An extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence only if it is made voluntarily and is corroborated by other evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Das, J. - This is an appeal by the State against the order dated 13-7-1962 of the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj-Keonjhar, acquitting the Respondent of an offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code.

2. On a Thursday, 28-12-1962, Pelang (deceased) the mother of P.W. 1 went to fetch fuel from the forest with an axe.

She did not return until evening. So P.W. 1 her son went out in search of her to the forest followed by his aunt (p.w. 3). When P.W. 1 was returning in disappointment, he was told by P.W. 3 that his mother had been killed and thrown into the forest. Both of them went and found the dead body lying with bleeding injuries. Thereafter first information (ext. 1) was lodged at the police station naming one Bir Singh, husband of P.W. 9, to be a suspect, but the name of the accused was not given therein. On the following day, the sub-inspector reached the village and made necessary investigation. Thereafter; the present Respondent along with one Jagabandhu were charge-sheeted under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. The committing court, however, discharged accused Jagabandhu and sent up the Appellant to the court of Sessions for trial u/s 302, Indian Penal Code.

3. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case rests substantially on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 who are alleged to have gone to the jungle near about the time of occurrence and the recovery of the Tangi (M.O.I) said to have been made at the instance of the accused.

4. The motive for the murder is said to he that the accused suspected the deceased to have practised witchcraft on members of his family and some of his cattle.

5. The plea of the accused was one of a denial. He also denied to have made any extra judicial concession or the recovery of the axe to have been made at his instance. According to him this case has been falsely foisted on him by P.W. 4 and his people who are inimical to him on account of the fact that the accused married the widowed sister-in-law of P.W. 4 Madhu Naik.

6. The learned Sessions Judge refused to accept as reliable the evidence of the witnesses p.ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8, as he was of the view that they were all related and were hostile to the accused. He also found the evidence regarding the recovery of the axe to be discrepant. According to him the evidence on the whole was so unsatisfactory that a conviction cannot be based on such evidence. He thus acquitted the accused. It is against this order of acquittal the present appeal has been filed by the State.

7. That there was no motive for the murder is clear from the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 14. According to P.W. 1 (son of the deceased) he did not suspect even the accused to have committed the murder. From the F.I.R. as also from his evidence it appears that he suspected the Bir Singh to be the assailant as he was threatening to kill his mother alleging her to be a witch. P.W. 14 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. According to her the accused was once threatening that he would kill the witch who was responsible for the death of his caws and buffaloes. But the accused did not name the deceased as one such witch. She claimed to have lodged an information at the police station regarding such threat of the accused. But it is not understood as to why she should lodge an information at the police station without knowing definitely the accused naming her mother-in-law as the witch it appears from the evidence of the sub-inspector (p.w. 15) that this witness lodged no information about the story of witchcraft, and she did not say anything before him in this connection. Even if the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 14 is accepted, there is nothing to show that the accused suspected the deceased to be a witch and threatened to kill her. Thus, the motive for the murder is not established. No doubt, the mere absence of motive is not enough if the case is otherwise made out.

8. As stated above, there is admittedly no eye-witness to the