IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who had no reason to state falsely and to whom it was made in circumstantial which tend to support the statement.
2. When there is abundant evidence to show in a case though based on circumstantial evidence that accused and accused alone would have committed murder, absence of proof of motive would not vitiate the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-This appeal by special leave filed by the State is against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Court, Mysore and acquitting the respondent herein of the charge under S. 302 IPC. The respondent was charged of committing murder of his companion by name Ananthu by inflicting injuries with a chopper on the afternoon of 28.6.1988 at a room in Kucheta lodge in Mysore. According to the prosecution, the accused and the deceased who stayed in the house of PW 4 on the day prior to the day of occurrence came together to Mysore on the next day i.e. 28.6.1988. The accused came to the house of PW 4 to meet the deceased Ananthu who was related to him. The accused and the deceased checked in at Kucheta lodge in Mysore at about 1.30 P.M. on 28.6.1988. At that time PW2 who was a friend of the proprietor of the lodge and who used to stay in the lodge during his visits to Mysore to attend to his contract work was at the counter of the hotel. According to PW 2, the manager by name Raju while leaving for food requested him to be at the counter. Entries were made in the lodge register and a receipt - P1 was passed on to the accused for the cash received. It transpires from the evidence that the name written in the hotel register and the receipt was H.S. Ramesh . The receipt which is in a printed form in English was filled up by the deceased as PW 2 did not know English. At about 4.15 P.M. when PW 2 was sitting at the counter along with the room boy Manjunath, the accused came and told him that he had killed Ananthu and he should telephone to the police. At that time he was wearing only a pant and his body was stained with blood. Then, he sent the room boy Manjunath along with the accused to the room to see what had happened. Manjunath came back leaving the accused in room and closing it from outside. Manjunath reported to PW 2 that murder had taken place and that he may telephone to the owner of the lodge. Then, he contacted the proprietor s father by name Jugga Raju (PW 3) over telephone and informed him that some Galata (untoward incident) had taken place in the lodge and requested him to come down to the lodge. PW 3 came to the lodge immediately and got a feed back of the event from PW 2. PW 3 then contacted the police and informed them that a murder had taken place in room No. 7 without naming the victim or the assailant. Then, the police Sub-inspector - PW 12 accompanied by police personnel reached the lodge. He entered room No.7 in second floor by opening the bolt. He found the accused sitting on the cot. A dead body was lying by the side of the cot in a pool of blood. There were injuries on the neck and the face and a blood stained chopper was found on the table. He arrested the accused who gave his name as Ramdas and he sent the accused to the police station. PW 12 recorded the statement of room boy Manjunath at the lodge. That statement signed by Manjunath is Ex. P 10. and it was treated as complaint. PW 12 returned to the police station at about 5 P.M. and registered the crime under Section 302 IPC and submitted FIR - Ex. P 11 to the Magistrate and superior officers. Then, PW 10 who was working as Circle Inspector of police took over further investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and drew up spot Mahajar in the presence of Panchas - PW 5 and another. He seized various articles in the room including blood stained bed sheets and pillow covers, bushshirt of the deceased, blood stained chopper etc. Then, in the presence of the Panchas, he held inquest over the dead body. During inquest he examined PWs 2 and 3. The inquest report is Ex. P 3. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. According to PW 10 the accused was sent with a requisition to the hospital through a police constable as he sustained minor injuries. After the accused returned from the hospital PW 10 seized his clothes M.O. 13 to 15 in the presence of Panch witness P