JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The appellant Mayadhar Rana has been convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death. 2. There were two other accused persons, Dirju alias Bengthu Rana and Banabasa Rana who have been convicted under section 109/326 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to R.I. for two years each, on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. They were acquitted of offences under sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. These two persons are not before us, and we would not, therefore, express any view as to the correctness of the order of their acquittal of the charges under sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code, except making certain observations which we propose to do later on. 3. The prosecution case may be stated in short: One Luhuru Rana had three sons ; Sadasiva, Subhona and Rabi. Mayadhar (accused-1) and Banabasa (accused-3) belong to the branch of Sadasiva, being bis descendants, while the deceased, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the descendants of Subhona. The occurrence took place on Padiamunda land, constituting part of the land locally known as 'Sashanibhag, in village Kurli in the district of Bolangir. There was a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in between the descendants of Sadasiva and Subhona which terminated in favour of Padmanav, the deceased. It is not clear whether the disputed land constitutes a part of nine and odd acres which were the subject-matter of the 145 proceeding. The prosecution case is that on the morning of 10th of July, 1971, the deceased Padmanav went to the disputed land for cultivation P.Ws. 1, 3, and 4 with some others, were ploughing the land. Sometime after, the deceased Bhanumati, the mother of the deceased Padmanav, came to the field with Pakhal (soaked rice). The persons cultivating the land and the deceased Padmanav took the Pakhal on the field where after the deceased sat on the ridge while others went on ploughing the land. The deceased Bhanumati had gone to a neighbouring stream for cleansing the utensils. In the men-time, the three accused persons came to the spot. Accused Mayadhar had Tangi (a kind of axe) in his hand and the other two accused persons carried lathis. They went to the place where Padmanav was sitting. Mayadhar asked Padmanav as to why the latter was cultivating the land of the former. In the men-time, the three accused persons came to the spot. Accused Mayadhar had Tangi (a kind of axe) in his hand and the other two accused persons carried lathis. They went to the place where Padmanav was sitting. Mayadhar asked Padmanav as to why the latter was cultivating the land of the former. Padmanav replied that he was cultivating his own land. Then accused Dirju and Banabas obstructed Padmanav by standing in his front with lathis in hand and accused Mayadhar gave a stroke with the sharp side of the axe on the neck of the deceased Padmanav. After Padmanav fell down, he went on giving further strokes in consequence of which the head of Padmanav was almost severed from his body. Bhanumati who was then returning form the stream protested and all the three accused surrounded her. Accused Dirju and Banabasa again prevented her from moving while accused Mayadhar gave a number of strokes on different parts of her body as a result of which she fell down dead. Thereafter Mayadhar, with the axe in his hand, pursued P.W.1 who fled away. After the occurrence Mayadhar and Dirju went to the police station at Kantabanji and lodged the F.I.R. (ext. 8). In the F.I.R. there is a clear confession that Mayadhar killed both Padmanav and Bhanumati. Mayadhar produced the axe (M.O.I.) stained with blood and Dirju produced the lathi, M.O. II. A. Lungi, M.O. III, stained with blood was recovered from Mayadhar. After due investigation, all the three accused persons were put on trial. 4. The defence was one of complete denial. All the three accused persons stated that they did not come upon the land at all, and the land was in possession of Mayadhar. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the various relevant pieces of evidence, came to the conclusion that Mayadhar killed both Padmanav and Bhanumati. 6. There is no dispute before us that the deaths of both Padmanav and Bhanumati were homicidal, and the injuries caused on them were ante mortem. P.W.2 held the post mortem examinations on both. He found the following injuries on Padmanav : (i) One incised would 10" X 2?" X muscle-deep along the left jaw fracturing the ramus of the mandible and cutting the muscular side of the neck extending up to the nap of the neck injuring the carotid vessels and nerves. P.W.2 held the post mortem examinations on both. He found the following injuries on Padmanav : (i) One incised would 10" X 2?" X muscle-deep along the left jaw fracturing the ramus of the mandible and cutting the muscular side of the neck extending up to the nap of the neck injuring the carotid vessels and nerves. (ii) One incised wound measuring 4" X 4" on the front of the neck outing the larynx at the level of the thyroid cartilage and also the oesophagus at the middle measuring 1" X ?". (iii) One incised wound on the left temporal region on the scalp measuring 5" X 2" exposing the brain matter temporal bone. (ix) One incised wound 3" X 2?" on the front aspect of the left shoulder cutting up to the joint cavity exposing the head of the humorous. He was of the opinion that all the injuries were ante mortem and injuries 1 to 3 were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death and death was due to severe shock and hemorrhage as a result of all the injuries. Ext. 1 is the post mortem report. He found the following injures on Bhanumati:- (i) One incised would oblique in direction running along the right jaw ?" below the angle of the mandible and then running across the right side of the neck 4" below the right mastoid region of the right ear measuring 7" X 3?" X muscle-deep. The muscles of the right side of the neck had been cut along with the common carotid vessels and nerves : (ii) One incised wound 4" X 1?" on the front of the neck 3?" below the symphysis menti : (iii) One incised wound measuring 6" X 2" on the right shoulder joint exposing the joint cavity and cutting the head of the humorous : (iv) One incised wound 2" X 1?" on the mid axillary lino 3" below the left arm pit : (v) One incised wound 3" x 1?" muscle-deep on the left shoulder joint. All these injuries, according to P.W.2 the doctor, were ante mortem and injury no. 1 was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Ext. 2 is the post mortem report. All these injuries, according to P.W.2 the doctor, were ante mortem and injury no. 1 was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Ext. 2 is the post mortem report. A question was put to the doctor as to whether the injuries caused on Padmanav and Bhanumati could be caused by means of blows with M.O.I. His answer was in the affirmative. 7. Mr. Ramdas, rightly did not assail the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the injuries were ante mortem, and death, in both the cases, was homicidal. The only question for consideration is whether Mayadhar, the appellant, is responsible for the aforesaid two homicidal deaths. 8. P.ws. 1, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence P.W.1 the son of the deceased Padmanav. P.W.4, Beda Rana, is the first cousin of the deceased Padmanav being his own brother's son, P.W.3 is the field servant of Rama Prasad Rana (P.w. 5) brother of Padmanav whose services had been requisitioned by Padmanav for cultivation on that particular day. We have been taken by Mr. Ramdas through their evidence and he has made some comments on them ; but after having heard him with anxiety and care, we are satisfied that they are witnesses of truth. Though an elaborate cross-examination was made of all the three witnesses, they adhered to the prosecution version as given by us already. Their consistent case is that while Padmanav was sitting on the ridge, the three accused persons came there. Accused Mayadhar was carrying Tangi and the other two accused came with lathis. Accused 2 and 3 obstructed Padmanav while accused Mayadhar went on giving indiscriminate strokes with the axe and Padmanav died an instantaneous death. They are also consistent in their version that on protest being raised by Bhanumati, while returning from the stream, all the three accused persons went to her. Accused 2 and 3 again obstructed her in the same manner and Mayadhar assaulted her with the axe to death by giving a number of strokes. Some little discrepancies which have been brought out here and there in their evidence are to be ignored as being not unnatural. The only argument that was advanced against them was that P.W.1 and 4 are relations of the deceased while P.W.3 is a field servant of P.W.5. Some little discrepancies which have been brought out here and there in their evidence are to be ignored as being not unnatural. The only argument that was advanced against them was that P.W.1 and 4 are relations of the deceased while P.W.3 is a field servant of P.W.5. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon State of U.P. v. Samman Dass AIR 1972 S.C. 677 , in support of the view that relations could be believed, and there is no reason why relations would be implicating a person not involved in the murder. The aforesaid view is not a rule of law, and do hard and fast rule can be laid down that in all cases relations must be believed. The view expressed therein relates to the realm of assessment of evidence on which a proposition of law cannot be built. The common sense view of the matter, however, is that hardly relations, unless otherwise biased, would implicate persons not guilty of murder. Their effort would be to bring the real offender to book. The view of the Supreme Court or of this Court, expressed from time to time, on this aspect of the matter, is merely a common sense view and not a rule of law. Such common sense view is to be noticed in Sukuti alias Mashali Stree v. State 1969 C.L.T. 565, and in Bhupendra Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1968 S.C. 1438 . After carefully examining the evidence of P.W.1, son of Padmanav, P.W.3 the field servant who is aged 15 years and P.W.4 aged 13 years, we find that they narrate the story in a very natural manner which convinces one of its intrinsic truth. There is nothing in their evidence to show that they had any animus against Mayadhar to falsly implicate him. 9. A question was raised by Mr. Ramdas that on the admitted case that Padmanav had taken Pakhal, and that in the post mortem examination no undigested food was found from his stomach, the prosecution story must be disbelieved. We are not much impressed by this argument. It may be that while taking Pakhal, Padmanav did not take any rice, but merely took its water. Consequently, there could be no undigested food. One of the witnesses said that the moment the first stroke was given to Padmanav he vomited some rice. We are not much impressed by this argument. It may be that while taking Pakhal, Padmanav did not take any rice, but merely took its water. Consequently, there could be no undigested food. One of the witnesses said that the moment the first stroke was given to Padmanav he vomited some rice. No question was put to the doctor to clarify the position as to whether a person can vomit after a first strike is given on his neck resulting in his death. At any rate from this, without further clarification, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution version that the story was a concocted one. It is also contended by Mr. Ramdas that P.W.4 and the other witnesses are liars inasmuch as they state that Beda and Ketu are not two different persons. It is the consistent version of all the witnesses that Beda is another name of Ketu and he is the son of Anadi. The officer-in-charge examined Beda twice, once, giving his name as Beda and secondly as Ketu without describing that Beda had a second name, due to inadvertence. After goring through the entire evidence we are satisfied that Beda and Ketu are not two different persons, but one person having two different names. No other criticism was advanced against the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. Their evidence is quite dependable and natural. The learned Sessions Judge, rightly accepted their evidence, and their evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. 10. The testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the production of blood-stained axe by accused Mayadhar at the police station. The first information report, Ext. 8, was lodged on his report. Law is now well settled that first information report is inadmissible in evidence if it contains the confession of the accused. It is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. Even the non-confessional part can not be separated and made admissible, when a confession contained in the F.I.R. is inadmissible. A. Nagesia v. Bihar State AIR 1966 S.C. 119 . It is, however, equally well-settled that the evidence that the accused came to the Thana and lodged the first information report is admissible. The production of the blood-stained axe by him is also admissible in evidence. The axe was sent for serological test and it was found to have contained blood having human origin. It is, however, equally well-settled that the evidence that the accused came to the Thana and lodged the first information report is admissible. The production of the blood-stained axe by him is also admissible in evidence. The axe was sent for serological test and it was found to have contained blood having human origin. This axe was produced soon after the occurrence. Though a question was put to accused Mayadhar he gave an answer of denial by saying that he did not produce the axe. That the axe was produced by him is fully established by the evidence of P.W.6, the seizure-witness, and the I.O. P.W.8. The production of the axe, stained with human blood, with which the various injuries on the two deceased persons could have been caused, according to the doctor's evidence, further reinforces the prosecution case established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. It would be worthwhile to mention that though the appellant Mayadhar took the defence that he did not go to the field, in the memorandum of appeal, he has admitted that he went to the field without any axe, and there he had a struggle with the deceased Padmanav who had an axe in his hand and he cannot say what happened thereafter. Presence of Mayadhar on the spot of occurrence is, therefore admitted in the memorandum of appeal. The other part of the story has not been suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses and cannot be accepted. 11. On an analysis of the aforesaid pieces of evidence, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of Mayadhar, beyond all reasonable doubt and that he was responsible for the murder of both Padmanav and Bhanumati. 12. The next question for consideration is regarding the sentence. The murders committed were most gruesome, cruel and dastardly. Padmanav was attacked with an axe by Mayadhar while he was sitting on the ridge and made absolutely no effort on his part to attack the appellant. The appellant was not satisfied with one stroke, but successively gave indiscriminate strokes until the head of the deceased was almost severed from his body. The appellant was not satisfied with the death of Padmanav and on protest being raised by his mother, Bhanumati, while returning from the stream, he also gave successive blows on her resulting in her instantaneous death. The appellant was not satisfied with the death of Padmanav and on protest being raised by his mother, Bhanumati, while returning from the stream, he also gave successive blows on her resulting in her instantaneous death. The attack on Bhanumati was also cold-blooded. She did nothing except protesting the attack on her son. In our views, the sentence of death is the most appropriate sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In the result, the sentence of death passed upon the appellant is confirmed. The Death Reference is accepted, and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 14. We cannot part with this case without observing that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly confused in dealing with the case of accused 2 and 3. They were charged under sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Positive evidence was available that both accused 2 and 3 obstructed Padmanav and Bhanumati while Mayadhar attacked both. Government would be well-advised to file appeal against the order of acquittal of these two accused persons under sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. The view that we have expressed regarding these two accused persons is only to indicate how the learned Sessions Judge was confused in his legal conception. K.B. Panda, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed