113 1971 Cr LJ 1314 it was held that “Extra Judicial Confession-probative value- an extra judicial confession, voluntary and truthful, has a high probative force”. Witness proving extra judicial confession unbiased, not remotely inimical even, truthful. Words spoken by accused clearly, unambiguously and unmistakably reproduced. Evidence put to rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility. Corroboration not necessary. In AIR 1954 SC 462 : 1954 Cr LJ 1313, 1992 Cr LJ 3251 it was held that “Voluntary confession. Mere bald assertion by the accused that he was threatened, tutored or that inducement was offered to him cannot be accepted as true without anything more to substantiate it”. In this present case P.W. 6 stated “That person present there stated me and Sukanta Roy and we listened about his relationship and he told his lover to go with him to Digha but the said lady refused to go to Digha. So, in anger he took some nude pictures and video of the lady and uploaded it into the Porn website” and P.W. 10 stated that “In presence of all including my friend Uttam Dolui then Animesh Boxi told us that Animesh Boxi loved one lady and told his lover forcibly to go for outing in a place but I can not recollect the name of the place which Animesh Boxi stated and his lover refused to go and then Animesh Boxi uploaded nude pictures and video of his lover online” and is relied upon by this court. During 313 Cr. PC when this court put questions regarding this the accused just stated that “I have not stated anything to anyone. I had not shown anything to anyone. They took my signatures forcibly in few papers and I signed into it as because the bathroom was not good there and I was unable to use it and they told me if I sign into it they I will be shifted elsewhere with good bathroom”. The case record shows from the very first day when the accused was produced before court the accused was represented by his Ld. Lawyer but no such petition had been filed from the side of the accused that his signatures were taken forcibly and that he had not stated anything to anyone or had shown anything to any one. The Ld. Lawyer for the accused at the time of argument referred citation (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 286, (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 41 is not applicable in this case. During cross examination of the prosecution witnesses questions were put as to whether the witness had stated to the I.O. or not. Now the statement u/s 161 Cr. PC is not evidence at all. Even questions had been put to the I.O. as to whether he had reduced into