JUDGMENT
B. Panigrahi, J.
1. The order of conviction and sentence under Section 302, l.F.C. passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore against the appellant directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life has been assailed in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows : on 3.9.93 at about 4.00 P.m. the appellant assaulted Buda Muduli by giving an axe blow to his left side neck near the ear causing profused bleeding as a result of which Buda Muduli died
instantaneously at the spot i.e near the land of p.w..2 -Ghasi Muduli.
3. The Plea of the appellant before the trial court was one of complete denial of the occurrence, pleading innocence started that the deceased Buda Muduli was none other than agnatic brother of the appellants. Deceased allegedly took money from his father and he had been to the house of Buda Muduli and slept in his house in the night and on the following morning i.e. on Friday he demanded to refund the money advanced to Buda,who stated to do so afteP.Wards. So he came away from deceased’s house. But, of course, there was no evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant.
4. In this background it has to be first determined whether Buda Muduli met a homicidal death on account of axe blow dealt by the appellant. P.W.1, Dr. Shashi Bhusan Mohapatra who held the post the post mortem examination, opined that the deceased met a homicidal death having received cut injury on the left side of the face extending from angle of mouth 1 1/2 ” away till 2″ beyond angle of the mandible of size 5″x 2″x 3″. It was further noticed from the post mortem report that P.W.1 on dissection found that there was a fracture of mandible below the external injury which also cut the large vessels of that area. The muscle Massettor and sterno-cleido mastoid of the left side were cut. These internal injuries however corresponded to the external injury. P.W.1 further opined that the injuries were caused by a heavy weapon with sharp blade of at least five inches length like an axe and the death must have been caused due to haemorrhage and shock and due to profuse bleeding from the cutting of the large vessels of the neck on the left side. He also opined that those injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, on reading of the post-mortem report(Ext. 1), we are of the firm opinion that the deceased met a homicidal death as a result of the injuries inflicted by an axe which was marked as M.O.I in the trial court.
5. In this case P.W.2 is the informant who learnt about the incident from P.W.4 who was allegedly the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.4 received information about the incident from P.W.3 who is said to be the eye witness. P.W.3 and P.W.7 are eye witnesses to the incident.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has however brought to our notice that the prosecution case has to be viewed with suspicion in as much as there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. But on penusal of the averments from the F.I.R. it is noticed that since it was fate night, therefore, it would not be possible to go during the night and on the following morning i.e., on Saturday they went to the Police Station and lodged the report at the P.S. Merely because there was some hours delay by which the prosecution case cannot be thrown out if it is otheP.Wise credible and thruthful.
7. Turning to the evidence of P.W.3 it is found that on the date of occurrence near the land of P. W.2, he saw the appellant twisted the neck of the deceased who felldown and thereafter, dealt an axe blow on his left side neck near the ear as a result of which there was profuse bleeding and the deceased instantaneously died. This incident he narrated to Rupu Mudduli, (P.W.4) who was the Ward Member of the village. P.W.4 had also corroborated that part of the incident to have learnt the same from P.W.3. Again, P W.4 stated that he informed P.W.2 that Soma, the appellant killed his uncle. P.W.2 also stated to have learnt about the incident from P.W.4. So also PW.7 claimed to have seen the incident. It has been vehemently argued that since P.Ws. 3, 4 & 7 are related to the deceased, therefore their version should not be accepted without further corroboration from independent source.
8. We have carefully gone through the statements of P.Ws. 3,4 & 7. Since they are related to the deceased, their statements should not be thrown out on that ground alone, as nothing has been brought out to discard their evidence. On evaluation of the evidence of P.W.7 , we also find that on material particulars, his evidence lends corroboration to the evidence of P.W.3. Therefore, since P.W.3 and P.W.7 are ocular witnesses and their statements find corroboration from the medical evidence, there is no ground to challenge their evidence which is natural, believable and acceptable.
9. We also find that he axe was seized from the possession of the appellant. The weapon of offence was also sent for chemical examination and from the report of the Chemical Analyst, it is found that human blood was appearing on M.O.I. There has been no plausible explanation from the side of the defence as to how M.O. I had contained human blood. Therefore, this circumstance when taken together with the other evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant.
10. On a thorough discussion of the evidence, we find that prosecution has firmly and cogently established the offence against the appellant. We are, therefore, not in a position to disagree with the observation of the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below is confirmed.
L. Mohapatra, J.
I agree.
11. Appeal dismissed