BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants in the two appeals have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of Same Singh (to be described hereinafter as the deceased) on October 8, 1980, in furtherance of their common intention, by means of a lathi (M. O. I) by causing injuries sufficient in the ordinary court of nature to cause the death, as testified by the doctor (P. W. 1), who had conducted the autopsy. ( 2 ) THE finding recorded by the trial court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature has not been assailed at the hearing. The learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and H, who have figured as the witnesses to the occurrence, is not wortby of credence and the other evidence would not point to the guilt of any of the two appellants. The learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order of conviction as well-founded. ( 3 ) IT would be seen from the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 that there had been enmity bet when the appellant Raja and his nephew Bhasaa, who figures as other appellant, on the one hand and the deceased on the other as the latter had alienated the share of the mother and had appropriated sale money to himself. There had been a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the parties. ( 4 ) THE trial court bas not been oblivious of the fact that P. Ws. 7 and 8, who have figured as the witnesses to the assault on the person of the deceased, are child witnesses besides being the daughters of the deceased. Their evidence has been carefully scrutinised by the trial court. Both the witnesses have clearly testified that the two appellants had assaulted the deceased and P. W. 7 has identified the M. O. I as the weapon of attach. As their evidence would show, first the appellant Raja assaulted by means of M. O. I and thereafter the other appellant snatched away M. O. I from the hands of Raja and continued the assault on the person of the deceased. Nothing bas been brought out in the cross examination of the P. Ws. As their evidence would show, first the appellant Raja assaulted by means of M. O. I and thereafter the other appellant snatched away M. O. I from the hands of Raja and continued the assault on the person of the deceased. Nothing bas been brought out in the cross examination of the P. Ws. 7 and 8 to discredit their testimony. ( 5 ) P. W. 7 had immediately informed P. W. 6 about the occurrence and when P. W. 6 went towards the spot, she had noticed the two appellants going away from the spot while the appellant Bhasala had M. O. I. with him. In the course of investigation, M. O. I. had been recovered on the statement made by the appellant Raja M. O. III, a napkin and M. O. IV, a half shirt had been recovered from the possession of the appellant Raja in the course of investigation and seized and on chemical and seriological tests, human blood in M. O. III and blood origin of which could not be determined was detected in M. O. IV. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid evidence would undoubtedly establish the case of the prosecution that the two appellants had assaulted the deceased to death in furtherance of their common intention and that they had caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 7 ) THERE was, in addition, the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant Raja before P. Ws. 2, 3, 10 and 11. As P. Ws. 2 and 3 had not stated about this in their examination under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their- evidence in this regard is not to be accepted. It is in the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11 that appellant Raja had stated before them that he and other appellant had assaulted the deceased. By making such a statement, the appellant Raja has implicated himself while implicating the co-accused. His confessional statement would be rendered admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Confessional statement of a co-accused is not evidence as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. By making such a statement, the appellant Raja has implicated himself while implicating the co-accused. His confessional statement would be rendered admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Confessional statement of a co-accused is not evidence as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. In dealing with a case against an accused person, the Court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. (See A. I. R. 1964 Supreme Court 1184 ). In the instant case, confession of the coaccused Raja would be evidence against him and would lend assurance to the other evidence against the appellant Bhasala. ( 8 ) BOTH the appellants had assaulted the deceased by means of M. O. I, which could cause his death and the appellant Bhasala had trampled over the chest of the deceased. The conduct of the two appellants preceding, attending and following the occurrence would lead to a reasonable conclusion that with the common intention of causing the death of the deceased, they had caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. The order of conviction recorded against the appellants under Section 302 read, with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is accordingly legal and justified. Both the appeals fait and are dismissed. Appeals dismissed. .