JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Appellant, having been convicted of the offence u/s 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 12.1.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1994. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the accused-appellant, deceased Kartika Sabar and P.W. 4 Ratnakar Sabar alias Barbati are three brothers. There was a partition amongst the brothers and the deceased was enjoying the ancestral land, whereas the Appellant was in possession of the old house. A day before the date of occurrence there was a discussion among all the three brothers with regard to division of old rafters of the old house. On 28.2.1994 at about 6 a.m. the deceased went to collect the old rafters from the house asking his wife to follow him. After some time his wife (P.W. 2), followed him and while the deceased was collecting the old rafters, the Appellant dealt blows by means of an axe repeatedly and the deceased fell down with his face downwards and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. When P.W. 2, wife of the deceased, started protesting, the Appellant chased to assault her, but she ran away to her house and informed the matter to the other brother (P.W. 4) Ratnakar Sabar. Thereafter P.W. 4 went to the Ward Member and told him about the incident and also went to call other co-villagers. When P. Ws. 1,3 and 4 went to see the spot and the dead body, they met the Appellant on the way who with folded hands confessed that he had killed his younger brother, the deceased. The Ward Member (P.W. 1) lodged the F.I.R. after which investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was submitted. 3. The defence plea is one of denial of the entire prosecution case. 4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the Ward Member. P.W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. P.W. 3 is a witness to leading to discovery of the weapon of offence. P.W. 4 is the younger brother of the deceased as well as the Appellant. P.W. 5 is a police Constable. P.W. 6 is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. P.W. 3 is a witness to leading to discovery of the weapon of offence. P.W. 4 is the younger brother of the deceased as well as the Appellant. P.W. 5 is a police Constable. P.W. 6 is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 8 is the doctor who performed autopsy over the bead body of the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge accepting the extra-judicial confession coupled with leading to discovery of the weapon of offence and the evidence of P.W. 8, found the Appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder. 5. Shri R. Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, challenged the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the extra-judicial confession which has been retracted during examination of the Appellant u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be the sole basis for conviction and in absence of any other material corroborating such extra-judicial confession, the order of conviction cannot be maintained. He further submitted that the exra-judicial confession said to have been made before P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 is not believable and as such the same should not be accepted. He drew the attention of the Court to the depositions of all the three witnesses and submitted that the said three witnesses contradict each other so far as it relates to the statement made by the Appellant before them at the time of making such confession. On the basis of such contradiction Shri Tripathy submitted that none of the three witnesses can be said to be telling the truth and therefore, the so, called extra-judicial confession made before the three witnesses cannot be acted upon. He further submitted that the evidence with regard to statement of the Appellant leading to discovery of the weapon of offence also suffers from contradictions if one looks to the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 7 and, therefore, should not be accepted. Shri Tripathy also submitted that no human blood having been found on the weapon of offence as well as the wearing apparels of the deceased, there is no credible evidence available on record for sustaining the order of conviction. 6. Shri Tripathy also submitted that no human blood having been found on the weapon of offence as well as the wearing apparels of the deceased, there is no credible evidence available on record for sustaining the order of conviction. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the retracted extra-judicial confession is supported by other, corroborating evidence, such as leading to discovery of the weapon of offence and the medical report. 7. Though the prosecution examined P.W. 2, the.wife of the deceased, as an eye-witness, it appears that the said witness in fact is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. She in her examination-in-chief though stated that she found the Appellant assaulting her husband by means of an axe, in cross-examination she admitted that by the time she arrived at the spot, the Appellant had already killed.her husband and that her husband was lying with his head towards north and face downwards, In view of such admission in the cross-examination, the evidence of P.W. 2 claiming to be an eye-witness to the occurrence cannot be accepted. 8. So far as the extra-judicial confession is concerned, no doubt the same has been retracted during examination of the Appellant u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure P.W. 1, the Ward Member, in h is evidence has stated that he along with P. Ws. 3 and 4 was going to the spot after receipt of the information about the incident and on the way the Appellant met them with folded hands and confessed that he had killed his younger brother. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve him. Similarly, P.W. 3 also stated that on his way to the place of occurrence with P. Ws. 1 and 1, the Appellant met them and with folded hands confessed to have killed his brother. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 4 who is none else than the brother of the accused as well as the deceased. Nothing has been brought out in the cross?examination of the said two witnesses to disbelieve the said statement. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant tried his best to bring to the notice of the Court some minor contradictions, we are of the view that those contradictions are not at all material so as to reject the evidence of the three witnesses with 'regard to extra-judicial confession. 9. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant tried his best to bring to the notice of the Court some minor contradictions, we are of the view that those contradictions are not at all material so as to reject the evidence of the three witnesses with 'regard to extra-judicial confession. 9. Law is well settled that in case of retracted extra-judicial confession, as a matter of prudence, the Courts look for corroboration from other sources. So far as the present case is concerned, P.W. 3 in his evidence has stated that while in Police custody the Appellant stated before the Investigating Officer in his presence that he could give recovery of the axe, the weapon of offence, and stating thus he took the police to the house of one Laxmidhar where he was staying at the relevant time and gave recovery of the axe which was seized by the I.O.. The I.O. who has been examined as P.W. 7 has also stated in his evidence that after he arrested the Appellant and while in custody the Appellant made a statement that he had kept the weapon of offence, i.e., the axe, in the house of Laxmidhar where he was residing then and led him to the place and in presence of witnesses gave recovery of the axe which was seized by him. There is nothing to disbelieve the said two witnesses with regard to leading to discovery of the weapon of offence. It further appears from the evidence of P.W. 3 that at the time of seizure the axe had blood stains. But the Chemical Examiner submitted a report saying that the stains had deteriorated and therefore, no opinion could be given. Much stres was put by the learned Counsel for Appellant that in absence of blood stains on the axe it cannot be said that the said axe was used for committing the offence. We are not in a position to accept the said contention in view of the fact that P.W. 3 in his evidence has specifically stated that at the time of seizure the axe contained blood stains, but at the time of examination by the Chemical Examiner the stains had deteriorated to an extent where it was not possible on the part of the Chemical Examiner to form an opinion. Apart from that, the doctor who' conducted the post-mortem examination has opined that the injuries are possible by the said axe. Therefore, we are not in a position to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for Appellant that M.O.I cannot be the axe which is said to have been used for assaulting the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 8 also further shows that there were incised wounds on the body of the deceased and he was of the opinion that all those injuries could be caused by the axe. We, therefore, while accepting the extra-judicial confession, though retracted, find that such extra-judicial confession has been corroborated by other evidence, such as leading to discovery of the weapon of offence, incised wounds found on the body of the deceased which could be caused by an axe as well as the evidence of P.W. 3 that blood stains were found on the axe at the time of its seizure. 10. In view of such evidence available on retord, we are not inclined to interfere With the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 11. Before parting with the case we must record our appreciation with regard to efforts made by Shri R. Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, in preparing the case and advancing arguments. Final Result : Dismissed