JUDGEMENT Mongia, C. J. :- The appellant Shri Purna Bahadur Bhujel was tried under Section 302, I.P.C. for allegedly committing murder by causing the death of one Kuchi Subba on 27-1-1995 by hitting him on his head by an axe. After trial he was convicted under S. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the judgment of the trial Court dated 27-9-1996. This appeal was filed through Jail and Shri R. Goswami, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. Even during the trial, the accused was provided legal aid by appointing an advocate at the expense of the State Government to defend him. 2. In this case there is no eye-witness. The conviction has been based on the following circumstances : (1) Extra judicial confession made by the accused of having committed the offence before PW 3 (Shri Naresh Kumar Bhojel), PW 4 (Shri Dilip Bhojel) and PW 5 (Shri Tali Lalin). (2) When the charge was framed against the accused under S. 302, I. P. C. and read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded guilty to the charge. However, despite the plea of guilt, the trial Court in its discretion put the accused to trial under S. 229, Cr. P. C. and (3) The admission of the guilt by the accused while making statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28-1-1995 a written complaint was received by Itanaga Police from Shri Tali Lalin (PW 5) to the effect that on 27-1-95 in the early morning he had engaged two labourers, namely, Purna Bahadur Bhujel (the accused) and Kuchi Subba (the deceased) for collection of fire wood from the jungle towards zoo side. On 28-1-95 at about 6 p.m. some labourers, namely, Shri Dilip Bhujel and Shri Naresh Bhujel came to his house at Ganga Basti along with the accused Purna Bahadur Bhujel and reported that on 27-1-95 Kucha Subba was murdered by the accused Purna Bahadur Bhujel with an axe while collecting fire-wood. Itanagar Police registered a case under S. 302, I.P.C. 4. Itanagar Police registered a case under S. 302, I.P.C. 4. Before coming to the deposition of the witnesses, it may be observed here that on 28-8-95, the following charge was framed against the accused which was read over and explained to him :- 'I, Amit Yadav, Sessions Judge, District Papum Pare, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh hereby charge you Purna Bahadur Bhujel as follows :- That you, on or about the 27th day of January, 1995 morning hrs committed murder by causing the death of Kuchi Subba, by hitting on his head by an axe and thereby committed an offence punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court and I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge. Dated this 28th day of August, 1995." The accused-appellant pleaded guilty and the learned trial Court recorded as under:- 'Accused has accepted charges and pleaded guilty but trial will be held." 5. In all prosecution examined 7 witnesses. P.W. 1 Shri Gobin Biswakarma only states that the accused as well as the deceased were engaged by Shri Tali Lalin as labourers for collecting wood and both of them, the accused and the deceased, went to the jungle to collect wood. Since they did not return, in the evening they went to look for them but could not find them and again in the next morning he along with 3 other persons, went again in search of the two persons and found the dead body of the deceased but could not find Purna Bahadur Bhujel, the accused. They came back to call people from the house of Bhujel and others to collect the dead body of Kuchi Subba. 6. P.W. 2 Shri Phahidhar Bhujel is also a labourer and he states that he along with others went to find out the accused and the deceased from the jungle. His deposition is in the same line as the deposition of P.W. 1. 7. P.W. 3 is Shri Naresh Kumar Bhujel. He deposes that on 28-1-1995 he saw the dead body of Kuchi Subba lying in the jungle, which was around 3 to 4 KMs inside the jungle from the zoo. The body was found with head injury. There was an axe lying near the body. 7. P.W. 3 is Shri Naresh Kumar Bhujel. He deposes that on 28-1-1995 he saw the dead body of Kuchi Subba lying in the jungle, which was around 3 to 4 KMs inside the jungle from the zoo. The body was found with head injury. There was an axe lying near the body. This was around 5 a.m. Around 2-3 p.m. he along with others also saw Purna Bahadu Bhujel coming out of the jungle. According to him, the accused told him and Dilip Bhujel (P.W. 4) that he had killed Kuchi Subba. He and others then sent the accused to the police station. Not a single question was put to him in the cross-examination regarding the accused having made extra-judicial confession before the witnesses when Dilip Bhujel (P.W. 4) was also present. 8. P.W. 4 Shri Dilip Bhujel is another witness who had accompanied P.W. 3. He also states that the accused had made a confessional statement before him and P.W. 3 that he had killed Kuchi Subba. They along with their master Shri Tali Lalin went to police along with the accused. Thereafter the police along with them went to the site of the incident. The police took the body as well as the axe in their possession. To this witness also no question was put in the cross-examination regarding the accused having made confessional statement in presence of the witness P.W. 3. 9. P.W. 5 is Shri Tali Lalin, who had engaged the accused and the deceased as labourers for collecting fire-wood. He states that two labourers, i.e., P.Ws. 3 and 4 brought the accused to him and he took him to the police station along with others and lodged the complaint (FIR). He states, 'I asked Purna Bahadur Bhujel, who killed Kuchi Subba and he told me that he killed Kuchi Subba by an axe." The brief cross-examination of the witness is in the following terms:- 'The labour when they caught Purna Bahadur Bhujel and brought him to me, the labour did not beat Purna Bahadur Bhujel. I do not know whether Purna Bahadur Bhujel was beaten earlier by my labour before he was brought to me. I asked Purna Bahadur Bhujel why he killed Kuchi Subba he told that it was out of anger. Purna Bahadur Bhujel has been working with me only for two days. Kuchi Suba did not work for me. I do not know whether Purna Bahadur Bhujel was beaten earlier by my labour before he was brought to me. I asked Purna Bahadur Bhujel why he killed Kuchi Subba he told that it was out of anger. Purna Bahadur Bhujel has been working with me only for two days. Kuchi Suba did not work for me. I do not have take recording of statement of Purna Bahadur Bhujel that he killed Kuchi Suba." 10. P.W. 6 is the doctor, who had performed the post-mortem on the deceased and found as many as 5 injuries on the person of the deceased. The injuries were as follows :- '(1) An incised wound 1 inch x 1 inch x cavity deep was present in right occipital parietal region 21/2 inches behind right ear with fracture occipital and bontal bones. And the brain matter was exposed. (2) Another incised wound measuring 2 x 1 inches x cavity deep exposing brain matter was also seen in right occipital parietal region 2 inches below vertex with fracture of both bones. (3) Incised wound measuring 1" x 11/2" x scull deep situated 2" above right eyebrow. (4) Incised wound measuring 1" x 1/2" skull keep was also seen in left pavicto-occipital region situated 11/2" postero-lateral to the vertex. (5) An incised wound of 31/2" x 1" x skull deep with fracture of parietal bone was seen extending from vertex to frontal bone in perietal bone in astero-lateral direction." According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock as a result of head injury. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Such injuries could be caused by an axe. 11. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. He states that he had taken in possession the dead body and tha axe from the spot. He prepared the inquest report and sent the body for post-mortem. He recorded the statement of various witnesses and they put in the challan. 12. In the statement u/S. 313, Cr. P.C., to the questions put to him, he had replied as under :- '1. Question :- As per evidence brought by the prosecution on record it reveals that on 27-1-1995 at morning time you assaulted one late Kuche Subba by an axe in a jungle near zoo sde itenagar causing his death on the spot. Is it correct? P.C., to the questions put to him, he had replied as under :- '1. Question :- As per evidence brought by the prosecution on record it reveals that on 27-1-1995 at morning time you assaulted one late Kuche Subba by an axe in a jungle near zoo sde itenagar causing his death on the spot. Is it correct? Answer :- Yes. 2. Question :- After the said occurrence you voluntary surrendered before the witnesses and made confession to them about your guilt. Is it correct? Answer :- Yes. 3. Question :- Do you want anything to state in your defence? Answer :- I should be pardoned as the deceased came to attack me." 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was a case of self-defence, inasmuch as, in the statement u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. the accused stated that he should be pardoned as the deceased came to attack him (the accused). He also referred to the cross-examination of P.W. 5 wherein the witness stated that when he asked the accused that why did he kill Kuchi Subba then he replied that it was out of anger. The counsel for the accused-appellant did not seriously challenge the extra-judicial confession made before P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the conviction recorded against the accused person by the trial Court. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 had no animosity whatsoever with the accused person. The accused confessed his guilt before them. Coupled with this fact there is the plea of guilt at the time when the charge was framed against the accused which was read over and explained to him. Still further he admits his guilt in the statement u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. Both the accused and the deceased were last seen together moving towards the jungle. There is no suggestion to P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 that the extra-judicial confession made before them was in any way not voluntary or was due to some coercion or pressure. The three witnesses corroborated each others statements. P.C. Both the accused and the deceased were last seen together moving towards the jungle. There is no suggestion to P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 that the extra-judicial confession made before them was in any way not voluntary or was due to some coercion or pressure. The three witnesses corroborated each others statements. In the State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 : (1985 Cri LJ 493), the Apex Court had observed that if the Court finds that the witnesses before whom the extra-judicial confession is made are credible and such confession was voluntary then conviction can be based on such extra-judicial confession. In the present case, we find that the trial Court was right in relying on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 coupled with the fact of last seen together. There is further corroboration that the axe was found at the spot and according to the doctors opinion the injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by an axe. Still more are the circumstances that the accused had pleaded guilty at the time of framing of the charge as also in his statement u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. 15. So far as the question of self-defence is concerned, there is no material on record to show that the accused had a right of self-defence. No such thing was stated by the accused in his confessional statement before P.Ws. 3 and 4. In the cross-examination of P.W. 5, it only came out that the accused had stated that he had done the deceased to death because of anger. Even taking the statement on face value, the accused cannot be said to have a right of self-defence. In his statement u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. also, it is stated by the accused that the deceased had attacked the accused. From this also the right of self-defence would not accrue to the appellant. There were no injuries on the body of the appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. The criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.