has been extracted to hold that no such extra judicial confession has been made by the appellant to his mother Siyarani (PW-1). It is appropriate to notice that Siyarani (PW-1) is the mother of the appellant and there is no reason that mother would implicate his own son that too for offence under Section 302 of the IPC by making a false statement before the Court. Similarly, Vijay Rai (PW-2) – brother of the appellant, who also came on the spot and he has clearly stated that on being asked by his mother Siyarani (PW-1), the appellant has made extra judicial confession to her about killing of his wife and son. Similarly, Sulekha Devi (PW-3) – appellant's younger brother's wife who also came on the spot, has clearly stated that on being asked, the appellant informed to Siyarani (PW-1) that he has strangulated his wife and son and similar statement was given before the Court by Nandu Rai (PW-4), appellant's father. All are close relatives of appellant herein and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses, who are not only close relatives and the persons who reached immediately on the spot being resident of same compound, that the appellant has not given the extra judicial confession to Siyarani (PW-1). As such, the extra judicial confession given by the appellant to Siyarani (PW-1) in presence of Vijay Rai (PW-2) and Sulekha Devi (PW-3) is voluntary and true, and we hereby held so accordingly.
