112 has been caused by reason of such a lapse” and argued that here all the seizure lists are produced before Ld. Court and any delay if any were properly being explained by P.W. 18 in his cross-examination and this court finds that there is no such harmful. The trend of cross examinations from the defense side is that there were mere suggestions and denials and the fact which had been established by the witnesses never tilted at any point of time. The cross examination is based merely on procedural and thus shifts from the actual case as brought by the prosecution. In 1990 Cr LJ (NOC) 125 it was held that “Defence does not cross-examine on certain facts. Fact is thus admitted by defence”. In AIR 1963 Assam 151 : (1963)2 CrLJ 255 it was held that “Mere suggestion in crossexamination unsupported by the statements of the accused and defence evidence has no evidential value”. In another judgment AIR 1959 Cal 213 it was held that “Suggestion in cross-examination which is denied by the witnesses is no evidence”. Principles in respect of evidentiary value and reliability of extra judicial confessions have been summarized by the Supreme Court in Sahadevan vs State of T.N (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146 which reads as under: (i) The extra – judicial confessions is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. In State vs Kanda Gopaludu (2005) 13 SCC 116: AIR 2005 SC 3616 it was held that “Extra Judicial Confession, if made voluntarily, can be relied upon to convict the accused”. In AIR 1971 SC 1871: