Short Note : 1. Appellant is said to be the illegitimate son of deceased-Vestia. What is said is that the appellant was living at the house of the deceased a few days prior to the incident but later he was turned out by the deceased and so he was living with his maternal-uncle. The allegation is that on 27.8.1974 appellant was grazing his bullocks on the "Seda" of the filed of the deceased-Vestia to which the deceased objected and even told him that it does not belong to his father. At this the appellant is said to have inflicted Khalniya blows on Vestia resulting in death on the spot. 2. Appellant is said to have run away from there. He met Jogadiya (PW-1) on the way and made an extra-judicial confession before him about his having killed his father Vestia. Thereafter, Jogadiya (PW-1) informed about it, from amongst others to Dhediya (PW-2), Motla (PW-3) and Kishna (PW-9) about this. They all then went to the spot and saw Vestia lying dead. 3. There is no direct evidence in the instant case. The main evidence against the appellant is that of an extra-judicial confession made before Jogadiya (PW-1) which has been retracted by the appellant. Jogadiya (PW-1) in his evidence stated that the appellant had confessed before him about his having committed the murder of Vestia and on inquiry had also given out the reason for that murder. He could not, however, catch the appellant as he had a trouble in his leg. In his cross-examination he was questioned about the confession having been obtained by pressurising him and also by giving him certain inducements. He has denied all those suggestions. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination which would in any manner show or suggest that Jogadiya (PW-1) had any reason or motive to falsely implicate the appellant. 4. The evidence of Jogadiya (PW-1) stands fully corroborated by the evidence of Dhediya (PW-2), Motla (PW-3) and Kishna (PW-9). There is no contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses. After learning about this incident, they had all gone to the spot to see the dead-body. Thereafter, Dhediya (PW-2) went to the police station and lodged the first information report which contains reference about the extra-judicial confession having been made by the appellant to Jogadiya (PW-1). 5. There is no contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses. After learning about this incident, they had all gone to the spot to see the dead-body. Thereafter, Dhediya (PW-2) went to the police station and lodged the first information report which contains reference about the extra-judicial confession having been made by the appellant to Jogadiya (PW-1). 5. Besides this, the appellant on being arrested had given an information on 28.8.1974 to the Sub-Inspector about the Khalniya having been hidden by him, which was recorded in Ex.P/13. Consequent to that information, the appellant had produced the Khalniya from a Khankhara tree near the field which was seized vide Ex.P/14. This information and the seizure have been proved by Natu (PW-4) and Sub-Inspector Valli Mohammad (PW-10). According to the report of the Chemical Analyser, blood stains were found on this Khalniya. However, the origin of the blood stains could not be determined due to disintegration. No doubt, this find of blood, is the origin of which could not be determined, is in itself is a weak type of evidence but it could be taken into account to lend assurance to the evidence of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Jogadiya (PW-1). 6. From the evidence in the instant case, we are satisfied that the conviction of the appellant can be upheld on the evidence of extra-judicial confession. Appeal dismissed.