JUDGMENT : D. Pathak, C.J. - The Appellant Rama Kudia has been convicted u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life for causing the death of his wife Guri Kudia. 2. This appeal has been filed from jail. As the Appellant was not represented by any counsel, we have engaged Mr. Manindra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate, to represent him at the State expense: 3. The thumbnail narration of the prosecution case is that on the 14th December, 1979, the Appellant was going along with the deceased from Colony No. 11 to Colony No. 4 at Chitrakonda; P.W. 1 Sambari Pangi, the cousin sister of the deceased, and P.W. 3 Lachhu Pangi, the husband of P.W. 1, were proceeding to Musinguda village Hat. P.W. 1 was behind the Appellant and his wife and P.W. 3 was ahead of them. When they were near a Nala in between Colony No. 11 and Colony. No. 10 which came on their way, the Appellant dealt a Tangi (small axe) below on the head of the deceased. At this, the deceased raised a cry "Marigali" (I am dying). On hearing the cry, P.W. 1, who was behind them rushed to the spot. In the meantime the Appellant dealt two more blows on the head of the deceased. P.W. 3 who was ahead of them retraced his steps and came to the spot and found that the deceased was already dead as a result of the blows. P.W. 2 Lachman Khilla, who was tending his cattle nearby, came to the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 remained at the spot and P.W. 3 came to the village, i.e., Colony No. 11, and informed the matter to P.W. 4 Madhab Dora who held a Panchayati and then went to the Chitrakonda police station where he lodged the First Information Report. On receipt of the information, the Investigating Officer, P.W. 11, proceeded to the spot, held inquest over the dead body and sent it for port-mortem examination. During investigation, P.W. 11 seized the blood-stained earth as also sample earth as per the seizure list, Ext. 9. He searched for the Appellant but did not find him. On receipt of the information, the Investigating Officer, P.W. 11, proceeded to the spot, held inquest over the dead body and sent it for port-mortem examination. During investigation, P.W. 11 seized the blood-stained earth as also sample earth as per the seizure list, Ext. 9. He searched for the Appellant but did not find him. He went to the residence of P.W. 6, the maternal uncle of the Appellant with the hope of finding the Appellant, but as the Appellant was not there, he left instruction with P.W. 6 to hand over the Appellant to the police as and when he appeared there it appears that on the following Tuesday afternoon the Appellant came to the house of P.W. 6 and he was handed over to the police at the Boipariguda police station. P.W. 10 took the Appellant into custody. He also seized the Gamcha. M.O. II, from the person of the Appellant, which contained blood stain. While the Appellant was in custody, he made a statement before the Investigating Officer, P.W. 11, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 that he threw the Tangi, the weapon of offence, into the well of P.W. 5. He led P.W. 11 and other witnesses to the well of P.W. 5 from where the Tangi was recovered; After investigation, the Appellant was charge-sheeted u/s 302, I.P.C. and put on trial. 4. The Appellant took a plea of denial. 5. During trial, 11 witnesses including some official witnesses were examined. P.W. 10 is the Officer-in-charge of Boipariguda police station. P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 9 is Dr. Prabhash Ch. Patnaik who held the post-mortem examination on the deadbody. P.W. 8 is the Constable who accompanied the dead body for post-mortem examination. At the trial, the prosecution sought to establish its case against the Appellant on the direct evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, the post-occurrence evidence of P.W. 4, the evidence of P.W. 5 regarding the recovery of the Tangi. M.O. I. the evidence of P.W. 6 as regards the making of the extra-judicial confession by the Appellant and also the seizure of the Gamcha. M.O. II, from the person of the Appellant which contained blood stains. The learned trial Court also took into consideration the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. 6. It is not disputed that Guri Kudia died as a result of the injuries inflicted on her head. M.O. II, from the person of the Appellant which contained blood stains. The learned trial Court also took into consideration the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. 6. It is not disputed that Guri Kudia died as a result of the injuries inflicted on her head. The factum of her death has been fully proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and the evidence of the doctor P.W. 9 who held the post-mortem examination. P.W. 9 found the following external injuries on the dead bed: (i) Lacerated wound, 6" x 2" x 3", on the right temporal parietal and frontal regions of the head. (d) Lacerated wound, 2" x 1" x 2", on the right mandible region. On dissection, he found fracture of the right temporal, parietal and frontal bones. He also found the right mandible to be fractured. In his opinion, the fracture of the aforesaid bones was on account of injury No. 1 and fracture of the mandible was on account of injury No. 2. According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and might have been caused by means of the Tangi. M.O. I. He has further opined that the external injury No. 1 was possible by two Tangi blows and the external injury No. 2 was possible by a single Tangi below In his opinion the external injury No. 1 and the consequential internal injury taken together were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased and the external injury No. 2 was also grievous. He has also opined that the death was due to the head injury causing shock and haemorrhage. 7. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Appellant was the author of the crime. 8. Mr. Sahoo, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that the motive for causing the death of the deceased is not found from the prosecution evidence and therefore the order of conviction is not sustainable. In a criminal trial, particularly involving a serious crime like this, the only question that has to be taken into consideration is the intention of the accused in perpetrating the offence. The motive is not necessary to be proved when there is direct evidence. In this case, the prosecution has brought to the witness box three witnesses, namely P.Ws. In a criminal trial, particularly involving a serious crime like this, the only question that has to be taken into consideration is the intention of the accused in perpetrating the offence. The motive is not necessary to be proved when there is direct evidence. In this case, the prosecution has brought to the witness box three witnesses, namely P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, who have given a graphic description of the occurrence as also the manner in which the injuries were caused on the deceased. P.W. 1 is the cousin sister of the deceased. She has stated that when they were proceeding to Musiriguda village Hat, the Appellant and his wife were also going to Colony No. 4 to enquire about the health of the ailing brother of the deceased and when they were near the Nala in between Colony No. 11 and Colony No. 10, the Appellant suddenly inflicted a Tangi blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which she fell down on the ground raising a cry "Marigali" (I am dying). In her statement, P.W. 1 says that on hearing the cry she went to the spot and found that the Appellant dealt further blows on the deceased. This statement of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3, the husband of P.W. 1. These two witnesses have been cross-examined at great length, but nothing of substance has been brought out by the defence to discredit their evidence. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that P.W. 1 being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness and so there is every possibility for her implicating the Appellant in the offence by giving false evidence. We have gone through the evidence of P.W. 1 with great care and caution in our anxiety to find out whether the evidence of P.W. 1 has got any infirmity or flaw or whether she has given any mendacious statement. We find that her evidence is quite candid and gives a ring of truth and we do not see any cogent reason to reject her evidence. The evidence of P.W. 2 is in corroboration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was grazing his cattle near the Nala where the occurrence took place. The evidence of P.W. 2 is in corroboration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was grazing his cattle near the Nala where the occurrence took place. On hearing the cry of the deceased, he saw that the Appellant gave two blows on her with a Tangi. This witness is an independent and disinterested witness. There is no suggestion given to him as to why his evidence should not be accepted. The direct evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly clinches the issue as to the complicity of the Appellant in causing the death of the deceased. P.W. 4 came to know about the occurrence from P.W.3 and after holding the Panchayati, he lodged the First Information Report at the Chitrakonda police station. He has stated that on getting the information, he went to the place of occurrence where P.Ws. 1 and 2 were already present. He saw three marks of injury on the right side of the head of the deceased. He has further stated that the Appellant while in custody stated that he bad thrown the Tangi into the well of Rama Khora, P.W. 5, in Colony No. 11 and so saying, the Appellant led the witness and the police officer to that well. He has stated that as there was water of about 8 feet deep P.W. 5 was asked to dive into the well and after diving, be brought out the Tangi. M.O. I, from the well. P.W. 5, Rama Khora, has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 4 that Tangi, M.O. I. was taken out from his when as a result of the statement made by the Appellant while in police custody and his leading them to the well. In cross-examination he has clearly stated that the Appellant bad earlier told the police that he had thrown, the Tangi into his (P.W. 5) well. P.W. 6 Sokra Bhoi is the maternal uncle of the Appellant. From his evidence we find that when the Appellant came to his residence, he was handed over to the police at the Boipariguda police station. He has also stated that the Appellant made a statement before him that he killed his wife. P.W. 6 Sokra Bhoi is the maternal uncle of the Appellant. From his evidence we find that when the Appellant came to his residence, he was handed over to the police at the Boipariguda police station. He has also stated that the Appellant made a statement before him that he killed his wife. This extrajudicial confession was not taken into consideration by the trial court as incross-examination this witness stated that it was on their persuasion that the Appellant made the extra-judicial confession. 9. M.O. II, the Gamcha seized from the person of the Appellant, and M.O. I. the Tangi, were sent for chemical examination. But though they were found to have contained blood stains, those stains were insufficient for holding further test. Therefore, the Serologist has not given any opinion. 10. On the evidence of the direct witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, the post-occurrence witnesses P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 which we have carefully scrutinized and the statement of the Appellant while in custody leading to the discovery of the Tangi, M.O. I. we are of firm opinion that the Appellant inflicted the injuries on Guri Kudia with the intention to cause her death. The injury report the nature of the injuries and the weapon used for causing the injuries clearly demonstrate the intention of the Appellant as the author of the death of the deceased. 11. We do not find any circumstances in favour of the Appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is upheld. P.K. Mohanti, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed