Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19/06/1985, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under S. 302. I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE incident, which led to the prosecution of the appellant took place on 7/04/1984, in the morning at about 4. 00 a. m. when one Mst. Hakra was murdered by the accused-appellant in her house situated in village Chitri. Accused was seen by PW 7 Soma while he was entering the house of Mst. Hakra armed with a Dhariya when PW 7 Soma was going to clear the call of the nature. After the entrance of the accused in the house of Hakra, he heard some noise of inflicting injuries and when PW 7 Soma was returning after clearing the call of the nature, he saw the accused coming out from the house armed with a Dhariya. The written report of the incident was lodged by PW 7 Soma at Police Station, Chitri at about 8. 15 a. m. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in support of its case, examined seventeen witnesses. PW 1 Ramji, PW 5 Ditiya, PW 9 Mawji, PW 11 Dhoolji and PW 16 Poonja are the Motbir witnesses. PW 1 Ramji is the witness to the recovery of the dead body of Mst. Hakra, PW 8 Ditiya is the Sarpanch of village Chitri, in whose presence sample soil and blood-stained soil were recovered vide Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8. PW 9 Mawji is a witness to the recovery of the dead body of Hakra vide Ex. P. 5. He is also a witness to the preparation of the site plan Ex. P. 6 and the recovery of the soil vide Ex. P. 7. PW 11 Dhoolji is the Motbir witness regarding the recovery of the Dhariya and PW 16 Poonja is the Motbir witness to the recovery of the Dhoti of the accused-appellant. This Dhoti, at the time of recovery, was found bloodstained. PW 2 Heera - the daughter of the deceased - has been produced to prove the motive for the murder. PW 11 Dhoolji is the Motbir witness regarding the recovery of the Dhariya and PW 16 Poonja is the Motbir witness to the recovery of the Dhoti of the accused-appellant. This Dhoti, at the time of recovery, was found bloodstained. PW 2 Heera - the daughter of the deceased - has been produced to prove the motive for the murder. The motive given by the prosecution in the case is that about a month before the accused came to her mother and asked her that she should cure his eyes. This witness has also stated that she had gone in the morning at about 4. 00 a. m. to collect Mahuwa and at that time her mother was sleeping on a cot. Bhagu - her brother - accompanied her. At about 8. 00 a. m. she sent Bhagu to the house as he had to go to school. Bhagu went to the house and returned back and informed her that there was blood on the cot of her mother. She returned to the house. At that time her mother was dead on account of the injuries received by her. She cried and hearing her cries, PW 7 Soma came there and informed her that he had seen accused Haliya entering the house of the deceased. She has also stated that accused Haliya came to her house a month before to meet her mother and wanted to mortgage his field with her mother, but her mother refused to advance money to him. PW 4 Bhika is not a material witness. He has only stated that he was sleeping and had not seen the occurrence. PW 5 Dr. Surendra Kumar Mathur was the medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Sagwara, who conducted the postmortem examination on the deadbody of Hakra and found on her person three incised wounds. According to him, all these injuries ware ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW 3 Roop Chand Warder, PW 6 Mangi Lal Jailor and PW 10 Mohammed Yakub, Head Warder are the employees of the State Government and were posted at the District Jail, Doongarpur, before whom the accused made extra-judicial confessions. PW 12 Shri Chandra Dutt Trivedi is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, before whom the accused was produced by the jail authorities along with Ex. P. 10. PW 12 Shri Chandra Dutt Trivedi is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, before whom the accused was produced by the jail authorities along with Ex. P. 10. The accused-appellant was arrested before this witness by A. S. I. Doongar Singh and PW 14 Gopal Singh, Head Constable made the recoveries of the Dhoti from the person of the accused in the presence of Motbirs PW 8 Ditiya and PW 16 Poonja. PW 7 Soma lodged the First Information Report, but this witness has not supported the prosecution case during trial and he was declared hostile. PW 13 Alam Khan was the witness who wrote the report Ex. P. 3 on asking of PW 7 Soma, which was taken by Soma to the police station and on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged. PW 14 Gopal Singh is the Head Constable posted at Police Station, Chitri, who was also, the Malkhana Incharge. He recovered the Dhoti of the accused vide Ex. P. 8 in the presence of Motbirs Ditiya and Poonja. This Dhoti was found blood-stained. All the materials exhibited in this case, remained with him in a sealed condition since the time of their receipt till these were sent for F. S. L. Examination. PW 15 Chokha Ram, constable, took the sealed articles for F. S. L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He has, also stated that he took these articles in the sealed condition and the seals on these articles remained intact till he handed-over the same for F. S. L. examination. PW 17 Gaj Singh was the Station House Officer, who conducted the investigation and after completion of investigation, presented the challan against the accused-appellant. ( 4 ) THERE is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case mainly rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the recoveries made at the instance of the accused and the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW 3 Roop Chand Warder, PW 6 Mangi Lal Jailor and PW 10 Mohammed Yakub - Head Warder of the District Jail, Dungarpur. PW 7 Soma is the witness who had seen the accused while entering the house of the deceased having a Dhariya in his hand and had seen him coming out of the house after sometime, but this witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. PW 7 Soma is the witness who had seen the accused while entering the house of the deceased having a Dhariya in his hand and had seen him coming out of the house after sometime, but this witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. The accused, after committing the murder of Mst. Hakra, covered a distance of about 60 kilometres and was found loitering in front of the gate of the District Jail, Dungarpur. On enquiry being made by PW 3 Roop Chand, the Warder at the main gate of the district jail, the accused informed him that he has killed a witch by a sword in village Chitri. He had, also, stated that the accused narrated the name of the which but he does not remember the same. The accused further asked him to put him in the judicial lock-up as he has killed the witch. He thereafter took the accused to Mohammed Yakub - Head Warder and produced him before the Jailer at about 9. 00 a. m. and the Jailor, in the morning at about 10. 00 a. m. , produced the accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. PW 6 Mangi Lal Jailor has stated that on 8-4-84, at about 9. 00 a. m. , when he came to his office, Roop Chand Warder came to him and informed him that a man, Haliya by name, has come who states that he has killed one witch. He thereupon called Haliya accused. Accused Haliya made a confession before him that he has killed one witch, namely Hakra (Haker) R/o village Chitri, as she has spoiled his eyes. He, also, informed him that he has killed her with sword and has thrown the sword in a well and has come directly on foot. He, also, requested him to put him in the jail. He asked the accused to go to the police, whereupon he told that the police personnel will give beating to him and, therefore, he wants that he may be put in the judicial custody. He thereafter called Head Warder Mohammed Yakub to take the accused at the residence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, whose house was situated behind the District Jail and gave information to the police. He thereafter called Head Warder Mohammed Yakub to take the accused at the residence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, whose house was situated behind the District Jail and gave information to the police. He identified the accused in the Court and stated that this was the person who came to him and made a confessional statement. PW 10 Mohammed Yakub - Head Wardur District Jail, Dungarpur, has stated that at about 9. 00 a. m. when he was on duty, the accused was found loitering out-side the jail. Roop Chand made enquiry from him why he was loitering there, upon which the accused informed that he has killed one lady and he may be put into the judicial lock-up. He thereafter wrote a report to this effect, which was sent by him and the same was produced along with the accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. ( 5 ) THESE three witnesses have specifically stated that the accused made confessional statement before them on the next day of the occurrence and confessed his guilt. These witnesses have, also, stated that the accused informed them that he had killed one witch, namely, Hakra of village Chitri. These witnesses are public servants and responsible officials/officer of the State Government, who have no enmity with the accused-appellant. They were neither inimical to the accused nor anything has been brought on record which may indicate that they have any motive for making untruthful statement against the accused. The evidence given by the these witnesses and the words used by the accused are clear, unambiguous and clearly show that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before the jail authorities does not appear to have been obtained by coercion, promise, threat or fear and appears to be voluntary in nature acknowledging his guilt. It is in precise and explicit words and plenary in character. Of course, there is some discrepancy in the use of weapon of offence. The accused, though narrated before these witnesses that he has killed Mst. Hakra, who was a witch, in village Chitri by sword but the recovery of Dariya has been made at the instance of the accused. So far as the murder part is concerned, that has been specifically, clearly and in unambiguous term has been admitted by the accused. The accused, though narrated before these witnesses that he has killed Mst. Hakra, who was a witch, in village Chitri by sword but the recovery of Dariya has been made at the instance of the accused. So far as the murder part is concerned, that has been specifically, clearly and in unambiguous term has been admitted by the accused. The minor discrepancy regarding the weapon of offence will not change the nature of the confession made by the accused and will not affect the credibility of these witnesses. ( 6 ) EVEN this extra-judicial confession made by the accused, stands corroborated from the recovery of the blood-stained Dhoti from the person of the accused. The accused was arrested before the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 8-4-84 by A. S. I. Doongar Singh and was handed over to Head Constable PW 14 Gopal Singh. PW 14 Gopal Singh recovered the Dhoti vide Ex. P-8 in the presence of the Motbir witnesses, namely, Ditiya and Poonja. This Dhoti was found blood-stained, which was sealed and later on sent for F. S. L. examination. Blood-stained soil from the place of the occurrence, Dhoti of the accused and Odni of the deceased Hakra and the Dhariya recovered at the instance of the accused, were sent for F. S. L. examination, which were found positive for human blood and all these articles were found stained with a group of blood. The presence of a group of blood, i. e. , the blood-group of the deceased, on the Dhoti of the accused, has not been explained by the accused, which shows that the accused was wearing the Dhoti at the time when he committed the murder of Mst. Hakra and, therefore, the Dhoti received some stains of blood. Dhariya - the weapon of the offence - was recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused from the bushes vide Ex. P-11 in the presence of Motbir witness PW 11 Dhoolji. This Dhariya was found containing a group of blood and was sealed. From these circumstances, i. e. , the extra judicial confession made by the accused, which stands corroborated from the recoveries of the Dhoti of the accused as well as the Dhariya, recovered at the instance of the accused, it is established that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. From these circumstances, i. e. , the extra judicial confession made by the accused, which stands corroborated from the recoveries of the Dhoti of the accused as well as the Dhariya, recovered at the instance of the accused, it is established that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. ( 7 ) IN the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.