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. 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, thoug