JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The Appellant Ramesh Chandra Mohanti alias Suna aged about 30 years, has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life having intentionally caused the death of his adoptive brother Kshetramohan Mohanti with a knife. Notice was issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence of imprisonment for life should not be enhanced to one of death. 2. The prosecution case runs thus: The accused and the deceased are the natural born son and adoptive son, respectively, of p.w. 9 Sadhu Charan Mohanti. They were living in a house at Matimandap Sahi, town Puri. The family had no other landed property except the homestead. About four years prior to the occurrence, p.w. 9 executed a deed of gift in favour of the deceased in respect of the homestead. So, there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. About two months prior to the occurrence the accused demanded that the deceased should vacate the house and on his refusal to vacate, the accused assaulted him and his wife on some occasions. With this background, it was alleged that in the evening of 20-1-1972 the accused demanded to know as to what happened to the rice which he had kept in the house and as the deceased and his wife denied any knowledge about the same, he abused them in filthy language and left the house in an angry mood threatening the deceased with evil consequences. He returned to house at about 11 p.sm. in the night and assaulted his father. When the father cried out for help, the deceased went to his rescue but sometime after, he entered into a room and shut the door from inside out of fear for the accused. The accused broke open the door and when the deceased ran away from the house, the accused chased him with a knife upto the tiffin shop of p.w. 5 Padmanav Satpathy at a distance of 1? kilometre from the Police Station threatening to kill him. While the deceased was getting into the tiffin shop of p.w. 5, the accused dragged to the steps of the verandah and stabbed him with the knife, as a result of which he fell down with bleeding injuries and the accused decamped with the knife. kilometre from the Police Station threatening to kill him. While the deceased was getting into the tiffin shop of p.w. 5, the accused dragged to the steps of the verandah and stabbed him with the knife, as a result of which he fell down with bleeding injuries and the accused decamped with the knife. The injured was immediately removed to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor. 3. Information about the incident reached the police through several channels. At 12-30 a.m. p.w. 15 B.C. Mohanty, the S.I. of Police received a phone message from p.w. 3 Bella Tihadi and made a station diary entry (Ext. 14). At 12-40 a.m. p.w. 4 Harekrushna Chowdhury gave information to the constable p.w. 24 upon which a station diary entry was made at the Temple out post - vide Ext. 13. At about 2 a.m., p.w. 20 Purna Chandra Mohapatra lodged the First Information Report (Ext. 6) before, p.w. 27, the Officer-in-charge of the Town Police Station. In both the Exts. 6 and 13, the accused was named as the assailant of the deceased. After due investigation, a charge sheet u/s 302, Indian Penal Code was submitted on 30-4-1972. 4. The accused pleaded that the case was falsely foisted against him. 5. It is not disputed, and is proved by the materials on record that the death of the deceased Kshetramohan Mohanti was homicidal. The fact that he died as a result of the injuries sustained is fully supported by the doctor p.w. 22. The crucial question for consideration is whether accused is the person who inflicted the injuries on the deceased. 6. P.ws. 2, 4, 5, 20, 25 and 26 who were cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence turned hostile to the prosecution and were cross-examined by the Public prosecutor. These witnesses went back upon their previous statements before the Police that they had seen the accused actually stabbing the deceased with a knife. Thus, there was no ocular evidence a bout the factum of murder and the order of conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. 7. To base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances must be clearly established. There should be no missing link. The circumstantial chain must be complete and consistent with the only reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty and would be inconsistent with his innocence. 8. 7. To base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances must be clearly established. There should be no missing link. The circumstantial chain must be complete and consistent with the only reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty and would be inconsistent with his innocence. 8. The conviction has been based on the following findings: (1) There was bitter enmity between the accused and the deceased by the date of occurrence. (2) In the night of occurrence, the accused was found chasing the deceased with a knife from his house up to the tiffin shop of p.w.5 Padmanav Satpathy while the deceased was requesting the accused not to assault him and was crying out "Suna marena, Suna marena (Suna don't assault me"). (3) When the deceased was getting into the tiffin shop of p.w. 5, the accused pulled him down. (4) When the deceased was found lying injured in a pool of blood near the tiffin shop of p.w. 5 the accused was seen running away. (5) The accused made extra judicial confession before p.ws. 7 and 8 implicating himself as the assailant of the deceased. (6) In the morning of 21-1-1972, the accused escaped from his house and evaded arrest. (7) The wearing clothes of the accused were found to have contained stains of human blood. 9. The principal challenge of the Appellant's advocate is concentrated on the contention that the material witnesses having gone back upon their previous statements about the actual incident of stabbing, their evidence cannot be believed in part but must be discarded altogether. We are unable to acceded to this contention. Merely because the witnesses resiled from their previous statements in regard to certain particulars it cannot be said that their evidence is wholly unreliable. The correct position in law is that either, party may rely upon the evidence of a hostile witness and the Court can come to its own conclusion after consideration of the whole of the evidence for what it is worth. As pointed out in Deep Chand and Others Vs. The correct position in law is that either, party may rely upon the evidence of a hostile witness and the Court can come to its own conclusion after consideration of the whole of the evidence for what it is worth. As pointed out in Deep Chand and Others Vs. State of Haryana the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions in this country and therefore, it is the duty of the Court in cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence in regard to certain particulars, to scrutinise the rest of his evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. 10. We shall now proceed to examine the evidence of the witnesses which falls into four groups: (1) the evidence by which a motive is sought to be established in the crime; (2) the evidence of the witnesses who deposed about the conduct and behaviour of the accused before and after the occurrence; (3) the extra judicial confession of the accused made before p.ws. 7 and 8 on the day following the occurrence. (4) seizure of the wearing clothes of the accused and detection of the human blood on the same. 11. So far as the first of the aforesaid items of evidence is concerned, the position is this: P.w. 9 Sadhu Charan Mohanty, the father of the accused, swears that after he gifted the house to the deceased, there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. The evidence of p.w. 8 Sabitri Dei, the widow of the deceased, shows that about 2 months prior to the occurrence the accused demanded of her husband that he should vacate the house and as her husband refused to vacate, the accused used to assault her and her husband on some occasions. The evidence of p.w. 8 Sabitri Dei, the widow of the deceased, shows that about 2 months prior to the occurrence the accused demanded of her husband that he should vacate the house and as her husband refused to vacate, the accused used to assault her and her husband on some occasions. On the date of occurrence at about the evening The accused demanded to know as to what happened to the rice which he had kept in the house and as she denied any knowledge about it, he began abusing her in filthy language and left the house in an angry mood threatening that whatever was to be done to the accused he would be doing that very day. Thus the accused was very much aggrieved after the deed of gift was executed by his father in favour of the deceased and when the deceased refused to vacate the house, the accused bore a grudge against him. From what he said to p.w. 8 at the time of leaving the house in the evening, it is apparent that he had a strong motive to take the life of the deceased. 12. The second group of evidence consists of the testimony, of p. ws. 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24 and 25. The evidence of p.w. 8 reveals that the accused returned home at about 11 p.m. in the night and started assaulting his father. Out of fear for the accused, the deceased entered into a room and shut the doors from inside. But the accused forcibly kicked the door and broke open the same. When the deceased fled away from the house, the accused chased him with a knife saying: "Let me see how far you can go. I will cut your neck today." This evidence is corroborated by p.w. 10 Kasinath Das who is a front door neighbour of the accused. According to him, he was sleeping at the time when he was disturbed by the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Through the window of his room he could see the deceased going away from the house being pursued by the accused. He heard the accused saying at that time "Let me see how far you can go". According to him, he was sleeping at the time when he was disturbed by the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Through the window of his room he could see the deceased going away from the house being pursued by the accused. He heard the accused saying at that time "Let me see how far you can go". He stated that he was at a distance of 6 or 7 feet from the place where he saw the deceased running away being persuaded by the accused, and the latter using threatening words. By the light of an electric post in front of his house he could identify both. His evidence has not been shaken in any manner. There was no suggestion, far less any proof, that the witness had any axe to grind against the accused. The only criticism levelled against p.w. 10 is that he was examined by the Police on 25-1-1972, i.e. about four days after the occurrence. The Investigating officer was, however, not specifically asked about the delay and the reasons therefor. The evidence of p.w. 3 Sabitri Dei was criticised on the ground that she being the widow of the deceased, her evidence is highly interested. On principle it is difficult to accept the argument that if a witness is a close relation of the deceased and is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted. In The State of U.P. v. Samman Dass 1970 S.C.D. 123, their Lordships observed: It is well known that the close relatives of a murdered person are most reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely involved another person in place of the assailant. In the present case, there is the corroborative evidence of an independent witness (p.w. 10) that the accused quarrelled with the deceased and chased him. The evidence of p.w. 8 also finds ample corroboration from the other evidence on record about the seizure of the broken door leaves and presence of injury on p.w. 9. The place and the time at which the incident took place were such that presence of persons who are not near relatives of the accused may least be expected. The evidence of p.w. 8 also finds ample corroboration from the other evidence on record about the seizure of the broken door leaves and presence of injury on p.w. 9. The place and the time at which the incident took place were such that presence of persons who are not near relatives of the accused may least be expected. It is no doubt true that p.w. 9 Sadhu Charan Mohanti did not support the evidence of p.w. 8 in regard to the incident which took place in the house that night. But the reason is not far to seek. He is the natural father of the accused. Though the deceased was his adopted son, he as dead and gone and his sympathy is naturally with the accused, especially when a capital charge is hanging over his head. P.ws. 4, 20 and 26 have completely resiled from their previous statements before the Police. We place no reliance on them. P.ws. 2, 5 and 25 are the witnesses who were present near the scene of occurrence. p.w. 5 Padmanav Satpathy is the owner of the tiffin shop where the occurrence took place. p.w. 2 Madhu Das is an adjoining shop keeper. p.w. 25 Suryamani Pati is a servant in the shop of p.w. 2. They are therefore, quite natural witnesses. They made statements before the Police immediately after the occurrence implicating the accused as the assailant of the deceased. But during their evidence in Court they resiled from their previous statements to the extent that they had seen the accused actually stabbing the deceased with a knife. It is not shown that these witnesses are either interested in the prosecution or hostile to the defence. The attitude taken by them was clearly with a view to protect the accused by suppressing the actual incident of stabbing. p.w. 2, who is an oldman of 65 years, consistently stated before the Committal Court and the Sessions Court that he saw the deceased coming towards the shop of p.w. 5 being chased by the accused. He also stated to have heard the deceased entreating the accused not to assault him. He further stated that when the deceased got into the shop of p.w. 5, the accused dragged him to the steps of the verandah. But he denied any knowledge about what happened thereafter. He also stated to have heard the deceased entreating the accused not to assault him. He further stated that when the deceased got into the shop of p.w. 5, the accused dragged him to the steps of the verandah. But he denied any knowledge about what happened thereafter. His evidence, however, shows that a few minutes after the deceased was dragged, he saw the accused running away and the deceased lying at the spot with bleeding injuries. During his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused took the plea that p.w. 2 was not pulling on well with him as he used to take tiffin in the shop of p.w. 5. This plea was, however, not suggested to the witness while he was under cross-examination. According to p.w. 5, while he was serving meals to his customers in the hotel, he saw the deceased falling down and crying: "Suna don't assault." He also stated to have seen the accused running away at that time. Suna is a nick-name of the accused and when the deceased was addressing him by that name and requesting him not to assault, it is clear that none else but the accused was the assailant. It was suggested to the witness in cross-examination that he had omitted to state before the Committal Court that he heard the deceased crying as above but he denied the same. It was, however, not suggested to him that he had omitted to state this fact before the Police. p.w. 25 Suryamani Pati stated that while he was serving meals to the customers in the hotel of p.w. 2 he heard the deceased crying "Suna; don't assault, Suna; don't assault." and that three minutes thereafter he saw the deceased lying injured. He also stated that he had seen a person running away at that time. The learned Counsel for the accused commented upon the discrepancies between the statements of these three witnesses at the trial and during the police investigation in regard to the actual incident of stabbing. But in our opinion, the substantial core of the prosecution case is not affected by these discrepancies. The evidence of these witnesses clearly establishes that the accused chased the deceased upto the tiffin shop of p.w. 5 threatening to commit assault on him and ran away from the spot immediately after the occurrence. But in our opinion, the substantial core of the prosecution case is not affected by these discrepancies. The evidence of these witnesses clearly establishes that the accused chased the deceased upto the tiffin shop of p.w. 5 threatening to commit assault on him and ran away from the spot immediately after the occurrence. Their evidence is found consistent with other circumstances established in the case. 13. It transpires from the evidence of p.w. 8 Sabitri Dei that on the same night the accused returned to the house at about 1 a.m. and made enquiries about his father When she replied that she did not know the whereabouts of his father, he gave her two slaps and left the house. At about 3 a.m. he came back again and threatened her by saying that he had already stabbed her husband and he would do the same to her and her children in case she disclosed his presence in the house to anybody. Then he slept with his son in a room on the back portion of the house. Sometimes thereafter, the police party came to her house and made enquiries about the accused. Out of fear she did not tall them anything but by gestures indicated to them that the accused was inside the room. Then the police surrounded the house, but the accused escaped through the bari side with a sword in his hand by jumping over a fence. The evidence of the police officers p.ws.15 and 24 -also reveals that while they were surrounding the house, the accused suddenly came out with a sword and threatening to assault them with it he jumped over the fence and ran away. While he was jumping over the fence p.w. 15 gave a lathi blow on the back side of his shoulder causing a simple injury. But in spite of it the accused run away. He was persuaded by them along with p.w. 27 but could not be apprehended immediately. He left the sword (M.O. V) at a garden wherefrom it was picked up by p.w. 24 and produced before the Investigating Officer who seized it under the seizure list Ext. 3. But in spite of it the accused run away. He was persuaded by them along with p.w. 27 but could not be apprehended immediately. He left the sword (M.O. V) at a garden wherefrom it was picked up by p.w. 24 and produced before the Investigating Officer who seized it under the seizure list Ext. 3. The statement of p.w. 15 that he dealt a lathi blow on the accused while he was jumping over the fence finds corroboration from the evidence of the doctor p.w. 22 who examined the accused on 21-1-1972 at 4.45 p.m. and found one bruise on the right scapular region and opined that the injury could be caused by some blunt weapon like a lathi. The doctor also found multiple small abrasions on both the palms and the left fore-arm of the accused and opined that these injuries could be sustained by the accused if he scaled over a wall or a fence. It was not beyond the range of possibility that he had suffered these injuries at the time of jumping over the fence. In the doctor's opinion, all the injuries were caused within 12 hours of his examination which synchronises with the time when the accused jumped over the fence. The accused denied having escaped from the house in the manner as stated by the witnesses. But in the face of the indubitable evidence adduced by the prosecution, the plea of the accused is unavailing. The conduct of the accused in chasing the deceased with a knife and running away from the place where the deceased was lying injured in a pool of blood is highly incriminating. The fact that he escaped from the house when the police party tried to catch hold of him leads to the conclusion that he behaved in that manner because he had a guilty mind. 14. The extra - judicial confession made by the accused is a very strong corroboration of what the above witnesses have stated. As already indicated, the accused confessed before p.w. 8 Sabitri Dei in the night of occurrence that he had stabbed the deceased and threatened that he would do the same to her and her children if she disclosed his presence in the house to any body. As already indicated, the accused confessed before p.w. 8 Sabitri Dei in the night of occurrence that he had stabbed the deceased and threatened that he would do the same to her and her children if she disclosed his presence in the house to any body. After escaping from the house, the accused appears to have gone to a tea stall where p.w. 7 Banchhanidhi Naik noticed blood stains on his wearing clothes. Being asked about it, the accused confessed before p.w. 7 that he had assaulted his brother. There is nothing in the cr cross-examination of the witness to show that he had any motive for falsely implicating the accused in a heinous crime. We see no reason to disbelieve his evidence. Considering the evidence of p.ws. 7 and 8 we have no doubt in our mind that the accused made a true and voluntary confession. 15. The fourth item of evidence relates to detection of human blood on the wearing c lathes of the accused. The dhoti and the shirt (M.Os. III and IV) were seized from the person of the accused when he was produced at the police station (sic) 21-1-1972. p.w. 21 Harihar Mohapatra and p.w. 23 Deyanidhi Tripathy are the two witnesses in whose presence the seizure was made by the Investigating Officer p.w. 27. They stated to have seen blood stains on the wearing clothes of the accused. As already discussed, p.w. 7 Banchhanidhi Naik had noticed blood stains on the wearing clothes of the accused in the morning on 21-1-1972. P.w.12, the Police Constable also stated that at the time of arresting the accused from village Sipasula bali, he had noticed blood stains on his dhoti and shirt. The evidence of p.w. 8 Sabitri Dei shows that these clothes (M.Os. III & IV) were worn by the accused when he chased the deceased in the night of occurrence. The Serologist has detected human blood on these clothes - vide Ext. 17. During his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused did not offer any explanation as to how his wearing clothes were stained with human blood. He remained content with a mere denial of the seizure and ownership of the clothes. The Serologist has detected human blood on these clothes - vide Ext. 17. During his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused did not offer any explanation as to how his wearing clothes were stained with human blood. He remained content with a mere denial of the seizure and ownership of the clothes. The evidence on record leaves no room for doubt that the accused was wearing the clothes at the time of committing the crime and they were stained with the blood coming out of the injuries caused to the deceased. 16. Post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased was performed by p.w. 22 Dr. D.P. Hota on 21-1-1972 at about 2-15 p. m. and the following injuries were found: (1) Stab wound 1" ? ?" on the sternum to the left of the mid-line and to the left with profuse haemorrhage at the level of the second strenocostal joint. (2) Incised would 1" ? ?" ? ?" on the right shoulder. (3) Stab wound 1" ? 2?" ? 1" deep on the upper part of the right arm. (4) Stab wound 1" ? ?" ? 1" deep on the right side of the chest at the level of the fifth-rib in the mid-axillary line. (5) Stab wound 1" ? 1" ? 3" deep on the right side of the back at the level of the fourth rib of lateral to the mid-line. Internal examination of injury No. 1 revealed that the sternum was punctured and the injury had passed obliquely to the left, piercing both the layers of the pleura and the upper lobe of the left lung causing profuse haemorrhage into left pleural cavity and also outside On dissection of injury No. 5, the upper half of the fourth rib and the parietal pleura and the middle lobe of the right lung were found punctured. In the doctor's opinion, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and might have been caused by some sharp pointed flat weapon like a knife. He also opined that injury Nos. 1 and 5 were individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death might have taken place within a bout 15 minutes after infliction of the injuries. The death, according to him, was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injury Nos. 1 and 5. He also opined that injury Nos. 1 and 5 were individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death might have taken place within a bout 15 minutes after infliction of the injuries. The death, according to him, was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injury Nos. 1 and 5. The above opinion of the doctor is not in any way inconsistent with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 17. The weapon of offence has not been recovered. But it transpires from the evidence of p.w. 8 that the accused carried a knife while chasing the deceased. The evidence on record shows that the accused ran away from the spot immediately after the occurrence and was apprehended on the day following. There was, therefore, sufficient time for the accused to dispose of the knife in such manner as never to be traced. Therefore, from the fact that the Weapon of offence has not been recovered, it cannot be inferred that it was not in the manner alleged by The prosecution that the occurrence took place. 18. During his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused contended that one Rama Mohanti had enmity with the deceased, thereby suggesting that somebody else might have committed the murder. He further contended that the case was foisted against him by the police out of previous grudge. There is no evidence in support of these contentions. It was not suggested to the witnesses that they bore any grudge against him. The plea, therefore, is the result of an after-thought. 19. The in criminating circumstances appearing against the accused have, in our opinion, been fully established and those circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they do not leave any reasonable ground for concluding that they may also be consistent with the innocence of the accused. The cumulative effect of all the above circumstances serves as an unerring pointer at the guilt of the accused. The accused inflicted a number of injuries after chasing the deceased upto a distance of about 500 yards. Injury Nos. 1 and 5 which proved fatal were caused with a sharp cutting weapon on vital parts of the body. Therefore, the case comes clearly within the mischief of Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the accused has been rightly convicted of that offence. 20. Injury Nos. 1 and 5 which proved fatal were caused with a sharp cutting weapon on vital parts of the body. Therefore, the case comes clearly within the mischief of Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the accused has been rightly convicted of that offence. 20. There remains only the question of sentence. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life. The accused was served with a notice to show cause in this appeal why the sentence should not be enhanced and we have heard the learned defence counsel at length on this question. We are conscious of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in certain cases that there must be strong reasons to entitle the appellate Court to enhance the sentence to death and that it is not enough if the appellate Court feels that left to itself it would have awarded the greater penalty of death. Those decisions do not, however, purport to lay down any general rule that in no circumstance the appellate Court would be entitled to enhance the sentence of imprisonment of life to one of death. Each case must be considered by its own facts and circumstances. When the sentence appears on the facts and circumstances of a case to be so manifestly inadequate as to have resulted in failure of justice, enhancement of the sentence by the appellate Court is justified. This is not a case of a person committing a murder in a fit of rage on the heat of the moment, but is an instance of a brutal and gruesome murder committed in a cruel manner on a defenseless person. The accused is a grown up man of 30 years. He chased the deceased from his house upto a distance of about 500 yards with a knife while the deceased was imploring him not to commit assault. 21. While, therefore, dismissing the appeal we would (sic) the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon the Appellant to sentence of death. We accordingly direct that the Appellant Suna alias Ramesh Chandra Mohanti be hanged by the neck till he is dead. G.K. Misra C.J. 22. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed