S.K.RAY,J. - (1.)THE appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Koraput under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for having committed murder of one Buti Ganda by intentionally causing his death with a Tangia (M.O. I) on the 2nd day of October, 1973, at about mid -day on a foot -path between villages of Timashguda and Lihuduguda. This appeal is from this judgement of conviction and sentence.
(2.)THE deceased Buti Ganda was the chaukidar of three villages of Dangachuan, Durkaguda and Kankanguda. On the day of occurrence he, accompanied by P.W. 6, came to village Dihuduguda for borrowing some paddy. On his way to village Dihuduguda, he passed through village Timashguda. There he found P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are brothers -in -law who had come there to leave some of their relations. The deceased asked them for some paddy on loan. They promised him to lend some paddy the next day. At village Timashguda P.Ws. 1, 2, 6 and the deceased took some liquor and all together proceeded to village Dihuduguda. At the house of P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2 and 6 and the deceased sat when the accused reached there with half a bottle of liquor carrying a Tangia (M.O. I). This bottle of liquor was consumed by all of them except P.W 6 as it was insufficient to go round. The deceased then asked P.W. 1 to give him some tobacco. But the latter not having any proceeded to village Timashguda to bring some tobacco. Subsequently, the deceased also requested the accused to bring some more liquor for consumption. Accordingly, both of them also left for village Timashguda to bring some more liquor. P.W. 1 while returning from Timashguda found the accused and the deceased going together towards village Dihuduguda. The accused was putting his hand over the shoulder of the deceased in a friendly manner. They were proceeding about 30 yds. ahead of him. He heard deceased demanding some money from the accused and threatening that in case he did not give him the money, he would take him into custody and proceed to the police station. It may be stated here, as admitted by P.W. 10, the I.O., that there was a burglary case in the year 1972 in which the accused was suspected to be involved and the deceased chowkidar had been asked by the I.O. to apprehend the accused in that connection and take him to the Thana. The accused, who is a co -villager of the deceased, was driven act of his village by the villagers on account of his implication in the aforesaid crime and since then he was living in another village. That burglary case, however, ended in a final report. It is in that background that the deceased was demanding money from the appellant and was threatening him to take him to Thana in case he did not pay. When this demand was made, the accused protested his inability to pay but the deceased was not inclined to listen it. Subsequently, the accused lifted his hand from the shoulder of the deceased and gave him a push and immediately thereafter dealt a blow on the left side of his head with the Tangia (M.O. I). The deceased fell down. Thereafter he gave four more blows, two on the head and two on the legs of the deceased. As a result of these strokes the deceased died at the spot. The appellant then left the place towards village Dihuduguda holding his Tangia. He came to the house of P.W. 2 and there met P.W. 3 on the threshing floor He confessed to P.W. 3, wife of P.W. 2, that he had killed the deceased and while so confessing he dealt a blow on the Merukhunta (a pole used for tying bullock at the time of threshing) with his Tangia. Then he proceeded to his own village Dangachuan. While the accused was confessing his guilt to P.W. 3, her husband (P.W. 2) was near about and also heard this extra -judicial confession. After reaching his village Dangachuan, the appellant also made an extra -judicial confession to P.W. 4 who took him to P.W. 5, a Ward Member. There the appellant for the third time confessed to have killed the deceased in presence of P.Ws. 4 and 6 and other villagers and wanted to surrender at the P.S. and asked them to take him there. In the meantime, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had come to the village of the accused and all of them proceeded to Kodinga Police Station where P.W. 1 lodged first information report at 7 p.m. on 2.10.1973. After recording the F.I.R. the I.O., P.W. 10, arrested the accused, seized the Tangia M.O. I and also his wearing apparels including a Dhoti, a shirt and a banian which were found to be stained with blood. Thereafter he proceeded to the place of murder, held inquest over the dead body and sent it for postmortem examination to Primary Health Centre at Kotpada. Postmortem was held on 4.10.1973. The I.O. sent the blood -stained Tangia and the bloodstained cloth for chemical examination and serological test. He prepared a spot map of the place of occurrence and, after receiving the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, submitted charge -sheet on 28.11.1973.
The defence is one of denial. Alternatively, the appellant also stated that it is P.W. 1 who had enmity with the deceased must have killed the latter and that this case has been falsely foisted against him.

(3.)IT is now clear from the medical evidence that the death of the deceased was homicidal. He has found that there was a cut injury 3" X 1" X " on the left cheek in oblique direction. The injury was clean cut and well defined. On dissection he found that the upper four teeth of the left jaw, one lateral incisor, one canine and two premolar were injured and dislocated and lower three teeth were injured and dislocated. He found one cut injury over the pinna of the left ear extending to the mastoid bone measuring 3 " X 1" X ". This injury also was clean cut. There was another cut injury over the left parietal eminence measuring 4 -1/5" X " X 1". On dissection he found that the scalp was cut and there had been communited fracture of the left parietal bone into four pieces of the diameter of 1". The meanings was cut. Blood clots were seen over the dura of the brain. The parietal lobe of the brain had been lacerated. Another cut injury was also found on the left popliteal region (backside of the knee joint) in transverse direction measuring 2 " X 1" X 3 ". All these five injuries were clean cut ones and, according to the doctor, these could have been caused by the Tangia M.O. I. The further medical evidence is that all these injuries were antemortem in nature. Injury No. 3, that is a cut injury over the left parietal eminence, was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause instantaneous death. Injuries 4 and 5 which had been inflicted on the leg were also, according to the doctor, likely to cause death, though not instantaneous death. According to the age of the injuries given by the doctor these must have been inflicted at about the time when the murder is said to have been committed. There is, therefore, no doubt whatsoever that the deceased died a homicidal death and that the Tangia M.O. I. was a likely weapon with which all the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused.