JUDGMENT DAS, A.C.J. :- The appellant has been convicted under S. 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to R. I. for life for having committed the murder of his step-mother, Katha Hansani, on 21-5-65. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant was not on good terms with his step-mother on account of some property dispute. The accused wanted to transfer some property to P. W. 6, but it could not take effect as the deceased opposed it. For this reason the accused entertained a grudge against the deceased. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence at about 9 a.m. when the deceased was going to her Bari followed by her sons Govind and Parama, the accused also followed her with a Tangi in his hand. He then dealt a Tangi blow on the back and either side of the neck of the deceased as a result of which she fell down and died on the spot. On seeing this, Govind (P. W. 11) raised a cry on hearing which, P. W. 10 a close neighbour immediately rushed to the place and found that the accused was standing at the spot holding a Tangi which had been stained with blood and the deceased who was lying on the ground was struggling for life. The matter was reported to P. W. 1 who had then gone to the weekly market. On receipt of this information, he along with P. W. 2, Lachman Bag, P. W. 4 Bhagirathi Punji and some others went to the Sarpanch Durjodhan Bhoi (P. W. 8). They all went to the house of the deceased and found her dead and lying inside her Bari with some injuries on the back and neck. On their query the accused admitted to have killed the deceased and he also produced the blood-stained Tangi, MO. 1, before them. Then P. W. 1 took the accused and the Tangi to the police station where he lodged the F. I. R. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and after commitment, he was placed under trial before the Court of Sessions where he was convicted and sentenced as above. 3. In support of its case, prosecution relied upon three categories of evidence, viz., (i) the evidence of the eye-witness P. W. 10; (ii) on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P. Ws. 3. In support of its case, prosecution relied upon three categories of evidence, viz., (i) the evidence of the eye-witness P. W. 10; (ii) on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P. Ws. 2, 4 and 8; and (iii) recovery of the blood-stained Tangi from the house of the accused which was found by the chemical examiner to have contained marks of human blood. 4. That Katha Hansani died on 21-5-65 at the backside of her house on account of some injuries on her person cannot be doubted. Shortly after the matter was reported to the police. The I. O. who went to the spot and made the inquest (Ext. 1) found the dead body of the deceased on her Bari side with some injuries on her neck and back. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The doctor (P. W. 12) who conducted the post-mortem examination also noticed several incised wounds of varying dimensions on the upper part of the neck, the right side of the face and in front of the right ear, on the middle of the back he noticed an incised wound obliquely placed in line with inferior angle of scapula. Corresponding to the external injuries there were fractures of the vertebra and the ribs of the deceased and the lower jaw were also found fractured. All the injuries were found to be ante-mortem and sufficiently fatal in nature. According to the doctor, the injuries were caused by a sharp-cutting weapon, like a Tangi. In view of this medical evidence, there cannot be any doubt that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries caused on vital parts of the body like neck by a sharp-cutting weapon, like a Tangi. The Tangi which was produced by the Chemical Examiner was to have contained human blood. In view of these injuries, there cannot be any doubt that the deceased died as a result of the injuries inflicted on her person by means of a sharp-cutting weapon like a Tangi, MO. 1. 5. The next question is if the accused had caused these injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased. Here, we have the direct evidence of P. W. 10, a close neighbour of the deceased. He has his house at a distance of 20 cubits from the place of occurrence. 1. 5. The next question is if the accused had caused these injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased. Here, we have the direct evidence of P. W. 10, a close neighbour of the deceased. He has his house at a distance of 20 cubits from the place of occurrence. It is his evidence that at about 9 or 10 a. m. he saw the deceased going to her Bari side followed by her two sons, Govind and Parama and the accused was following her with a Tangi. Shortly after he heard a hulla made by Govind and Parama saying that their mother had been killed. He rushed to the spot and found the accused standing near the deceased with a Tangi in his hand. His clothes were also found to be stained with blood and the deceased was lying on the ground with her face downwards. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the evidence of this witness. The evidence of P. W. 10 leaves no room for doubt that the deceased met her death at the hands of the accused. 6. We next pass on to the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused. It is the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 8 that the accused made a confession before them admitting that he had killed the deceased. P. W. 2 had stated that he had been to the market on that day where he came to learn that the accused had killed his step-mother Katha Hansani. Then he and P. W. 1 Ghasiram Tandi returned from the market. They went to P. W. 8, and thence to the house of the accused. Asked as to how the death of the deceased took place, the accused replied that he had killed her with a Tangi as she gave him two slaps. To the same effect, is the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 8 who had said that the accused admitted before them to have killed the deceased by inflicting some blows by a Tangi on her neck. The accused also produced the Tangi from his house before them. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 8 and there is no reason why they would falsely implicate the accused in the crime. P. W. 8 is the Sarpanch, and a former Chairman of Bolangir Zilla Parishad. The accused also produced the Tangi from his house before them. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 8 and there is no reason why they would falsely implicate the accused in the crime. P. W. 8 is the Sarpanch, and a former Chairman of Bolangir Zilla Parishad. P. Ws. 2 and 4 are also respectable witnesses. No doubt, before any reliance can be placed on the confession, it has first to be established that it is voluntary and true. A confession has to be proved like any other fact. The value of the confession as a piece of evidence is just like any other evidence, and depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made : (See AIR 1959 S C 902, Mulk Raj v. State). There is nothing to suggest that the confession was involuntary or it was obtained by any threat or coercion. The unimpeachable evidence of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 8 fully establishes that the confession was a voluntary one. That it is also true is borne out by the evidence of P. W. 10 and the recovery of the blood-stained Tangi from the possession of the accused. The accused no doubt has retracted the extra-judicial confession, and as such some corroboration is necessary before we act upon such confession. As already seen, there are enough materials to corroborate the retracted confession. That apart this is not a case where the conviction is based solely on the retracted confession so as to be opposed to the dictum of law. The confession was sought to be challanged on the ground that it was made before P. W. 1, who is a Chowkidar and as such is a police officer, but it may be mentioned that by the date of occurrence, the Chowkidari system had been abolished in the district of Bolangir. Therefore, there is no question of the confession being hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act, on account of the presence of P. W. 1. It cannot also be held that the Sarpanch, P. W. 8, is a person in authority within the meaning of S. 24 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no question of the confession being hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act, on account of the presence of P. W. 1. It cannot also be held that the Sarpanch, P. W. 8, is a person in authority within the meaning of S. 24 of the Evidence Act. ''Person in authority" has not been given any statutory definition, but it is well settled by authorities that such a person is one who is engaged in the apprehension, detention or prosecution of the accused, or who is empowered to examine him : (See AIR 1933 Pat 149, Santokhi Beldar v. Emperor (SB)). The Sarpanch is not possessed of any such general powers under the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act. Assuming, however, P. W. 8 is a "person in authority" within the meaning of S. 24 of the Evidence Act, yet a confession does not become inadmissible merely because it was made before a person in authority. It is inadmissible only when it is brought about under any threat, or inducement etc., and the Court is of opinion that the accused had reason to believe that he will get some advantage or avoid some evil by making such a confession. (See AIR 1963 S C 1094, Pyarilal v. State of Rajasthan). 7. As already stated, the injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body of the deceased, and resulted in an instantaneous death. The accused had no explanation to offer for this ghastly act except a mere denial. The prosecution has also led some evidence regarding the motive for the crime. But when the case has been proved by direct evidence of witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence and the extra-judicial confession made by the accused, the motive for the commission of the offence becomes immaterial. It can hardly be doubted that the accused must have intended to kill the deceased. In the circumstances, we hold that the accused is guilty under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, and the order of conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant must be upheld. 8. The appeal is dismissed. 9. MISRA J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.