JUDGMENT : S. C. Datta, J. - This is an appeal from Jail. The appellant Baikuntha Juanga, faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar under Section 302 I.P.C., for committing murder of one Pranabandhu Juanga on 18.9.1990. On conclusion of trial the appellant was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant and the deceased had an ill-feeling over cultivation of a plot of land belonging to Jyethu Juanga. The appellant insisted that deceased Pranabandhu should give up cultivating of that land as he had already paid money to the owner for cultivations it. On 18.9.1990 the deceased was returning home along with his nephew P.W.1 Kunja Juanga. While they reached Dholakanta Nala, the appellant came out of a bushy areas and dealt repeated blows on the face and back of the deceased Pranabandhu with a bala causing his instantaneous death. After having done to death, the appellant arrived at the Court of Sessions Judge, Keonjhar together with blood stained bala and gave out that he had committed murder of Pranabandhu where upon with the help of Court Sub-Inspector the appellant was sent to the Police-Station. The weapon of offence namely, Bala was seized by the police and the appellant was arrested. The police took-up investigation, which eventually resulted in submission of charge-sheet. 3. The defence was a plea of denial. 4. As many as thirteen witnesses were examined in this case. Of the witnesses, Kunja Juanga (P.W.1) is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. He happens to be the nephew of the deceased. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of this witness as well as upon the extra-judicial confession purported to have been made by the appellant before P.Ws 2,3,6,9 arid 12 to secure conviction. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version of the case and convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 5. The only point that fall for determination is whether the trial Court was justified in (sic) conviction upon the oral testimony of sole eye-witness and also upon the extra-judicial confession purported to have been made by the appellant. 6. As noticed earlier, the conviction rests solely upon the oral testimony of P.W.1 and the extra-judicial confession purported to have been made by the appellant to P.Ws. 2,3,6,9 and 12. P.W.1 is the nephew of the deceased Pranabandhu. 6. As noticed earlier, the conviction rests solely upon the oral testimony of P.W.1 and the extra-judicial confession purported to have been made by the appellant to P.Ws. 2,3,6,9 and 12. P.W.1 is the nephew of the deceased Pranabandhu. He has clearly stated that while he was returning home along with the deceased, they were waylaid by the appellant who suddenly came out of a bushy area with a bala in his hand and inflicted blows to the face of the deceased and on his back by the sharp side of bala with the result that the deceased fell down on the ground. This witness fled from the place and went towards the forest area. It has been elicited from P.W.1 that he was following the deceased Pranabandhu from behind at a distance of 5 feet. It is noticed from his evidence that after the assault Pranabandhu fell down inside a ditch with face downwards. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant questions the trustworthiness of this witness on the ground that he has not informed the incident to the inmates of the house of the deceased Pranabandhu. It is in his evidence that the ran towards forest out of fear immediately after the incident and returned home on the following morning. It is of course true that he is the nephew of the deceased. Nevertheless the fact remains that he has narrated the prosecution case in a straight forward manner. We think that his evidence cannot be brushed aside simply because he happens to be the nephew of the deceased. We have scrutinised his evidence thoroughly and we have no hesitation to doubt the veracity of his statement. 7. Now turning to the extra-judicial confession purported to have been made by the appellant, we find that the appellant had rushed to the Court of District Judge, Keonjhar on 19.9.1990 and made a clean breast of everything. P.W.9 is an orderly of the District Judge, Keonjhar. We find from his evidence that the appellant disclosed to him that he had killed a man with the bala. We find further from his evidence that on the direction of the Bench Clerk he approached the Court Sub-Inspector who came and took charge of the accused and the Bala. P.W.9 is an orderly of the District Judge, Keonjhar. We find from his evidence that the appellant disclosed to him that he had killed a man with the bala. We find further from his evidence that on the direction of the Bench Clerk he approached the Court Sub-Inspector who came and took charge of the accused and the Bala. It is of course true that the appellant did not tell the name of the victim to this witness who works as an Orderly to the District Judge, Keonjhar. But there is nothing to indicate that this witness who happens to be the Orderly of the District Judge would falsely implicate the present appellant. P.W.2 is another witness to whom the appellant is said to have demanded a sum of Rs. 20/- for meeting the travelling expenses for going to Court for making confession. We notice from the evidence of P.W.2 that the appellant confessed before him that he had killed Pranabandhu by means of Bala which he was carrying in his hand. This witness noticed slight blood in the Bala. This witness is a co-villager and his house stands at a distance of 500 feet away from the house of Pranabandhu. Appellant calls him as brother by village courtesy. It is difficult to believe that this witness will depose falsely against the appellant. P.W.3 is also a co-villager whom the appellant used to address as Kaka by village courtesy. It is noticed from his evidence that the accused suddenly appeared before him with a Bala in his hand and disclosed that he was going to Court to make confession after killing Pranabandhu. This witness also noticed stains of blood in the Bala. Likewise, P.W. 6 tells the Court that the appellant confessed before him that he had killed Pranabandhu and was going to Court to surrender. If the evidence of these witnesses is read together with the evidence of P.W.9, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of Pranabandhu. We have scrutinised the evidence of these witnesses with extreme care and caution and we have no hesitation to hold that their evidence is quite trustworthy. 8. If the evidence of these witnesses is read together with the evidence of P.W.9, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of Pranabandhu. We have scrutinised the evidence of these witnesses with extreme care and caution and we have no hesitation to hold that their evidence is quite trustworthy. 8. P.W.4 is the Assistant Surgeon who held the post-mortem examination ever the dead body of the deceased on 21.9.1990 and noticed the following:- (i) An incised wound 12" length x 6" depth extending to the abdominal chest cavity situated over the left side of the back extending longitudinally from the lower end of the scapula with stomach, left lung, spleen protruding through the incised wound. The left lung being cut up to one inch depth. On dissection blood clots found adherence through the margins of the incised wound. (ii) An incised wound extending from the middle of the left cheek 3" front and 8" behind the left ear (length 11", breadth 2" and depth 3") runs longitudinally cutting muscles of face, left ear pinna, scalp with the under line occipital skull bone, membranes and brain tissue. Brain tissue putrification started. (iii) An incised wound 6" x 2" x 3" extending from left side of the nose upper lip, lower lip cutting the under line maxilar bone and mandibular bone of the left side. In entire thickness of both the bones. 9. According to the Assistant Surgeon, the cause of death was due to the vital organ like brain and lungs and shock and haemorrhage. The injuries were antemortem in nature. According to him all the injuries individually and collectively can cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and regard being had to the oral testimony of P.W.1 and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, we have no hesitation to had that the appellant was solely responsible for causing the death of the deceased Pranabandhu. Therefore, we find and hold that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Judge and no interference is sought for. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. A. Pasayat, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed