JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - Bandaru Kisan, the Appellant herein, faced trail for the offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, upon consideration of the evidence held the Appellant guilty for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. It is against that order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case may be stated thus: Kandri Kisan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was the brother's wife of the Appellant. There was some dispute between them with regard to properties left by the deceased's husband. On 26.11.1998 at about 9 a.m. the deceased was on the paddy field when her labourer, namely, Karma Khadia, P.W. 6 was cutting some plants. In the meanwhile the Appellant being armed with a Tabli arrived there and inflicted three successive blows to the deceased which resulted in her death. Karma Khadia, P.W. 6 went to the nearest out-post along with Ainchi Kisan, P.w. 1 and lodged the report, Ext. II. On the basis of which a case u/s 302, Indian Penal Code was registered and after due investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the Appellant to stand his trial u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of denial and false implication. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charge examined as many as 13 witnesses and the learned trial Judge on scrutiny of the evidence accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the Appellant as hereinbefore stated. 5. From the 'materials on record we find that the prosecution pressed into service the following circumstances against the Appellant, namely: (i) The extrajudicial confession; (ii) The strained relationship of the deceased with the Appellant on account of property dispute; (iii) Production of weapon of offence, viz. Tabli M.O.I. by the Appellant at the out-post; and (iv) The find of human blood of group 'B' on the said Tabli which was the blood group of the deceased. 6. It would appear that Karma Khadia P.W. 6, the informant who was the sole eye-witness to the incident turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. So the prosecution principally relied upon the extrajudicial confession of the Appellant made to the hearing of Sumi Kisani P.W. 2. besides the circumstantial evidence as mentioned above. 6. It would appear that Karma Khadia P.W. 6, the informant who was the sole eye-witness to the incident turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. So the prosecution principally relied upon the extrajudicial confession of the Appellant made to the hearing of Sumi Kisani P.W. 2. besides the circumstantial evidence as mentioned above. Sumi Kisani P.W. 2 is admittedly the daughter of the deceased. At the relevant time while she was cutting paddy along with one Chandmani, she found the Appellant going towards his thrashing floor murmuring that he had cut and' killed the deceased. Hearing this she immediately went to the place of incident and found her mother (deceased) lying dead with bleeding injuries. It is contended by Shri J. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate, that such voluntary statement made by the Appellant would fall within the meaning of 'extrajudicial confessions u/s 24 of the Evidence Act and the same having been corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, would be sufficient to bring home the charge to the Appellant. In support of such submission, he relies upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of Sahoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. We have gone through the said decision, the ratio of which squarely applies to the present case. In the aforesaid case the evidence against the accused was that the witnesses saw the accused going out of the house soliloquizing that he had finished the deceased. A contention was raised that since the said statement was not made directly to the witnesses, the same cannot be termed as extrajudicial confession falling within Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Repelling such contention and relying upon the of quoted decision in AIR 1939 47 (Privy Council) and on interpretation of Section 24, their Lordships held that the statement of the accused, whether communicated or not, admitting the guilt would amount to confession. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the present case, we are persuaded to hold that the soliloquising of the Appellant while proceeding towards thrashing floor as deposed to by P.W. 2, would clearly come within the expression 'extrajudicial confession u/s 24 of the Evidence Act. 7. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the present case, we are persuaded to hold that the soliloquising of the Appellant while proceeding towards thrashing floor as deposed to by P.W. 2, would clearly come within the expression 'extrajudicial confession u/s 24 of the Evidence Act. 7. As to the existence of strained relationship between the deceased and the Appellant, we find from the evidence of P.W. 10, the son-in-law of the deceased, that relations between the both were not cordial on account of land dispute. 8. Coming to the other circumstantial evidence which prosecution pressed into service as a corroborative piece of evidence, we find from the statement of Bisnu Char an Misra, P.W. 13 (1.0.), that the Appellant voluntarily appeared in the police out-post and produced the Tabli, M.O.I. which he seized in presence of witnesses. The said Tabil was stained with human blood of group 'B', as is evident from the Chemical Analyse's Report, Ext. 15. The Saree and Saya of the deceased were also sent for chemical examination and as the chemical Examiner's report reveals, those contained human blood of group 'B'. So the find of human blood of group 'B', which is the blood group of the deceased, in the Tabli is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence which lends assurance to the statement of P.W. 2 about the extrajudicial confession made by the Appellant. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the seizure of Tabli as deposed to by P.,W. 13, could not have been believed without there being corroboration by the seizure witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 4 and 5. We have scrutinised the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses and though P.W. 5 did not support the factum of seizure. P.W. 4 however stated that in his presence the police seized that at the out-post and he appended his signature to the seizure list. Even assuming that the factum of seizure of the Tabli was not supported by independent witnesses, as urged by the learned Counsel for Appellant, yet the evidence of the Investigating Officer that he seized the Tabli on production by the Appellant cannot be brushed aside by terming him as an interested witness. Even assuming that the factum of seizure of the Tabli was not supported by independent witnesses, as urged by the learned Counsel for Appellant, yet the evidence of the Investigating Officer that he seized the Tabli on production by the Appellant cannot be brushed aside by terming him as an interested witness. In this connection it is opposite to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1978 SC 1511 , where the Court held that if the evidence of the Investigating Officer who recovered the material object is convincing, the evidence as to recovery cannot be rejected on the ground that the seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. 9. Regard being had to the evidence of P.W. 2 and the circumstantial evidence as discussed above, we would hasten to hold that it was the Appellant who inflicted blows with the Tabli M.O.I. to the deceased and caused her death. 10. Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. P.K. Mohanty, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed