unreliable and unworthy of credence. While deposing on oath, the witness in his examination-in-chief, did not pertinently state that the accused appellant had made any extra-judicial confession in his presence. It is only on the leading questions put by the Public Prosecutor, during cross-examination, that the witness tried to impute that the accused appellant had admitted, in his presence, that he had made a mistake. 20. As per Shri Basant, the evidence of extrajudicial confession is even otherwise of very weak nature and thus, the conviction cannot be solely based on such evidence. In addition thereto, his contention was that the version of the witness (PW17) regarding the so-called extra-judicial confession made by the accused appellant, is very vague and vacillating and hence, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. 16 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022