JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal from Jail by the accused-appellant Devraj against his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence for life imprisonment passed by the Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial no. 53 of 1975 decided on 1-11-1975. ( 2. ) THE facts in brief, as alleged by the prosecution against the accused-appellant, are that he committed murder of his wife Mst. Chandravati sometime about midnoon of 11th June, 1975 at village mouza Negura, P. S. Jeva, district Rewa. The reason attributed for the alleged crime was that the deceased Mst. Chandravati was having illicit pregnancy and was not disclosing the name of her paramour to the accused-appellant. Before commission of the murder, the accused-appellant gave liquor mixed with poisonous substance (arsenic) for drinking to his wife and thereafter he chopped her into 15 pieces by Tangiya (Article A ). In the same afternoon he made extra judicial confession on his own to Arjanath Singh (P. W. 3) for having committed murder of his wife. Subsequently when village people including Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2) gathered there, in their presence as well the accused- appellant alleged to have made the extra judicial confession in the same manner and also gave in writing a document (Ex. P-3) signed by him in that regard. The accused was taken to the police station by village Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2) who lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P-2 ). As per the post-mortem report (Ex. P-1) of Dr. Abhaya Singh (P. W. 1) the dead body of the deceased mst Chandravati was found cut in 15 pieces by a sharp-edged weapon. In the opinion of the said doctor, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock from the neck injury resulting from amputation of her head. The accused-appellant abjured the guilt. When the alleged murder of the deceased mst. Chandravati was committed she was living with the accused appellant in his house along with younger brother, sister and mother of her husband. A tangiya (Article A) was found near the dead body of the deceased and was seized along with a chaddi (Article B) vide seizure memo Ex. P-6. These articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner who only testified that they were stained with blood. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. A tangiya (Article A) was found near the dead body of the deceased and was seized along with a chaddi (Article B) vide seizure memo Ex. P-6. These articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner who only testified that they were stained with blood. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. According to him three days prior to the occurrence he had gone to next village and had reached home about 4. 00 p. m. in the evening when Arjanath (P. W. 3) and other village people flocked upon him and compelled him under threat to give his extra judicial confession (Ex. P-3) in writing. According to him he was falsely implicated due to illwill and under police pressure. He examined two witnesses in his defence. The trial Court, on the basis of his extra judicial confession held the accused-appellant guilty for the offence of murder of his wife. ( 3. ) IN the present appeal it is well-established from the evidence on record that the death of the deceased Mst. Chandravati, wife of the accused-appellant was homicidal. The other point for consideration that arises here is whether the accused-appellant can be held responsible for the murder of his wife. At the outset we may mention that there is no eye-witness to the incident and as such the Court below rested the conviction on the retracted extrajudicial confession made by the accused-appellant. We may further mention here that as regards the seizure of chaddi (Article B) and Tangiya (Article A) from the place of incidence it cannot be said that they are incriminating articles as they were not sett to the Serologist for his opinion regarding the presence of human blood on them. It is also borne out from the evidence on record that no viscera of the deceased was sent for the medical opinion with reference to the allegation of the prosecution about the accused-appellant giving liquor, mixed with poison for drinking to his deceased wife before committing her murder. The post mortem report (Ex. P-1) also does not show that the deceased was drunk. So that only evidence that is against the accused-appellant in the present appeal is his extra judicial confession alleged to have been made to Arjanath Singh (P. W. 3) and subsequently to the village people in the presence of Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2 ). The post mortem report (Ex. P-1) also does not show that the deceased was drunk. So that only evidence that is against the accused-appellant in the present appeal is his extra judicial confession alleged to have been made to Arjanath Singh (P. W. 3) and subsequently to the village people in the presence of Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2 ). Arjanath Singh (P. W. 3) has clearly stated in his evidence that the accused-appellant had come to his house and told him that he had killed his wife inside his bouse. He further told him that before committing the crime he had asked his wife the name of the person through whom she conceived but she was not telling his name. Then he consumed liquor and also made his wife drink the same but mixed with poison. When she fainted after drinking the liquor, he cut her into pieces. He also told the witness that her dead body was lying in the house. It has come further in his evidence that thereafter he sent Ramawatar Kol to village Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2) and the mother of the accused-appellant was sent for calling other respected people of the village. At about 4 00 p m. all these persons came on the spot and on their asking the accused-appellant again confessed before them about committing murder of his wife. On asking by the village people, the accused-appellant also gave a statement (Ex. P-3) in writing in that regard which bear the signatures of some of the respected people who were assembled there. The statement (Ex P-3) was later handed over to the village Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2 ). The village chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2) in his evidence fully supported the version of arjanath Singh (P. W. 3) and stated that in the presence of the village people and himself the accused-appellant had confessed having committed murder of his wife. He also stated having lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-2)naming the accused-appellant as offender. On going through the evidence of these witnesses, we do not find that there is any material so as to discredit their testimony. They have categorically stated that the confession made before them, both oral and in writing was voluntary and without any threat, coersion and inducement. The trial Judge discussed their evidence exhaustively and was also of the same opinion. They have categorically stated that the confession made before them, both oral and in writing was voluntary and without any threat, coersion and inducement. The trial Judge discussed their evidence exhaustively and was also of the same opinion. Therefore, we see no reason for not relying on the extra judicial confession made at two stages referred above by the accused-appellant as a clinching piece of evidence against him. For the reason that both these witnesses, in addition we may say, bad no reason to speak lie for falsely implicating the accused-appellant for the offence. ( 4. ) THE learned counsel appearing amicus curiae before us raised a point for our consideration that the judicial confession made before a gathering in which the village Chowkidar was aiso present would be inadmissible in evidence for the reason that the village Chowkidar would be deemed to be a policeman. In our opinion the contention is devoid of any substance as a confession made to a village Chowkidar is not a confession made to a policeman within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act because a village Chowkidar is not a police officer though he may be performing certain functions which are performed by police. This is obvious that a village Kotwar is appointed under section 230 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. His appointment rests with the Collector, Sub-Divisional officer, Assistant Collector I, Assistant Collector 2nd if especially empowered by the Collector in this behalf Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar who is empowered to exercise the powers of a Tahsildar under sub-section (2) of section 24 of the code. Under section 231 the Collector is empowered to fix remuneration of the Kotwar in accordance with the rules as may be made for that purpose under section 258 of the Code. Therefore, it is clear that Kotwars are absolutely under the control of the revenue officer and their functions are also prescribed under the rules. That being so, it can never be termed, at least at this stage, that a village Chowkidar can be termed as a police officer and any extra judicial confession made to him voluntarily could be held to be inadmissible. We are supported in our view by earlier decisions of this Court in cases of Bhagwatdin v. Emperor (AIR 1920 Nag. 167), Sukhwari Chamarin v. Emperor (AIR 1924 Nag. 29), Emperor v. Akia (AIR 1927 Nag. We are supported in our view by earlier decisions of this Court in cases of Bhagwatdin v. Emperor (AIR 1920 Nag. 167), Sukhwari Chamarin v. Emperor (AIR 1924 Nag. 29), Emperor v. Akia (AIR 1927 Nag. 222), Badrikishal end another v. State of M. P. (1973 MPLJ 83) and an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahto v. State of M. P. ( 1978 MPLJ 599 =crimiml Appeal No, 245 of 1973 decided on 18th March 1978), therefore, we hold that the extra judicial confession made to village Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2) cannot be said to be inadmissible for the reason that he was present in the gathering where the accused appellant alleged to have made the same. ( 5. ) A suggestion was made by the accused-appellant in his cross-examination that the document (Ex. P-3), extra judicial confession in his own handwriting having committed murder of his wife was got executed from him under threat by the village people which has been totally denied by village Chowkidar Shivdhari (P. W. 2) and Arjanath Singh (P. W. 3 ). To us it appears that the suggestion was thrown about the threat as a matter of escape from the confession. We see no reason to doubt the evidence of these two witnesses about which we have already made reference that they have denied use of any threat or duress upon the accused-appellant for executing the document, Ex. P-3. They had been consistent in their evidence that the accused-appellant executed the extra judicial confession (Ex. P-3) in writing voluntarily. It cannot be overlooked that the wife (deceased) was living with the accused-appellant at the relevant time and her murder was committed inside the house during the day time. It is not the suggestion that the crime was committed by the mother of the accused-appellant or by this brother or sister, who were teen-aged. There is no action on the part of the husband in bringing the fact of crime to the notice of the village people. It is not the suggestion that the crime was committed by the mother of the accused-appellant or by this brother or sister, who were teen-aged. There is no action on the part of the husband in bringing the fact of crime to the notice of the village people. He has tried to explain away that conduct which materially goes against him by adducing false evidence in his defence on the plea of alibi by examining Radheshyam (D. W. 1) and Brijlal (D. W. 2), who reside close to the house of the brother-in-law of the accused-appellant with whom the accused-appellant claimed to have stayed for about 3-4 days prior to the day of commission of the offence. We need not repeat the reason for rejection of their evidence which has been dealt with exhaustively by the trial court in paragraph 9 of its judgment and as such agreeing with that Court we are of the view that the evidence of defence witnesses is absolutely concocted and as such untrustworthy. That being so, the conduct of the accused-appellant gives strong corroboration to the extra judicial confession made by him. ( 6. ) WE have also the evidence of Ramkumar (P. W. 9) to the effect that the relations between the accused-appellant and the deceased were not cordial and it was with great reluctance the accused-appellant had brought back his wife (deceased) to his house after lapse of two years from her parental home under the pressure and persuasion of the elder men of the community Panchayat. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the present case the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused-appellant alone was responsible for committing murder of his wife and as such he was rightly held guilty by the trial Court for committing an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7. ) FOR the reason stated above, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.