( 1 ) GANGARAM, who appears to be a lad of 13 or 14 years, has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions, judge, Jagdalpur.

( 2 ) GANGARAM appellant and Ghanshyam, the deceased, were nearly of the same age, both residents of village Bhanbeda. On November 1, 1961, they both went out from Bhanbeda village together. At that time the accused had a Pharsi, while the deceased had a Tangia. They did not return to their village that night, but stayed at the house of Cherku (P. W. 7) in village Dabkatta. Next day, Cherku asked Itwari (P. W. 5) to reach the boys to their village. On their way, the two boys slipped away. On the evening of Thursday, Gangaram accused alone returned to the village. When he was asked about Ghanshyam, he stated that he and ghanshyam had been lifted in a truck by some Dandukaranyawalas, but he (Gangaram) could manage to jump out of the truck. This answer was not satisfactory. Raghunath (P. W. 3), father of the accused asked him how it was that he did not receive any injury when he jumped out of the truck. Eventually, Gangaram confessed his guilt to his father the next morning. Raghunath took the accused to the house of Baldeo Patel (P. W. 2) where some inhabitants of the village had assembled in connection with Ghanshyam being not traced out. There, the accused confessed before them that he had killed ghanshyam in the jungle. He then took them to Chamraguda forest and pointed out the dead body. Later on, he made a confession before a Magistrate and also admitted his guilt before the committing Magistrate. He retracted his confession before the trial Judge.

( 3 ) IT is established by the evidence of Mst, Sagni (P. W. 9) that both the boys had started together from village Bhanbeda a day prior to the occurrence, It is proved by the evidence of Cherku (P. W. 7) that the two boys stayed at his bouse in village Dabkatta. Itwari (P. W. 5) is the witness who started with the boys from village Dabkatta on the day of the occurrence, that is, the 2nd November, admittedly, Gangaram returned alone to the village.

( 4 ) THERE were a number of injuries caused by a sharp cutting weapon on the person of Ghanshyam, as proved by the medical evidence. His death, undoubtedly, was homicidal.

( 5 ) PREMLAL (P. W. 1), Baldoo (P. W. 2) and Raghunath (P. W. 3) prove the extrajudicial confession of the accused made on the morning of the 3rd November. Raghunath is the father of Gangaram. There is no reason why he would falsely implicate his own son.

( 6 ) IT is proved by these three witnesses and Amersingh (P. W. 4) and Ratiram (P. W. 8) that the accused took them to the forest and pointed out the dead body. All this evidence was sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence of murder. Over and above this, there is the confessional statement (Ex. P-19) of the accused before a Magistrate, in which he stated that in the jungle Ghanshyam proposed to gangaram to commit unnatural offence with him, but Gangaram did not agree. Ghanshyam resented this. Thereupon, the accused struck two blows with his axe on Ghanshyam's neck and two more blows on the hand. Before the committing magistrate also, he admitted to have hit Ghanshyam with his axe and also gave the same cause, although the version is not exactly the same. In the Court of session, the accused resiled from his earlier statement, and stated that ghanshyam asked him to agree to the unnatural offence being committed, but the accused refused; thereupon, Ghanshyam wanted to assault him with his Tangia; and in self-defence, he dealt one blow to Ghanshyam with his Pharsi and ran away. The accused, no doubt, had been varying his statement on different occasions, but every time he admitted to have hit Ghanshyam with the axe.

( 7 ) IT could be argued for the appellant (who is not represented by a counsel) that even if his statement which he made before the Committing Magistrate is accepted as true, he would be entitled to th