J. M. MAHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that in the evening of 7-1-1984 the appellant committed murder of his elder brother (referred to as deceased) and infant nephew by means of an axe. He also severely injured another nephew aged about five years who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. According to the prosecution, the decease used the threaten the appellants to liquidate him along with his family and so as a retaliatory measure the appellant committed murders. The father of the appellant who is first came to know of the murders and informed villagers who came to the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies. When they questioned the appellant as to why he committed the murders, the appellant is said to have made extra judicial confession before them that he had committed the murders. At the instance of the villagers, P. W. 1 lodged First Information Report at Champua Police Station. The Investigating Officer, immediately commenced investigation and after close thereof submitted charge sheet against the accused.

( 3 ) THE defence plea during trial was that the deceased and his wife used to quarrel. On Saturday the deceased quarreled with her but he came and slept with his father. On the succeeding Sunday morning his father found that the deceased and his two sons had been assaulted to death and the deceaseds wife was not at home. In order to lodge a report at the Police Station he came but was arrested. In short he denied his complicity with the murders.

( 4 ) IT will appear from the evidence of P. Ws. 6, the medical officer and the post-mortem reports, Exts. 20. 21 and 22 that the death of the deceased persons was homicidal in. character. This fact was not disputed.

( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge took into consideration the following facts so as to record the order of conviction and sentence:

(i) Evidence of extra Judicial confession; (ii) Surrender of the appellant at the Police Station along with the axe detached from its hands; (iii) Discovery of the handle from inside an Amari bush, at a distance of 21/2 K. M. from the village on information given by the appellant while in police custody; and (iv) Finding of human blood on some of the seized articles although the blood group could not be ascertained.

Out of these facts, the most important is the evidence of extra judicial confession, because if this part of the prosecution evidence is disbelieved the case will not stand on the basis of the other facts which are of very weak character. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the evidence of extra judicial confession.

( 6 ) THE settled position of law is that conviction can be based solely on the evidence of extra judicial confession if it is found to be voluntary and beyond reproach. Nevertheless, generally speaking the evidence of extra judicial confession is of a weak character. In this case, there are only two witnesses namely, P. Ws. 1 and 2 both being co-villagers of the appellant have stated about the extra judicial confession, although a host of other persons are said to have been present when the statements have made by the witnesses. In order to provide corroboration they were not examined though available. P. W. 1, a cousin of the appellant stated in his chief examination that after hearing of the murders, along with the villager, the proceeded towards the house of the appellant. They found the appellant present in his house. When they asked as to why he had killed his brother Dumbi and a son, the appellant replied that as the deceased was threatening to assault him and his children, he had killed Dumbi and one son and injured another. In cross-examination he stated that while the villagers were proceeding towards the house of the deceased, on the way near the house