Evidence – Extra-judicial Confession – Evidentiary value – Lady found murdered by a sharp cutting weapon – During investigation, revealed that the appellant-husband of the deceased had confessed before the prosecution witness that he had murdered the deceased with the murder weapon at that very spot where the body of the deceased was found – However, the trial court found the evidence of the witnesses contradictory to each other and not trustworthy, and acquitted the appellant – In appeal, the High Court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s. 302 – Interference with – Held: Not called for – However, strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – Where an extra–judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance – Trial court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses not to be reliable so as to base the conviction solely on the basis of such testimonies – Trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon – Approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law – Unless such a finding is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same – View taken by the trial court could not be said to be either perverse or illegal/impossible to warrant interference – Thus, High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302.