Short Note : 1. The prosecution case is this Some 12 or 13 days prior to the date of incidents, i.e, on 21-10-1970, the appellant's mother had died. The appellant, 'with his younger brother and sister, lived with his deceased Aitu, his father On 21.10.1970, the deceased beat the younger brother of the appellant with the result that he and his sister had gone' to the house of their uncle Poyami Lati (P.W.4), In the evening. the appellant enquired from the deceased about his brother and sister, The deceased replied that they had gone to their mother and also slapped the appellant. In the evening when the deceased was sleeping, the appellant gave repeated axe blows on his father. The appellant then ran away. He went to his uncle Poyami Lati (P. W. 4) in the night and confessed to have given axe blow to his father. A Panchayat Was convened in which the' appellant produced" the axe which was retained by the Sarpanch Poyami Kosa (P. W. 2). The appellant also admitted to have killed his father. 2. The Additional sessions Judge, after Scrutiny of the evidence, recorded the following conclusions : - (i) Aitu is dead and he met his end by violence. (ii) The appellant made an extra judicial confession admitting to have, given axe blows to his father while asleep. (iii) The act of the appellant fell within section 302 of the IPC. 3. Held: The prosecution evidence consisting of the Sarpanch and other relations of the appellant, conclusively established that the appellant had, in the night as also in the Panchayat made an extra judicial confession of his having killed his' father and that 'the' extra judicial, confession was voluntary. We find no reason why the prosecution witnesses would, testify to the appellant's confession when he had made no statement about the admission of his guilt. 4. The, extra judicial confession has been 'testified by reliable witnesses including the relations of the appellant and since we have' held that the extra judicial confession was voluntary, conviction Can be based on it. Besides blood-stains were found on the. 4. The, extra judicial confession has been 'testified by reliable witnesses including the relations of the appellant and since we have' held that the extra judicial confession was voluntary, conviction Can be based on it. Besides blood-stains were found on the. axe and Dhoti seized from the appellant and this is another adverse circumstance against the appellant which could be used against him in the absence of any explanation from him We are, there-fore, of the view that conviction of the appellant Poyami Hadma u/s 302 of the IPC with sentence-of imprisonment for life is, well merited. We find no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. Maghar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1320 , Darshanlal v, State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1975 SC 898 relied on, Appeal dismissed,