Hansaria. J. - (1.)THESE two appeals are on behalf of one and the same Appellant, namely, Diplal Singh, who has been found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. These two appeals came to be filed by two different advocates. Shri A. Roy, learned Counsel for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 79/82 states that he had done so under the instructions of the Appellant not having known earlier that Criminal Appeal No. 70/82 had already been filed. Both the learned Counsel for the Appellant are present in the Court and we have heard them as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.
(2.)THE case for the prosecution is that the accused Appellant had caused the death of Birdhichand Chowdhury on the night of 10(sic)78. After having committed this crime, of the accused came to the house of P.W. 2 Machi Das at about 2 A.M., and woke him up by calling "brother, brother". Coming out, this witness saw the accused with a dao in his hand and the whole body smeared with blood The accused asked for a glass of water which was supplied. Having seen body smeared with blood the witness, out of fear, want to call his brother Yakub Beck. (P.W. 1). On being so called, P.W. 1 came to the house of P.W. 2 and it is his evidence that when the accused was asked as to what had happened, having seen the body of the accused smeared with blood, the latter said that as dacoit bad entered his house, he had cut the dacoit and the name of the person done to death was is given as Bridhichand. P.W. 1 thereafter left for Namrup Police Station and lodged an ejahar which was recorded at 12.30 P.M. of 11.7.78, A reference to the F.I.R. shows that according to the informant, P.W. 1, the accused bad confessed before him as well as "before the person named" in the ejahar that he bad cut to death with dao Shri Bridhichand Choudhury the persons named being (1) Shri Shanks Ram Singh (2) Shri Ramnath and (3) Shri Mesidas Beck.
A reference to the evidence of P.W. 1 shows that when the accused had confessed as aforesaid, the same had been heard by his younger brother P.W. 2 Machi Das also, though P.W. 2 has stated that if his elder brother had asked the accused anything he did not know. of course, according to P.W. 2, the accused bad confessed his guilt on being asked by the Police at about 2.30 P.M. of next day. This evidence is, however, inadmissible in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

(3.)THE other person named in the FIR as witness is "Shankar Ram Singh", but the name or P.W. 3 has been recorded as "Shankar Ram Singh". Even if these two names be of one and the same person, a reference to his evidence shows that on the next day of the occurrence he had come to know that Bridhichand had been murdered, and on receipt of the information be went to see him and found him lying dead in the verandah of Diplal with injuries on his body. He clearly stated that he did not ask the accused anything; but his further evidence is that when police came, the accused had admitted his guilt. As already stated, this part of the evidence is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
;