therefore, in our opinion, it will be unsafe to rely on the evidence brought on record by the prosecution on the point of deceased being last seen in the company of the accused.23. The accused Lalsing in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has stated that Yadibai used to consume liquor and used to stay out of house for 8 to 10 days. P.W.6 Khatik, whose evidence is at Exh.29, in his cross-examination has stated that Yadibai used to stay outside house for 4 to 8 days. P.W.2 Ramdas complainant in his deposition before the Court has specifically stated that in their community, women folk are in habit of consuming liquor. Therefore, the statement of the accused in reply to question No.37 of his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 Ramdas complainant on the point of consumption of liquor and further on the point of habit of Yadibai to stay outside the house for days together from the evidence of P.W.6. Even, according to the prosecution story, Yadibai was married with one Madhu Pawara 17 years prior to recording of the evidence of P.W.2 Ramdas before the Court. The appellant /accused was not husband of the deceased Yadibai. Therefore, the accused had no control over the activities of the deceased. It is also relevant to mention at this juncture that the medical officer in his evidence has stated that the body of the deceased was totally decomposed and scalp was missing. The doctor, in his evidence, has no where indicated that the death of the deceased had taken place prior to any particular days. In view of the discussion herein above, it cannot be said that the whereabout of the deceased Yadibai before her death was within the special knowledge of the appellant / accused.24. The second circumstance which is relied upon by the prosecution is the extra judicial confession given by the appellant / accused before P.W.2 Ramdas, P.W.5 Ravindra, P.W.6 Khatik, P.W.7 Yusuf and other persons. The main piece of evidence on which the prosecution has relied is the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant / accused before these witnesses. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer few judgments of the Apex Court on this point. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 , wherein the Apex Court held that the extra judicial confessions is weak piece of evidence and must be proved like any other fact. Yet, in another judgment in case of Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 564 , the Apex Court held that there should be corroboration to the evidence of extra judicial confession. In case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Swarnalatha and others, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 383 , the Apex Court held that extra judicial confession, as is well known, is a weak piece of evidence. Yet, in another judgment in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. E. Satyanarayana, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 400 , placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 322 ) and Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1320 ), the Apex Court held that if the Court believes the witness before whom confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey ((1992) 3 scc 204 ) held that extra judicial confession which is not obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature can be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration.25. In the light of the afore mentioned authoritative pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court, we proceed to examine the fact that extra judicial confession allegedly given by the accused before the complainant and other prosecution witnesses was voluntary or as a result of coercion. It has come in the evidence of P.W.5 Ravindra that the appellant / accused was reluctant to tell whereabouts of Yadibai (deceased). P.W.5 Ravindra went to P.W.2 Ramdas and told him about the fact that P.W.4 Sanju told him that the Yadibai deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant / accused on 17th June, 2007 at S.T. Bus stand, Thalner. Thereafter, P.Ws.2, 5 and other persons from Pawara community, who were 5 to 6 in number, went to the accused / appellant. According to these witnesses, initially the accused / appellant was reluctant to tell the whereabouts of Yadibai, therefore, they called the son of the land owner. It has also come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. in the evidence of P.W.6 Khatik that he sent his brother to his agricultural field and he informed P.W.6 that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with accused (emphasis supplied). Therefore, P.W.6 went to his field. He saw that 6 to 7 persons were asking the accused to tell whereabouts of Yadibai and he was not disclosing about the same. Therefore, they called P.W.7 Yusuf uncle of P.W.6 to the field by giving message through mobile phone. According to P.W.6, his uncle P.W.7 arrived in the field by Maruti van. Therefore, it has come in the evidence of P.W.6 that his brother told him that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with the accused. It appears that the brother of this witness has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, what is stated by P.W.6 in his evidence that he came to know from his brother that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with the accused has remained intact. The P.W.5 Ravindra in his evidence has claimed that P.W.7 Yusuf did not come to the field on the call of P.W.6. According to this witness, in presence of P.W.5 and prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7 and others present along with P.W.5 in the agricultural land of respondent No.7, accused appellant on telephone informed to his landlord that he has killed Yadibai by inflicting blow with wooden log on stomach and head and threw her body in Hatkoi Nallah. This version of P.W.5 that accused informed P.W.7 on telephone and P.W.7 had not come to the agricultural field has been contradicted by other witnesses. The other prosecution witnesses have claimed that P.W.7 had come to the agricultural field on a call of P.W.6 and in his presence, the appellant had given extra judicial confession that he had killed Yadibai and threw her body at Hatkoi Nallah. Therefore, there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The fact remains that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with the accused. After perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence brought on record in the nature of medical evidence and the chemical analyzers report, it appears to us that the alleged extra judicial confession by accused before the P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 7 and other persons was a result of coercion or it was obtained by exerting pressure on the accused / appellant and, therefore, not reliable.26. If the prosecution story is taken as it is, that the deceased Yadibai was last seen in the company of the accused / appellant on 17th June, 2007, the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution shows that the body was completely decomposed and scalp was missing. The medical officer has not opined about the probable period of death of the deceased.If the evidence of the Investigating Officer is taken into account, it clearly emerges that 6 to 7 persons including the complainant and other witnesses along with the accused went to Thalner Police Station and told the police personnel that the appellant / accused had confessed about the crime. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that two police constables, the appellant / accused and other 6 to 7 persons went to Hatkoi Nallah and they found the dead body as confessed by the appellant. It has come in the evidence of the Investigating Officer that after returning back from the Hatkoi Nallah i.e. after the dead body was found, complaint was lodged by P.W.2 Ramdas and the same was taken down by the I.O. Therefore, even as per the prosecution story, the first extra judicial confession statement was made before P.W.2 Ramdas and others and thereafter, these 6 to 7 persons went to the police station and other two police constables from the said police station accompanied them, they went to the Nallah, dead body was recovered, thereafter, the complainant came to the police station and complaint was lodged.The evidence of the Investigating Officer further discloses that the memorandum statement of the appellant / accused was recorded and in pursuant to his statement, one wooden log was recovered and also his clothes kept in iron box were handed over by the accused to the I.O. The evidence of I.O. that the clothes were kept in iron box and the appellant had taken out those clothes and handed over to the I.O., is falsified by P.W.3 i.e. panch witness to the said panchanama, who has not stated in the evidence that clothes were kept in iron box. The prosecution further claims that the wooden log was recovered at the instance of the appellant and he had confessed that by said wooden log he had assaulted Yadibai deceased on head. According to the prosecution, due to assault by the appellant / accused, Yadibai died. The evidence of Medical Officer shows that the injuries are ante mortem. During the course of examination in chief of the Medical Officer before the Court, wooden log was shown to him. The Medical Officer P.W.1 in his evidence stated, Injuries mentioned in Column No. 17 of P.M. Notes cannot be possible by the seized wooden log now shown to me. (Emphasis supplied).27. Therefore, the entire prosecution story which is really based upon extra judicial confession of the accused cannot be relied upon. As discussed herein above, the extra judicial confession of the appellant / accused before P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 7 and other two three persons was a result of coercion and pressure and insistence by 6 to 7 persons to confess the guilt. Such extra judicial confession, which is obtained by coercion and quarrel, cannot form the basis of the conviction. The statement of P.W.1 Medical Officer before the Court that the injuries sustained by the deceased Yadibai were not possible by said wooden log recovered from the accused further falsifies the prosecution case. Therefore taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, it appears that the same suffers from infirmities and no reliance can be placed on such evidence. We also find contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant / accused.

Decision:
1[ds]11. On careful perusal of the first charge, it is clear that the entire story of the prosecution has been tested by the trial Judge on the basis that Yadibai was wife of the appellant. (Emphasis supplied). However, it is not the case of the complainant or any other prosecution witness that Yadibai was wife of the appellant / accused. P.W. 2 Ramdas, who is complainant and brother of the deceased Yadibai, has stated in his evidence that the appellant / accused and Yadibai had left house of her husband and thereafter whereabouts were not known to the complainant and others who tried to search them. However, they were not found and ultimately, search of Yadibai and accused / appellant was stopped. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is seen that it has not come on record that deceased Yadibai was wife of the accused. Therefore, the relationship of the appellant / accused with deceased Yadibai as mentioned in first charge by the trial Court itself was without any basis. The evidence of P.W.2 Ramdas, complainant was recorded on 20th February, 2008. In his evidence, he has stated that Yadibai was his real sister. All his sisters including Yadibai are married and they are residing at their husbands houses. It is further stated that Yadibais married with Madhu Pawara took place prior to 17 years. She is having one son and one daughter. They are also residing at Wadi, which is place of residence of this witness. This witness has stated that he knows accused. He is brother of his maternal aunts husband. Istrya Sutarya Pawara is husband of his maternal aunt. He was also residing at Wadi. Lalsing was residing at the house of Istrya. However, Lalsing was not doing any work and therefore, Istrya ousted him. Therefore, Lalsing was residing with Yadibai. He resided there for 7 to 8 months and thereafter, Lalsing took away Yadibai. He took search but, they were not found. Six months prior to incident, husband of his sister Yadibai died. Dharsing son of Madhu went to Indore for residence. It has come in the evidence of this witness that on 20th June, 2007, at evening time, Ravindra came to him. Ravindra told him that Sanju stated him that he had seen Yadibai and Lalsing at Thalner S.T. Stand prior to 3 days. Ravindra has also stated to him that Sanju had stated to him that thereafter he had gone to the field of his work and there he saw Lalsing alone. On the next day they had gone to the field where Lalsing was doing labour work. Bhima Ganshya Pawara, Sumarsing Istrya Pawara, had gone ahead by a cycle. This witness and others had gone by walking. They made inquiry with Lalsing about Yadibai. Lalsing stated to them that he along with Yadibai had gone to market, thereafter Yadibai alone went to unknown place and he does not know the whereabouts of Yadibai. Son of the landowner assured them to call his father as Lalsing was not disclosing the address of Yadibai. After arrival of landowner, Lalsing disclosed that he had killed Yadibai and threw her dead body at the corner of nalah. Thereafter they went to police station, Thalner and lodged report there. Initially, they along with police had gone to the spot of incident. They found the dead body of deceased and the witness identified the same and lodged the complaint to the police station. In hisit is stated by this witness that Yadibai was residing with the accused however, he has not met Yadibai thereafter. It is specifically admitted by this witness that in their community women as well as gents consume liquor. (Emphasis supplied). It has been further stated that though it was stated to the police that Lalsing had disclosed to them that prior to 2 to 3 days he along with Yadibai had gone to the market and that the witness does not know why it is not mentioned by the police in the complaint. Police did not read over the contents of the complaint to him.12. On careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, certain things are necessary to be taken note of. This witness has never met Yadibai, after she started residing with the appellant. In his community, women as well as gents used to consume liquor. On 20th June, 2007, one Ravindra P.W.5 came to the complainant and on next day the complainant along with other persons went to Lalsing. Lalsing did not disclose whereabouts of Yadibai and, therefore,son of the landowner where deceased Yadibai and appellant were staying, assured the complainant that he will call his father and after arrival of landlord, Lalsing disclosed that he had killed Yadibai and thrown her dead body in Nallah and thereafter, this witness along with other persons went to the Police Station to lodge report and pursuant to confession, the dead body was found and was identified by the complainant.On careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is not in dispute that this witness along with other persons including some prosecution witnesses went to Lalsing to ask the whereabouts of Yadibai. It also emerges from the evidence of this witness that disclosure statement made by the accused is before the complainant, landlord and other persons and at the relevant time, the appellant / accused was not in the custody of the police. According to the complainant, after disclosure by the appellant about the whereabouts of Yadibai, they went to the Police Station to lodge report and thereafter, the dead body was recovered. This witness has admitted in histhat in his community, gents and women consume liquor.After taking into account the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it emerges that the prosecution theory entirely depends upon three broad circumstances. It is not in dispute that whole prosecution story is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident.Therefore, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court while dealing with the circumstantial evidence, we proceed to examine the case in hand. The prosecution has claimed that P.W.4 Sanju had seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of the accused Lalsing on 17th June, 2007 at S.T. Stand, Thalner. It is an admitted position that at the relevant time i.e. on the date of the incident, this witness was of 11 years age and when he deposed before the Court, his age was 12 years. On careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, we find that there is no corroboration to the evidence of this witness. Though the learned A.P.P. has tried to submit that the statement of P.W.4 Sanju that he had last seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of accused is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, in our opinion, these witnesses have deposed before the Court only on the basis of the narration of P.W.4 Sanju i.e. hearsay evidence. There is no any other witness who has stated that he had also seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of the accused Lalsing. The Honourable Supreme Court, time and again, has laid down that the evidence of the child witness should be carefully evaluated and should find corroboration before being relied upon. The Supreme Court has taken this view in case of State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit and another, reported in (2000)3 SCC 70  . Yet in another reported judgment in the case of State of State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 745  , the Apex Court held that the testimony of the child witness needs to be carefully evaluated and must find adequate corroboration before it is relied upon. In case of Acharaparambath Pradeepan and another Vs State of Kerala, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 643  , the Apex Court held that the evidence of child witness needs corroboration. The corroboration is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. Therefore, what follows from the authoritative pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court, while evaluating the evidence of child witness,great care has to be taken and corroboration to his evidence is rule of prudence than of law. On careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, in the instant case, it appears to us that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.4 Sanju. Even if it is considered that the evidence of P.W.4 Sanju is reliable, still question remains about the time gap between last seen together and the registration of offence. It is an admitted position that the P.W.4 Sanju had seen the deceased Yadibai in the company of accused on 17th June, 2007 at S.T. Stand, Thalner and offence was registered on 21st June, 2007. Therefore, there is considerable time gap of four days in registering the F.I.R. On careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it appears to us that the prosecution has not brought on record anything to show that during the interregnum period i.e. from 17th June, 2007 to 21st June, 2007 there was no other possibility by which Yadibai died. In other words, the prosecution has not placed anying on record to rule out the possibility of death of Yadibai by some other reason from 17th to 21st June, 2007 i.e. from the date on which P.W.4 Sanju saw the deceased last in the company of the accused till offence wascareful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we do not find that such evidence is brought on record by the prosecution to rule out the possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of the incident or before commission of the crime, in the intervening period. The prosecution has also not demonstrated that the accused was in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where he was last seen together with the deceased and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party. Therefore, in our opinion, it will be unsafe to rely on the evidence brought on record by the prosecution on the point of deceased being last seen in the company of the accused.23. The accused Lalsing in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has stated that Yadibai used to consume liquor and used to stay out of house for 8 to 10 days. P.W.6 Khatik, whose evidence is at Exh.29, in hishas stated that Yadibai used to stay outside house for 4 to 8 days. P.W.2 Ramdas complainant in his deposition before the Court has specifically stated that in their community, women folk are in habit of consuming liquor. Therefore, the statement of the accused in reply to question No.37 of his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 Ramdas complainant on the point of consumption of liquor and further on the point of habit of Yadibai to stay outside the house for days together from the evidence of P.W.6. Even, according to the prosecution story, Yadibai was married with one Madhu Pawara 17 years prior to recording of the evidence of P.W.2 Ramdas before the Court. The appellant /accused was not husband of the deceased Yadibai. Therefore, the accused had no control over the activities of the deceased. It is also relevant to mention at this juncture that the medical officer in his evidence has stated that the body of the deceased was totally decomposed and scalp was missing. The doctor, in his evidence, has no where indicated that the death of the deceased had taken place prior to any particular days. In view of the discussion herein above, it cannot be said that the whereabout of the deceased Yadibai before her death was within the special knowledge of the appellant / accused.24. The second circumstance which is relied upon by the prosecution is the extra judicial confession given by the appellant / accused before P.W.2 Ramdas, P.W.5 Ravindra, P.W.6 Khatik, P.W.7 Yusuf and other persons. The main piece of evidence on which the prosecution has relied is the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant / accused before these witnesses. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer few judgments of the Apex Court on this point. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254  , wherein the Apex Court held that the extra judicial confessions is weak piece of evidence and must be proved like any other fact. Yet, in another judgment in case of Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 564  , the Apex Court held that there should be corroboration to the evidence of extra judicial confession. In case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Swarnalatha and others, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 383  , the Apex Court held that extra judicial confession, as is well known, is a weak piece of evidence. Yet, in another judgment in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. E. Satyanarayana, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 400  , placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 322  ) and Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1320  ), the Apex Court held that if the Court believes the witness before whom confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey ((1992) 3 scc 204  ) held that extra judicial confession which is not obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature can be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration.25. In the light of the afore mentioned authoritative pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court, we proceed to examine the fact that extra judicial confession allegedly given by the accused before the complainant and other prosecution witnesses was voluntary or as a result of coercion. It has come in the evidence of P.W.5 Ravindra that the appellant / accused was reluctant to tell whereabouts of Yadibai (deceased). P.W.5 Ravindra went to P.W.2 Ramdas and told him about the fact that P.W.4 Sanju told him that the Yadibai deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant / accused on 17th June, 2007 at S.T. Bus stand, Thalner. Thereafter, P.Ws.2, 5 and other persons from Pawara community, who were 5 to 6 in number, went to the accused / appellant. According to these witnesses, initially the accused / appellant was reluctant to tell the whereabouts of Yadibai, therefore, they called the son of the land owner. It has also come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. in the evidence of P.W.6 Khatik that he sent his brother to his agricultural field and he informed P.W.6 that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with accused (emphasis supplied). Therefore, P.W.6 went to his field. He saw that 6 to 7 persons were asking the accused to tell whereabouts of Yadibai and he was not disclosing about the same. Therefore, they called P.W.7 Yusuf uncle of P.W.6 to the field by giving message through mobile phone. According to P.W.6, his uncle P.W.7 arrived in the field by Maruti van. Therefore, it has come in the evidence of P.W.6 that his brother told him that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with the accused. It appears that the brother of this witness has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, what is stated by P.W.6 in his evidence that he came to know from his brother that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with the accused has remained intact. The P.W.5 Ravindra in his evidence has claimed that P.W.7 Yusuf did not come to the field on the call of P.W.6. According to this witness, in presence of P.W.5 and prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7 and others present along with P.W.5 in the agricultural land of respondent No.7, accused appellant on telephone informed to his landlord that he has killed Yadibai by inflicting blow with wooden log on stomach and head and threw her body in Hatkoi Nallah. This version of P.W.5 that accused informed P.W.7 on telephone and P.W.7 had not come to the agricultural field has been contradicted by other witnesses. The other prosecution witnesses have claimed that P.W.7 had come to the agricultural field on a call of P.W.6 and in his presence, the appellant had given extra judicial confession that he had killed Yadibai and threw her body at Hatkoi Nallah. Therefore, there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The fact remains that 6 to 7 persons were quarreling with the accused. After perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence brought on record in the nature of medical evidence and the chemical analyzers report, it appears to us that the alleged extra judicial confession by accused before the P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 7 and other persons was a result of coercion or it was obtained by exerting pressure on the accused / appellant and, therefore, not reliable.26. If the prosecution story is taken as it is, that the deceased Yadibai was last seen in the company of the accused / appellant on 17th June, 2007, the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution shows that the body was completely decomposed and scalp was missing. The medical officer has not opined about the probable period of death of the deceased.If the evidence of the Investigating Officer is taken into account, it clearly emerges that 6 to 7 persons including the complainant and other witnesses along with the accused went to Thalner Police Station and told the police personnel that the appellant / accused had confessed about the crime. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that two police constables, the appellant / accused and other 6 to 7 persons went to Hatkoi Nallah and they found the dead body as confessed by the appellant. It has come in the evidence of the Investigating Officer that after returning back from the Hatkoi Nallah i.e. after the dead body was found, complaint was lodged by P.W.2 Ramdas and the same was taken down by the I.O. Therefore, even as per the prosecution story, the first extra judicial confession statement was made before P.W.2 Ramdas and others and thereafter, these 6 to 7 persons went to the police station and other two police constables from the said police station accompanied them, they went to the Nallah, dead body was recovered, thereafter, the complainant came to the police station and complaint was lodged.The evidence of the Investigating Officer further discloses that the memorandum statement of the appellant / accused was recorded and in pursuant to his statement, one wooden log was recovered and also his clothes kept in iron box were handed over by the accused to the I.O. The evidence of I.O. that the clothes were kept in iron box and the appellant had taken out those clothes and handed over to the I.O., is falsified by P.W.3 i.e. panch witness to the said panchanama, who has not stated in the evidence that clothes were kept in iron box. The prosecution further claims that the wooden log was recovered at the instance of the appellant and he had confessed that by said wooden log he had assaulted Yadibai deceased on head. According to the prosecution, due to assault by the appellant / accused, Yadibai died. The evidence of Medical Officer shows that the injuries are ante mortem. During the course of examination in chief of the Medical Officer before the Court, wooden log was shown to him. The Medical Officer P.W.1 in his evidence stated, Injuries mentioned in Column No. 17 of P.M. Notes cannot be possible by the seized wooden log now shown to me. (Emphasis supplied).27. Therefore, the entire prosecution story which is really based upon extra judicial confession of the accused cannot be relied upon. As discussed herein above, the extra judicial confession of the appellant / accused before P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 7 and other twothree persons was a result of coercion and pressure and insistence by 6 to 7 persons to confess the guilt. Such extra judicial confession, which is obtained by coercion and quarrel, cannot form the basis of the conviction. The statement of P.W.1 Medical Officer before the Court that the injuries sustained by the deceased Yadibai were not possible by said wooden log recovered from the accused further falsifies the prosecution case. Therefore taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, it appears that the same suffers from infirmities and no reliance can be placed on such evidence. We also find contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant / accused.