PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal from the Circle Jail, Cuttack Khageswar Khatua (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question the legality of his conviction for an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur.

( 2 ) ADUMBRATED in brief, the prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows : the accused and his wife Haguri Dei (hereinafter described as the 'deceased' were residing in village Kharadi separately from other villagers, as their marriage was not approved by the villagers. The deceased was a widow before she married the accused. Therefore, the villagers took exception to such marriage. On the night of 10-10-1986 there was exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased. The latter abused the former in filthy language and told him that he should have sexual intercourse with his mother and sister if he wanted it. Being enraged at such obnoxious and indecent utterance accused brought a crow-bar (M. O. 1) and dealt blows on her throat and neck as a result of which she succumbed at the spot. Immediately thereafter, the accused went to the house of his maternal uncle Genda Penthei (P. W. 6) and confessed before him to have killed his wife. The accused also approached Govinda Mallik, Grama Rakhi (P. W. 2) and repeated his confession before him. The Grama Rakhi along with the accused went to the house of Mukunda Charan Khatua (P. W. 1), where Chaitanya Penthei (P. W. 3), Krupasindhu Sahu (P. W. 4), Anam Khatua (P. W. 5) and other were present and accused confessed the guilt before them. P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the accused went to Sukinda Police Station where the first information report was lodged by P. W. 1. The Sub-Inspector of Police of the said Police Station (P. W. 10) registered a case in the absence of the officer-in-charge and took up investigation. The accused was arrested at the police station at 5-15 a. m. on 11-10-1986. While in police custody, the accused gave out that he had concealed the crow-bar with which he committed the offence on the 'songa' of his house and led the investigating officer (P. W. 10) and gave recovery of the same. P. W. 10 seized it under seizure list (Ext. 2) and also the red-colored saree (M. O. II) wrapped on the dead body of the deceased. P. Ws. 1 and 3 were the witnesses to the seizure. After inquest, post-mortem examination was conducted by P. W. 7 and the post mortem report was submitted. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and accused was committed for trial.

( 3 ) THE accused pleaded innocence. He took a stand that since he had married the deceased, a widow, against the objection of the villagers, he has been falsely implicated.

( 4 ) ELEVEN witnesses were examined by the prosecution to further its case. The prosecution mainly relied on the extra judicial confession stated to have been made before P. Ws. 1 to 6, and the recovery pursuant to the information given by the accused. The learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, urged that the so-called extra-judicial confession cannot be acted upon on various grounds - firstly, the so-called confession before P. W. 2, the Grama Rakhi is inadmissible in law and secondly, the so-called confession was made before P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in presence of P. W. 2 rendering it inadmissible. In any event, the evidence of the witnesses is so incredible on the extra judicial confession aspect that no credence can be put on it. So far as P. W. 6 is concerned, it is urged that though in the Court this witness has stated about the confession his statement before the investigating officer was materially different. So far as recovery of the weapon of offence pursuant to the information given by the accused is concerned, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the evidence o