B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) FOR his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code), the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of Sessions which has accepted the case of the prosecution that on December 22, 1981 at about 5 p m. after a quarrel between Madan (to be described hereinafter as Tthe deceased) on the one hand and the appellant and his brother Budura (P. W. 1) on the other regarding the damage to the vegetable plants of the deceased by the cattle of P. W. 1, the appellant dealt blows on the person of the deceased by means of an axe (M. O. 1) and killed him. The prosecution had mainly relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 who had figured as witnesses to the occurrence and that of P. Ws. 7 and 8 who had testified about an extrajudicial confession made by the appellant at a meeting of the Panchayat on the day following. The trial court did not accept the evidence of P. W. 3 for the reasons stated in its judgment. It has accepted the evidence of P. W. 1 and that of P. Ws. 7 and 8 and has held the appellant guilty of the charge of murder. ( 2 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8 would itself show that the statement allegedly made by the appellant at the meeting of the Panchayat would not amount to a confession and that the evidence of P. W. 1, besides being inherently incredible and interested, has not found assurance from any other evidence and therefore, should not be made the basis of an order of conviction. We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate on the questions raised on behalf of the appellant. ( 3 ) THE deceased had died a homicidal death. Of this, there is no dispute. ( 4 ) AS has rightly been urged on behalf of the appellant, P. Ws. 7 and 8 had stated in the cross- examination that the appellant had told them that as the deceased wanted to shoot an arrow at P. W. 1, in order to save his brother Budura (P. W. 1), he assaulted the deceased by means of an axe. 7 and 8 had stated in the cross- examination that the appellant had told them that as the deceased wanted to shoot an arrow at P. W. 1, in order to save his brother Budura (P. W. 1), he assaulted the deceased by means of an axe. It has been a well-settled principle of law that in order to constitute a confession, the statement made by the accused must, in terms, admit the commission of an offence or substantially all the facts which constitute an offence. If the statement contains some exculpatory fact which, if accepted, would negative his guilt, that would not amount to a confession. On the instant case, the appellant bad allegedly made a statement before P. Ws. 7 and 8 that in order to save the life of his brother, he had dealt blows on and killed the deceased by means of an axe in exercise of the right of private defence of his brother which, under the law, he was entitled to do and thus his statement would not amount to a confession in the eye of law. ( 5 ) THE only other evidence is that of P. W. 1. True it is that he is no other person than the brother of the appellant But the fact remains that he bad also been named as an accused in the first information report lodged by P. W. 6, the father of the deceased. On his own showing, P. W. 1 had disclosed the occurrence for the first time at the meeting of the Panchayat on the day following the day of occurrence. The instinct of self-preservation would be upper-most in his mind 10 order to save himself. In these circumstances, the evidence of P. W. 1 requires very careful scrutiny before its acceptance and in the circumstances of the case, it is proper and prudent to seek some corroboration of the evidence of this solitary witness to the occurrence. ( 6 ) AS has been submitted at the Bar, there is no evidence to corroborates that of P. W. 1. No incriminating articles had been recovered from the person or possession of the appellant. P. W. 4 had collected the axe (M. O. 1) from the house of the appellant and had kept it which had been seized in the course of investigation. No human blood was detected in it on chemical examination. No incriminating articles had been recovered from the person or possession of the appellant. P. W. 4 had collected the axe (M. O. 1) from the house of the appellant and had kept it which had been seized in the course of investigation. No human blood was detected in it on chemical examination. That apart, there was no evidence that M. O. 1 was the weapon of attack. On the other band, it is the definite statement of P. W. 2, the widow of the deceased, that M. O. 1 was not the axe which was in the hands of the appellant whom she had seen after the occurrence. ( 7 ) AS alleged by the prosecution and as would appear from the evidence, the quarrel with regard to the damage to the plants of the deceased had occurred between the deceased on the one hand and P. W. 1 on the other. Thus P. W. 1 would have a grudge against the deceased. ( 8 ) AS has been indicated above, the statement of the appellant before P. Ws. 7 and 8 was that in order to save the life of his brother Budura (P. W. 1), he had dealt some blows. In this regard, P. W. 1 also has made some statements. According to this witness, the deceased was under the influence of liquor and he was bolding a bow and four arrows and had been declaring to take revenge by killing as his (P. W. 1) cow had damaged his vegetable garden. P. W. 1 has, however, added a statement that the deceased had not done any harm to him. The indications are that P. W. 1 has suppressed the truth at the trial and has not given a true and complete picture as to what had happened. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, it would be unsafe and hazardous to accept the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 1 who must be termed to be an interested witness in the circumstances of the case and hase a conviction thereon. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant must be set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him thereunder are set aside. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant must be set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him thereunder are set aside. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed. .