B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE convicted prisoner assails the order of conviction recorded against him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the TCode) sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Samba ipur, after accepting the case of the prosecution that on March 4, 1979, the appellant assaulted his paternal uncle Ramakrushna Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) to death by dealing blows by means of an axe (M. O. I)owing to a land dispute. There was no witness to the occurrence. The order of conviction has been based mainly on the Judicial confession (Ext. 8) and the extra-judicial confession, I all deposed to by a co-villager (P. W. 3) the Ward member of the village (P. W. 5) and the brother of the appellant (P. W. 8 ). Besides, there was evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5, 7 and 8 to 10 that the appellant was whirling an axe and threatening the villagers to kill if they went near him inside the house of his brother Lokanath (P. W. 8) in whose house the deceased had been done to death. M. Os. I and IV, two axes, with suspected blood-stains, had been recovered and seized from, the house of the appellant and M. O. V. a Dhoti of the appellant, with suspected stains of blood, had also been seized in the course of investigation, as- testified by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 11 ). There was the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9, the brother and aunt respectively of the appellant, about the strained relationship between the appellant on the one hand and the deceased on the other because of a dispute over a piece of land. The learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, accepted the case of the prosecution and recorded the impugned order of conviction, ( 2 ) IT is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased had died a homicidal death and of this, there was the evidence of the doctor (P. W. V) Who had conducted the autopsy and had noticed four incised wounds on the Person of the deceased which had caused serious internal injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The question for consideration is as to whether the appellant was the author of the crime. The question for consideration is as to whether the appellant was the author of the crime. ( 3 ) WE may point out at the outset that in his petition of appeal, the appellant has taken a ground that he was insane at the time of occurrence. We have perused the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the statements made by the appellant before the Magistrate who recorded his confessional statement and before the trial court. There was no material to indicate or even remotely suggest that the appellant was suffering from insanity when he allegedly committed the offence so as to bring his case within the exception provided in section 84 of the Code. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not urged this ground and in our view, rightly so. ( 4 ) THERE was the evidence of the brother and aunt of the appellant (P. Ws. 8 and 9) with regard to a land dispute between the appellant and the deceased and this bad been admitted by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 5 ) IN his judicial confession recorded after due caution and observance of legal and procedural formalities, the appellant had clearly and categorically admitted that he bad killed the deceased and that he had handed over the axe which had been used by him in killing the deceased to the police officer. In order to be acted upon. the confession must be voluntary and true. There could be no doubt from the materials placed before the trial court that the appellant had made a voluntary statement before a Judicial Magistrate. That the confession was true would clearly appear from the other items of evidence on which reliance had been placed by the prosecution. ( 6 ) IT would be clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5, 7, 8. 9 and 10 that the appellant had been moving inside the house of his brother Lokanath and had been threatening the villagers not to come near him saying that they would be killed for which no one ventured to go inside the house and a batch of villagers went to the police station and lodged the first information report where after the Officer-in charge of the police station (P. W. 11) came to the spot and arrested the appellant. The appellant bad admitted in his statement recorded by the trial court (in answer to question No. 12) that he had threatened to kill all and had further stated (in answer to question No. 17) that as the villagers rushed to kill him, he chased to kill them with an axe. ( 7 ) P. Ws. 3, 5 and 8 had spoken about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. These witnesses had clearly stated that the appellant had admitted to have killed his uncle. As a matter of fact, in his statement before the trial court, the appellant had also admitted to have killed the deceased although according to him, he had done so as his uncle came to kill him as he had not been pulling on well with him. Thus in his statement before the trial court he had pleaded the right of private defence of his person. This was evidently an afterthought as neither in his judicial confession nor in the extra judicial confession made by him, as deposed to by P. Ws 3. 5 and H. the appellant had pleaded that he killed the deceased as the latter came to kill him. ( 8 ) IN State of U. P. v. M. K. Anthony1, it has been held. . . . . If the evidence of extra-judicial confession is reliable trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon. We have examined the evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5 and 8 with regard to the extra-Judicial confession made by the appellant. P. W. 3 was a covillager of the appellant and P. W. 5 was the Ward member of the village. P. W. 8 was no other person than the brother of the appellant. There was no reason as to why these three witnesses would depose falsely against the appellant involving him in such a grave crime. We see no material discrepancies in their evidence with regard to the substantial parts of their evidence regarding the extrajudicial confession. It would appear to us that having killed his own paternal uncle the appellant made an extra-judicial confession in the presence of persons in whom he could repose confidence the evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5 and 8 in this regard is reliable and acceptable. It would appear to us that having killed his own paternal uncle the appellant made an extra-judicial confession in the presence of persons in whom he could repose confidence the evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5 and 8 in this regard is reliable and acceptable. ( 9 ) THE evidence with regard to the motive which had prompted the appellant to kill the deceased, the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before some of his co-villagers including his brother (P. W. 8), the judicial confession made by him as per Ext. 18. the fact that. he and the deceased were the only persons in the house where the dead body was lying when the appellant was threatening the villagers not to come there the recoveries of M. Os. I and IV from his house and the statements made by the appellant at the trial when he was examined by the learned Sessions Judge would lead one to the conclusion that the appellant was the author of the crime. ( 10 ) THE evidence would clearly indicate that owing to a land dispute. The appellant with the intention of causing the death of the deceased, caused injuries on vital parts on the person of the deceased by a sharp-cutting instrument sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant had rightly been convicted under section 302 of the Code. ( 11 ) CONVICTION and sentence sustained. .