JUDGMENT : Barman, A.C.J. 1. The accused Appellants Mandara Majhi and Bhagabat Tudu alias Majhi were convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life on a charge of having murdered Shama Majhi on the night of May 20, 1964, at 8 p. m. with a Kendu stick and a bamboo stick, in the circumstances hereinafter stated. The motive of Mandara Majhi was that he suspected the deceased having practised witchcraft as a result of which his minor brothers died; he also suspected that the deceased was in the act of visiting his mother. The motive of Bhagabat Majhi in joining Mandara Majhi in the crime was that he had some land dispute with the deceased. 2. The prosecution case is "that on May 20, 1964, at about 8 p. m. at Koi-Kalaspur, Kamakhyanagar, District Dhenkanal, the two accused-Appellants herein in furtherance of the common intention committed murder of the deceased Shama Majhi. On May 21, 1964, at 5 p. m. the local choukidar p.w.4 lodged first information report at the police station If; mil from the place of occurrence. The following day on May 2, 1964, the two accused persons were arrested from their respective houses. On May 23, 1964 the doctor held post-mortem on the body of the deceased which by then was in a decomposed state. After Police investigation the two accused persons were charged, committed and sent up for trial by the learned Sessions Judge who convicted and sentenced them both as aforesaid. The accused Appellants denied the charge against them. 3. The prosecution case is mainly based on the direct testimony of p. ws. 5 and 6 who are eye witnesses and also on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused Appellant before p. ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8. 4. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses p. ws. 5 and 6 in substance is this: on the date of the incident in the evening p.w.5 heard the cry of the deceased that he was dying. So p.w.5 and p.w.6 who was with him rushed to the spot and found the two accused persons assaulting the deceased Shama with sticks; on arrival p.w.5 snatched the stick of the accused Bhagaat; p.w.6 snatched the stick of the accused Mandara; the deceased was at that time lying injured; it was by then one and half ghadis at night. So p.w.5 and p.w.6 who was with him rushed to the spot and found the two accused persons assaulting the deceased Shama with sticks; on arrival p.w.5 snatched the stick of the accused Bhagaat; p.w.6 snatched the stick of the accused Mandara; the deceased was at that time lying injured; it was by then one and half ghadis at night. In cross-examination p.w.5 however had said that he had not seen any assault, but saw the deceased with bleeding injuries; but immediately in the next sentence p.w.5 corrected himself and said that it was incorrect to say that he had not seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased. What apparently p.w.5 had meant when he said that he had not seen the assault was presumably the scuffle that was going on between the deceased on the one hand and the two accused Appellants on the other, before p.w.5 and others appeared on the scene of occurrence.' The evidence of p.w.5 was in all material particulars corroborated by the other eye-witness p.w.6. P.w.6 also said that as he along with other was returning home, on the way he heard the cry of the deceased seeking assistance as he was being assaulted to death; upon hearing this p.w.6 rushed to the spot and found the accused persons assaulting the deceased Shama with sticks,; others also came immediately after him; he snatched the stick of the accused Mandra, from his back side. P.w.6 also said, that p.w.5.who cam following him similarly caught hold of the stick of the accused Bhagabat; the deceased Shama was at that time lying in a dying state. It is said that the two accused persons carried the deceased Shama to his house. 5. Apart from the direct testimony of the eye witnesses as to what each of them had seen, the accused' persons also confessed having assaulted the deceased. P.W.5 said that the accused Mandara stated that the deceased Shama was responsible for the death of his minor brothers and that he was in the act or visiting his mother and so he assaulted him. P.w.6 said, the accused Bhagabat confessed that the deceased Shama was cultivating his land and when he protested, Shama threatened to kill him; so out of grudge he assaulted Shama. In his evidence p.W.7 also said that both the accused Appellants had confessed having assaulted the deceased Shama. 6. P.w.6 said, the accused Bhagabat confessed that the deceased Shama was cultivating his land and when he protested, Shama threatened to kill him; so out of grudge he assaulted Shama. In his evidence p.W.7 also said that both the accused Appellants had confessed having assaulted the deceased Shama. 6. On behalf of the accused Appellants it was however submitted that the extra-Judicial confession is not admissible because the accused Appellants are said to have made the confession before p.W.8 who is said to have been pradhan of the village that is to say, a person in authority. In fact the accused Appellants relied on the answer of p.w.6 in cross-examination where he said that p.w.8, the pradhan told the accused persons that they would not be punished in case they told what happened. The defence comment is that such confession, said to have been made by the accused Appellants before p. ws. 5, 6 and 7 at the instance of p.W.8 who as pradhan was a person in authority, is not admissible in evidence. This argument however is untenable. The phrase "person i authority" has not been defined. Generally speaking "person in authority" is one who is engaged in the apprehension, detention or prosecution of the accused, or one who is empowered to examine him. P.W.8 is not such a person having anything to do with the apprehension, detention or prosecution of the accused. There is no statutory law or rule purporting to show that p.w.8 as the pradhan had any such function. On the other hand after the abolition of gountia system the name of gountia or pradhan is possibly continuing as a relic of the past. In any event the defence filed to prove that p.w.8 had anything to do in connection with the case against the accused persons. 7. The defence also relied on the statement in evidence of p.w.6 in cross-examination that the pradhan told the accused that they would not be punished in case they told what happened purporting to show that the confession was made under, threat, probe or inducement. 7. The defence also relied on the statement in evidence of p.w.6 in cross-examination that the pradhan told the accused that they would not be punished in case they told what happened purporting to show that the confession was made under, threat, probe or inducement. This argument however overlooks the position in law as laid down in a recent decision of the Supreme Court that the mere existence of the threat, inducement or promise is not enough, but, in the opinion of the Court the said threat, inducement or promise shall be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of accused that by confessing he would get an advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him ; while the opinion is that or the Court, the criterion is the reasonable held of the accused. Section- 24, Evidence Act makes it clear that it is the duty of the Court to pace itself in the position of the accused and to form on opinion as to the state of his mind in the circumstances of a case. Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 S.C. 1904 : 1963 S.C.D. 341 para 51. In the present case there is no evidence of any threat, inducement or promise from p.w.8 about the accused persons getting any advantage or avoiding any evil by reason of their concession. There is no material to show that the extra-judicial confession before p. B. 5 to 8 was made or caused by any inducement, threat or promise by p.w.8. We are satisfied that the confession by the accused Appellants that they had assaulted the deceased Shama, as a result of which he died as voluntary and true is admissible in evidence. 8. In this view of the case we are of opinion that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses and the extra-judicial confession made by the accused Appellants are sufficient to establish beyond any doubt that the two accused Appellants had murdered the deceased Shama Majhi in the circumstances hereinbefore discussed. 9. In the result, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence of both the accused Appellants is upheld. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Misra, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed