JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, A.C.J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge Sambalpur convicting the two Appellants u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case runs thus: The deceased Bhokulu Padhan is a cousin of the appellants. He was undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of Biranchi, a minor brother of the Appellants. Sometime before the occurrence an officer from Sambalpur Jail visited the village and made enquiry if anybody had any objection for the premature release of the deceased. Though the villagers did not raise any objection the Appellants and their father opposed and declared that in case the deceased returned to the village they would take away his life. On 19-3-1978 the deceased returned to the village at about 10 a.m. While he was sitting on the verandah of one Ramji Danta and talking with P.W. 12 Dalaganjan Chhuria, both the Appellants rushed to that place and all of a sudden committed assault on the deceased by means of lathis as a result of which he died at the spot This occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 11 Maya Padhani, the mother of the deceased and P.W. 12 Dalaganjan Chhuria. 3. F. I R. was lodged by P.W. 13 Halia Padhan, the brother of the deceased on the same day at 12 noon at Veden P.S. implicating the Appellants as the assailants of the deceased and investigation was taken up. The Appellants disappeared from the village after the occurrence and surrendered at the Police Station on 21-3-1978. After due investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the Appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201, I.P.C. After trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Appellants of the charge u/s 201, I.P.C., but convicted them u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and inflicted the sentence as indicated above. 4. At the trial, the Appellants alleged that they were falsely implicated abjured their guilt and out of previous enmity. 5. In order to establish its case, prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 who were cited as witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 12 did not support the prosecution case at the trial and went back upon his previous statement before the Police. 5. In order to establish its case, prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 who were cited as witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 12 did not support the prosecution case at the trial and went back upon his previous statement before the Police. The order of conviction is based mainly on the direct evidence of P.W. 11 the mother of the deceased. Her evidence before the Court was that while the, deceased was undergoing imprisonment there was enquiry in the village twice regarding his premature release. The Appellants and their father opposed his release and declared that they would kill him if he would return to the village. She further stated that on the date of occurrence about 9 a. m. she got information from one Lalu Patra that the deceased had returned to the village. So she returned from her brinjal garden and found the deceased sitting on the verandah of Ramji Danta and talking to P.W. 12 Dalaganjan Chhuria. While she was talking to the deceased, both the Appellants appeared there with lathis in their hands. Appellant No. 2. Jalia Padhan gave the first blow on the head of the deceased. Appellant No. 1 Dhruba also dealt a blow on his head. Thereafter both the Appellants dealt successive lathi blows on the deceased as a result of which he fell down dead and the Appellants fled away from the spot. Her evidence about the assault games corroboration from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 1) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found three injuries on the right pinna, right parietal bone and the chin, and four bruises on the right ear, right maxillary prominence, right angle of the mandible and the left upper chest. On dissection, the doctor found fracture of the right parietal bone tearing of the dura and fracture of the mandible at its right angle. In the doctor's opinion all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt weapons like a lathi of adequate weight. The doctor also opined that the death was due to shock on account of the head injury. The injury on the bead causing fracture of the parietal bone was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor also opined that the death was due to shock on account of the head injury. The injury on the bead causing fracture of the parietal bone was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus the direct evidence of P.W. 11 and the corroborative evidence of the doctor clearly establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal and the Appellants were responsible for the death. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants strenuously contended that the order of conviction cannot be sustained on the solitary evidence of P.W. 11 in the absence of any independent corroboration. 7. No doubt, P.W. 11 is the mother of the deceased, but her evidence cannot be jettisoned merely on the ground of her relationship with the deceased. The F.I.R. which was lodged at the P.S. within two hours of the occurrence contained all the material facts and in our opinion it lends considerable corroboration to the direct evidence adduced in the case. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 shows that immediately after the occurrence they arrived at the spot and P.W. 11 narrated the incident before them implicating the Appellants as the assailants of the deceased. There is no apparent reason why P.W. 11 would suppress the name of the real culprits and falsely implicate the Appellants who are none else but her nephews. The evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11 clearly shows that the Appellants bore a grudge against the deceased as he had committed the murder of their brother Biranchi and when he returned to the village after his premature release they wanted to take revenge upon him. It is in evidence that after committing assault on the deceased the Appellants disappeared from the village ana surrendered before the Police on 21-3-1978, that is, two days after the occurrence. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W. 11 so as to impeach her credibility. There is nothing to show that she made any contradictory statement before police during investigation of the case. On a review of the evidence on record, we hold that the Appellants acted in concert and assaulted the deceased to death in furtherance of their common intention. The convictions and the sentences are, therefore, justified. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed, the convictions and the sentences being confirmed. 9. On a review of the evidence on record, we hold that the Appellants acted in concert and assaulted the deceased to death in furtherance of their common intention. The convictions and the sentences are, therefore, justified. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed, the convictions and the sentences being confirmed. 9. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that an unhealthy practice has grown up in the subordinate courts to declare a witness as hostile to the party calling him and to label his evidence as cross-examination when a party is permitted u/s 154, Evidence Act to put question to his witness in the nature of cross-examination. P.Ws. 9 and 12 in the present case are such witnesses who have been declared as hostile to the prosecution and whose part of the examination-in-chief has been labelled as cross-examination, Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act does not provide that a party calling a witness can also crossexamine him. It merely says that the Court may in its direction, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. The examination of a witness by the party who calls him is a called his examination-in-chief. It is only the examination by the adverse party which is called his cross-examination. There is nothing in Section 154 of the Evidence Act to require that before the Court exercises its discretion to permit the party who calls a witness to put question in the nature of cross-examination, the witness should be declared as hostile to the party. Grant of permission u/s 154, Evidence Act does not amount to an adjudication by the Court as to the credibility of the witness. When a party is permitted to put questions to the witness in the nature of cross-examination, the evidence of the witness, cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. Either party may rely upon tile evidence of such a witness and the whole of the evidence so far as it affects both parties, favourably or unfavourably must be considered for what it is worth it is for the Court to consider in each case, whether the witness stands thoroughly, discredited or can still be believed in regard to apart of his testimony. Neither the party calling the witness nor the adverse party is precluded from relying on any part of the statement of such a witness. Therefore, in the order granting such permission, it is preferable to avoid the, use of expression as "declared hostile" which may appear to carry the implication that the witness is already discredited. G.B. Patnaik, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed