JUDGMENT : Patra, J. - This appeal is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting the Appellant u/s 302, Indian Penal Code on the charge that on 9-11-1965 he committed murder of his wife Fulmani and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief may be stated. At, about 5.30 P.M of 9.11.1965 the Appellant and his wife had gone to the market and purchased some wheat. The deceased went to the house of one Joshep Khadia to husk the wheat. The Appellant took exception to this and abused her. The deceased thereafter returned home and the Appellant again abused her. The deceased is said to have challenged that instead of finding fault with her always and abusing her he might as well kill her. By this the Appellant lost his temper and assaulted the deceased with a Falsia and caused her death. He then proceeded towards the police station carrying with him his only child and the bloodstained Falsia (M.O. I.). On the way he met his sister (p.w. 4) and one Fula Tete (p.w. 3) whom he told that he killed his wife and be was going to the police station to make a report. p.w. 4 snatched away the child from the arm of the Appellant, and the latter proceeded to the police station where he lodged the F.I.R. (Ex. 6). The blood stained Falshia (M.O. I) and the bloodstained half-pant M.O. II which the Applicant was wearing at that time were seized by the police. They were sent to the chemical examiner who detected human blood on M.Os. Nos. 1 and II. 3. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he was not present at home by the time his wife was murdered. On returning home he found his wife dead and lodged information at the police station. He stated that the Falsia (M.O. I.) and the half pant (M.O. II) do not belong to him. He denied having admitted before his sister (p.w. 4) that he had murdered his wife and having stated to the police at the time he lodged F.I.R. that he himself killed his wife. 4. He stated that the Falsia (M.O. I.) and the half pant (M.O. II) do not belong to him. He denied having admitted before his sister (p.w. 4) that he had murdered his wife and having stated to the police at the time he lodged F.I.R. that he himself killed his wife. 4. The Medical Officer, p.w. 1 who conducted the postmortem enquiry on the deceased had found a deep inched would on the back of the deceased which according to him was the cause of death and he opined that the injury could be caused by a sharp weapon like M.O. I. It is therefore clear that the death of Fulmani was homicidal and this finding of the learned Sessions Judge is not challenged in appeal. 5. The only question for consideration is whether it is the Appellant who has caused the death of his wife. Admittedly there if no eye witness to the occurrence. The conviction of the Appellant is based on circumstantial evidence compiled with the extra judicial confession he had made to p.w. 3, 4 and 5. p.w. 2 Markas Tete is the father of the accused. He is totally blind and at the time of occurrence he was present at the house. He deposed that while he was in his bed room he over-heard an altercation between his son and daughter-in-law the deceased and immediately thereafter he heard the child crying. He then went and picked up the child and stated that at that time he could feel that Fulmani was lying on the ground. Thereafter the Appellant took away the child from him and said that he was going to the police station. p.w. 2 is a blind man 60 years old and is the father of the Appellant and there is no reason why his evidence so far as it goes should he believed. His evidence disproves the Appellant's contention that he was not present at the house by the time his wife was murdered. On the other hand his statements that immediately after the altercation between the Appellant and the deceased he found the latter lying on the ground and that the Appellant told him that he was going to the police station considerably support the prosecution case. It is clear from the evidence of the A.S.I. (p.w. 10) and the seizure witnesses p.ws. On the other hand his statements that immediately after the altercation between the Appellant and the deceased he found the latter lying on the ground and that the Appellant told him that he was going to the police station considerably support the prosecution case. It is clear from the evidence of the A.S.I. (p.w. 10) and the seizure witnesses p.ws. 8 and 9 that at the time of lodging F. I. R. the Appellant produced the Falsia (M.O. I.) before the A.S.I. and that he was wearing the half pant (M.O. II) which was seized by p.w. 10. These two articles were stained with blood which on examination was found to be human blood. There is no reason why these witnesses should depose falsely against the Appellant. The Appellant no doubt stated that M.O. I. does not belong to him but his sister (p.w. 4) has deposed that the Falsia (M.O. I.) belonged to the accused and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 6. Besides the aforesaid circumstantial evidence there is extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the Appellant before the p.ws. 3, 4 and 5 P.w. 4 has categorically stated that on the way to the police station the Appellant met her and p.w. 3 and told them that he had killed his wife and was going to the police station and that by that time he was carrying the blood-stained Falsia (M.O. I). It is true that p.w. 3 in her cross-examination stated that as she was at some distance he did not hear the accused saying that he had killed his wife. But we see no reason to disbelieve the statement of p.w. 4 on this point. P.w. 5 says that the accused came to him on the evening of 9-11-1965 and told him that he would not be able to supply milk in future as he had killed his wife. It is true that the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused has been subsequently retracted by him and hence cannot be acted upon without sufficient corroboration. But we find that the unimpeachable circumstantial evidence in this case affords sufficient corroboration to the extra judicial confession. 7. Having regard to the evidence and circumstances of this case we are satisfied that it is the Appellant who had killed his wife. We would therefore dismiss this appeal. But we find that the unimpeachable circumstantial evidence in this case affords sufficient corroboration to the extra judicial confession. 7. Having regard to the evidence and circumstances of this case we are satisfied that it is the Appellant who had killed his wife. We would therefore dismiss this appeal. G.K. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed