Extra judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and require corroboration; mere assertion without supporting evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under S.374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.61/2012, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under S.302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further 1 year rigorous imprisonment.

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in between 28.06.2012 at 6:00 P.M. to 29.06.2012 till 7:00 A.M. at village Ludeg Nawapara, the appellant herein and two other accused persons, his father Dhaniram and Ramesh Kumar (both acquitted) assaulted the deceased Gohari Ram by 'Dawli' sharp edged weapon and thereby committed the offence. On the report of Vinod Kumar Nag (PW - 2) that Gohari Ram has been murdered, a merg was registered vide Ex.P - 3 and thereafter the FIR (Ex.P - 2) was registered and Nazrinaksha was prepared vide Ex.P - 4. The panchnama was conducted by Ex.P - 14 and thereafter on the recommendation of panchas (Ex.P - 9), the dead body was subjected to post - mortem vide Ex.P - 15, which was proved by Dr. J. Minj (PW - 11) and the post - mortem report is Ex.P - 12. From the spot, spade (Dauli) and bloodstains were seized by Ex.P - 4 and the appellant is said to have given extra judicial confession to Sonsay (PW - 7) on 29.06.2012 and pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P - 6), the sharp edged weapon Dauli was seized from the possession of appellant vide Ex.P - 7, which was sent for FSL. After due investigation, all the accused persons were charge - sheeted for the aforesaid offences, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law, in which the trial Court acquitted two accused persons namely Dhaniram and Ramesh Kumar; however, convicted the appellant on the basis of finding that motive as well as seizure of weapon is proved and the appellant has given extra judicial confession to Sonsay (PW - 7), against which this appeal has been preferred.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents and the appellant - accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under S.302 of I.P.C. and sentenced as above, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on a weak, shaky and contradictory evidence of extra judicial confession of the appellant stated to have been made before Sonsay (PW - 7). He further submits that except this, there is no other incriminating evidence and the witnesses of memorandum and seizure of weapon alleged to be used in commission of offence have not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that according to Sonsay (PW - 7) the extra judicial confession was made on the same date of the incident, however, Sonsay (PW - 7) did not inform anyone regarding extra judicial confession and his statement under S.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after 2 days of the incident i.e. 31.06.2012. He lastly submits that there is no documentary evidence that there was any previous dispute between the parties; as such, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. Avinash Singh, learned State counsel submits that the