Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The appellant stands convicted for murder of Karamjeet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) by the impugned judgment dated 8th June, 2012 in Sessions Case No. 9/11 arising out of FIR No. 339/2010, P.S. K.N.K. Marg. By order on sentence dated 27th July, 2012, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default/failure to pay fine undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been granted.

2. The impugned judgment/prosecution case primarily relies upon extra judicial confession made by the appellant before father, mother and brother of the deceased Karamjeet, namely Charanjeet Singh (PW3), Surjeet Kaur (PW4) and Paramjeet (PW5). It is claimed that Karpal Singh (PW8) and Surjeet Kaur @ Rita (PW10) were present at that time and had heard the appellant making the confession. Prosecution relies upon the principle of last seen and on the said aspect reference is made to the testimony of Kulwant Singh (PW6).

3. Surjeet Kaur @ Rita (PW10) did not substantially support the prosecution case on the extra judicial confession. PW10 accepted that she was/is related to the appellant and had met appellant at about 9.00 PM on 21st October, 2010 outside the house of the deceased after Karamjeet’s body was recovered from Haiderpur Nahar. The appellant had requested PW10 to call mother of the deceased Karamjeet and told her that he would pay Rs.2,000/- to them (the parents) as he had quarrelled with Karamjeet. The appellant was in perplexed state. PW10 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor but denied suggestions on the extra judicial confession. What is apparent from the statement of PW10, is that the appellant had told Surjeet Kaur (PW4) mother of the deceased that he would pay Rs.2,000/- to them as he had quarrelled with the deceased. He neither accepted nor stated that he had murdered or injured the deceased. It is further stated by PW10 that the appellant was in perplexed state or condition at that time i.e. at about 9.00 PM on 21st October, 2010. On the same day at about 5 P.M. body of Karamjeet had been recovered from Haiderpur Nahar. The appellant knew the deceased and was a neighbour, therefore, the assertion that the appellant was perplexed and had offered Rs.2000/- does not appear to be incriminating circumstance individually and by itself.

4. Charanjeet Singh (PW3), father of the deceased claimed and testified that Karamjeet used to assist him in welding at his shop situated at Sector 16, Rohini. On 20th October, 2010, appellant who was residing in his neighbourhood had come to his house and had stated that he had murdered his son Karamjeet after giving him danda blows and then thrown his dead body in a drain. PW3 later learnt about recovery of dead body of his son from the police. PW3 was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor wherein he accepted as correct that the appellant had come to their house in search of his son Karamjeet i.e. the deceased. He had a danda in his hand and thereafter when the dead body of his son was found, the appellant tendered apology for murdering Karamjeet. The appellant gave them an option to either get him punished or accept Rs.2000/- for his son’s (Karamjeet) cremation. PW3 declined and did not accept money. Trial Court has made a specific observation that PW3 appeared to be a person of low intelligence. PW3 was not cross-examined.

5. Surjeet Kaur (PW4) mother of the deceased, on the other hand claimed that in the morning on 18th October, 2010, the appellant who was residing in their neighbourhood had come to their house with a danda and enquired of Karamjeet to which PW4 had replied that Karamjeet was downstairs. On that day i.e. 18th October, 2010, Karamjeet did not return. The very next day i.e. on 19th October, 2010, PW4 went to the house of the appellant and enquired about her son but the appellant expressed ignorance. When PW4 warn