JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.9.2003 and 22.9.2003 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 182 of 2001, whereby the appellant having been found guilty of the charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant-wife of deceased-Dobro Barjo went to her maternal home at Chulapada (Orissa) leaving her little child along with her husband and returned on 16.01.2001 and when she went to her house, she saw the dead body of her husband lying in the courtyard in a pool of blood. She also saw injuries on the back of his head and on the forehead and cut injury above left eye and also black spots at the cheek of her husband. On query from her neighbours, she came to know that her husband was murdered by his brother-Singa Barjo (appellant herein) by means of Tangi. Thereafter, she went to village Munda-Borai Bhumij who informed her that in the morning of 16.01.2001, appellant - Singa Barjo had come to him and told that he had murdered his brother-Dobro Barjo by 'Tangi' blows on 15.01.2001 at about 8.00 p.m. when he was alone at his house. The Munda also told her that the appellant had murdered his brother-Dobra Barjo as his doe (female goat) used to destroy his 'Arhar crops'. The informant claimed that Singa Barjo had murdered her husband due to old enmity. Thereafter, fardbeyan of informant-Raimuni Kui was read over and explained to her who having found it correct put her RTI on the same and Munda-Borai Bhumij and one Krishna Chandra Biruwa have put their signatures on the fardbeyan (Ext. 2 & 2/1) as witnesses. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan (Ext.5) of the informant-Raimuni Kui, Majhgaon (Kumardungi) P.S. Case No. 4 of 2001 was registered by P.W. 8-Sub Inspector of Police (Mr. T.N. Besra) for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and after registering the case, the investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report (Ext.3/1) of the deceased, the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination. 4. T.N. Besra) for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and after registering the case, the investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report (Ext.3/1) of the deceased, the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination. 4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and thereafter cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The defence version is completely denial of the charges levelled against the appellant. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 8 witnesses, including the doctor and the Investigating Officer. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased-Dobro Barjo and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge. 6. Mrs. Alpana Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has strenuously assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- (i) There is no eye witness to the occurrence and though the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of events are not complete. (ii) The informant has not been examined in this case which itself vitiates the case of the prosecution. (iii) There are major contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the investigating officer relating to the place of seizure of Tangi. (iv) Conviction of the present appellant, which is based upon the extra-judicial confession made by him before PW-2-Munda is illegal, inasmuch as the trial court has only considered the accused-appellant's statement and convicted him, which is not permissible. (v) There is no material before the learned trial court save and except extra- judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-2, who is village Munda, though there are major contradictions in the evidences of PWs-3 and 5, which is fatal to the prosecution. (vi) The charge is defective inasmuch as the material object was suppressed by the prosecution and was never produced before the court. In support of the contention raised above, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Sahadeven & anr. (vi) The charge is defective inasmuch as the material object was suppressed by the prosecution and was never produced before the court. In support of the contention raised above, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Sahadeven & anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2012 S.C. 2435 and Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh & anr. reported in (2002) 10 S.C.C. 236). In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has committed gross illegality in convicting the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. On the other hand, Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the extra- judicial confession made before P.W.2-Borai Bhumij has been admitted by the appellant himself in his statement made under Section 313 Cr. P.C. She has further submitted that the important witness of the occurrence. i.e. P.W.2 has been examined and he was very much consistent in his statement. During cross-examination, the defence has failed to contradict his statement. She has further submitted that the medical evidence has fully corroborated the ocular evidence of the witnesses. She has further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 3 has been corroborated with the statement of P.W. 2. She has further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that extra- judicial confession can be relied upon if the same is true. The appellant himself admitted the truthfulness of the confession in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and further no oral or documentary evidences has been adduced from the side of the defence. In support of her contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of State of Karnataka v. M.N. Ramdas, reported in 2003(1) JCR 188[SC], Damu Purty & ors. v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), reported in 2003(2)JCR 316(Jhr.), Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Goel v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1953 S.C. 247 and Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. reported in (2010) 8 S.C.C. 249 . On the basis of the aforesaid submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the findings arrived at by learned trial court do not require any interference by this Court. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the findings arrived at by learned trial court do not require any interference by this Court. 8. Perused the lower court records and gone through the deposition of the witnesses minutely as well as the judgments cited by the parties. 9. P.W-1 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound over right side of skull 2” x 2” x ½” ; (ii) Bruise over right mandibular area with fracture of mandible ; (iii) Lacerated wound over occipital region 2” x 1” x ½” (iv) Cut wound over left side of frontal area above left eye brow prominence. On dissection (i) Head - Fracture of occipital, right parietal and frontal wound. Blood was present in cranial cavity. (ii) Heart-Both Chamber empty. Lungs-Adhere with chest valve. Stomach-Stomach contains liquid like 'Hariya'. Other organs intact. The doctor opined as to cause of death is due to above injuries, caused by hard and blunt substance. He has also proved the post postmortem report (Ext.1). Nothing has been elucidated from his cross-examination. 10. PW-2 -Borai Bhumij is the Munda of the village before whom the accused-appellant had made extra-judicial confession. He has deposed that Singa Barjo (appellant) had confessed before him on 16.1.2001 that yesterday (15.1.2001) he had killed his brother Dobro Barjo in his courtyard by means of Tangi. Thereafter this witness alongwith Krishna Chandra Birua (PW-3), Botang Bhumij (PW-5) and other villagers went to the house of Dobro Barjo and saw his dead body in the courtyard and there was mark of injury on the back of the neck and blood was also oozing from his nose. This witness has further deposed that he reported the matter to the police and thereafter the police recorded the fardbeyan of Raimuni Kui, widow of the deceased. This witness has also proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2. This witness has also deposed that police seized the blood stained Tangi from the house of the accused-appellant and has proved his signatures on the inquest report and seizure list, marked as Exts.3 and 4 respectively. This witness has also proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2. This witness has also deposed that police seized the blood stained Tangi from the house of the accused-appellant and has proved his signatures on the inquest report and seizure list, marked as Exts.3 and 4 respectively. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that Singa Barjo had told him that he has not seen the police station, otherwise he himself would have gone there. He has further stated that the seizure list of Tangi was prepared at the police station as the accused-appellant had himself carried the Tangi to police station. 11. P.W-3-Krishna Chandra Birua has corroborated the statement of PW-2. This witness has further stated that PW-2 informed him about the murder of Dobro Barjo on 16.1.2001 and thereafter he went to see the dead body of the deceased at his house. 12. P.W-4, another co-villager, is a formal witness. He has only stated that he heard the incident from PW-2-Munda and the confession made by the accused-appellant. 13. PW-5 Botan @ Potang Bhumij has corroborated the statement of PW-2-Munda, so far as extra- judicial confession is concerned. He has also stated that accused told him that he killed Dobro Barjo in anger because the doe of Dobro used to eat Arhar. This witness has specifically stated that he went to the spot and seen the dead body of the deceased which was lying in the courtyard and thereafter he accompanied the Munda-PW-2 to the police station. 14. PW-6 has been declared hostile. PW-7 Sanatan Bhumij is another witness, who proved the seizure of the blood stained earth and proved his L.T.I. on the same, marked as Ext.7. 15. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. This witness has deposed that on the basis of the information given by PW-2, he made the Station Diary Entry no.262 dated 16.1.2001 and on 17.1.2001 he recorded the fardbeyan of Raimuni Kui (widow of the deceased) and also proved the Fardbeyan, inquest report and seizure list of blood stained earth, marked as Exts.5, 6 and 7 respectively. This witness has further deposed that on the search of the house of accused, he seized a blood stained Tangi and thereafter seizure list was prepared, which was marked as Ext.8. He has also proved the formal FIR, marked as Ext.9. 16. This witness has further deposed that on the search of the house of accused, he seized a blood stained Tangi and thereafter seizure list was prepared, which was marked as Ext.8. He has also proved the formal FIR, marked as Ext.9. 16. It is settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. Principles for deciding whether it is admissible and capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused has also been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan & anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in AIR 2012 S.C. 2435 , in the following terms: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the Court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. It has also been held in the case of Damu Purty and ors. vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) reported in 2003(2) JCR 316 (Jhr) that extra-judicial confession before a village Munda is permissible in law. Further, in the case of Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2010) 8 SCC 249 , particularly at para-23 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “23. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. explicitly provide that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against the accused in any other enquiry into or trial for any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he has committed. The provisions of Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. explicitly provide that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against the accused in any other enquiry into or trial for any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution”. Further, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Goel v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1953 S.C. 247 ), has held that conviction of an accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded under Section 342 (now Section 313 Cr.P.C.) and the same cannot be regarded as evidence. But where the prosecution evidence disclosed that the accused in his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. admitted that he has committed the offence whereupon no further evidence was led on the point, the trial court was justified in referring to the statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. as supporting to the prosecution case narrating with regard to the admissibility of the evidence. 17. With the above ratio, this Court has examined the matter, scanned the evidence and found that the accused-appellant had made an extra-judicial confession before PW-2 and thereafter Pws- 2, 3 and 5 went to the spot and found the dead body lying in the courtyard in a pool of blood with head and neck injuries and thereafter went to the police station and informed PW-8, the Investigating Officer, which fact was entered by the Investigating Officer in the Station Diary and thereafter police went to the spot and recorded the Fardbeyan of the widow of the deceased and the said Fardbeyan, inquest report and seizure list have been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy, proved the post mortem report (Ext.1) and also corroborated the oral evidence. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy, proved the post mortem report (Ext.1) and also corroborated the oral evidence. Thereafter the trial court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in such statement the accused-appellant admitted the fact that he went to the house of PW-2-Munda and made a confession before him to the extent that he assaulted the deceased with a Tangi and thereafter PW-2 went to spot and saw the dead body lying there. 18. PW-2 is Munda (head of the village) and the entire case rests upon the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before him as the accused-appellant reposed confidence and confessed before him. Nothing has been elucidated from his cross-examination that any inimical relationship was there with Munda and the accused also admitted that since he had not seen the police station, otherwise he could have gone there and he confessed before him that he killed the deceased and thereafter PW-2 along with other witnesses and villagers went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased-Dobro Barjo in the courtyard. 19. Thus, from the facts of the case, it emerges that the case mainly rests upon the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before PW-2, who informed the other witnesses about the occurrence and thereafter he alongwith others went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased-Dobro Barjo in the courtyard and the above evidence has also been corroborated by the doctor-PW-1 and the inquest report. 20. In view of above, the impugned judgment of the trial court does not require any interference by this Court and thereby this appeal is, hereby, dismissed.