B. N. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a prisoner's appeal against his conviction under section 302 I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may be briefly stated. Manjunga Sunamajhi, P. W. 2, is the husband of deceased Tokilmai. In the month of Pausa in 1980 the cattle belonging to P. W. 2 had damaged Kandul crop of the accused (Appellant) and P. W. 2 was asked to pay Rs. 20/- as compensation to the appellant. P. W. 2 had paid Rs. 10/- to the appellant, but the balance sum of Rs. 10/- was outstanding. On 27. 3. 80 at about 9 A. M. while P. W. 2 was away from his house, the appellant went to P. W. 2s house and demanded payment of the balance sum of Rs 10/- from the deceased. The deceased replied that she was not in a position to make payment. It is alleged that on refusal of payment by the deceased, the appellant dragged her out of the house and dealt an axe blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which she died at the spot. The assault on the deceased by the appellant was seen by P. Ws. 3 and 6 and one Brundi, co-villagers, who went to Rada Kanda Guda where P. W. 2 was engaged with his cattle and informed him that the deceased had been killed by the appellant. All of them returned to P. W. 2s house and thereafter P. W. 2 went to Subarnagiri Outpost where he lodged a written report at 3 P. M. relating to the occurrence with P. W. 8, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Ext. 7 is that written report. P. W. 8 examined the informant and other witnesses and arrested the appellant. While in police custody, the appellant stated that he had hidden the axe in a Sargi bush at Malaghara Dangara and so saying the appellant led P. W. 8 and other witnesses to the Dangara wherefrom he produced the axe M. O. I which was seized by P. W. 8 under the seizure list Ext. 5/1. P. W. 9 is the Officer-in-Charge of Kothagarh Police Station to whom P. W. 8 forwarded the written report Ext. 7. 5/1. P. W. 9 is the Officer-in-Charge of Kothagarh Police Station to whom P. W. 8 forwarded the written report Ext. 7. On receipt of the report P. W. 9 registered the present case and took over investigation from P. W. 8 on 27. 3. 80. On 28. 3. 80 P. W. 9 had held inquest over the dead body and thereafter sent it for post-mortem examination. P. W. 9 had seized the bloodstained clothes of the deceased from the place of occurrence under the seizure list Ext. 9. The seized articles including the axe M. O. I and the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were sent to the Chemical Examiner, vide Ext. 11, the forwarding letter. The Chemical Examiner's report is Ext. 16 and according to the said report human blood of AB group was found on the axe M. O. I as well as on the blood-stained Saree of the deceased. After completion of investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the appellant who was thereafter committed to the Court of Session for his trial. ( 3 ) AT the trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. The defence plea is one of complete denial. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant has denied all the allegations made against him. He has denied that he had given recovery of the axe M. O. I or that he had made any extra-judicial confession before his covillager P. W. 7. The learned Sessions Judge who tried the Case found the appellant guilty under section 302 I. P. C. , convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. ( 4 ) P. W. 1 is the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Tokilimai on 29. 3. 80 on police requisition He found the following two external injuries: (i) One lacerated wound 13/4 x 1ti on the left side head situated 2 1/2 away from the left eye- brew; and (ii) One lacerated wound 2t1 x 1 x 1ti on the right side of the head situated 21/2 TI above the right zygomatic prominence. On dissection P. W. 1 found the following internal injuries: (i) Comminuted and compound fracture of left temporal bone. On dissection P. W. 1 found the following internal injuries: (i) Comminuted and compound fracture of left temporal bone. The left middle meringue artery was torn and the fractured bone pieces had penetrated the durra matter; (ii) Comminuted and compound fracture of right temporal bone. The fractured bone had torn the right middle meringue artery and covered with clotted blood. The durra matter was torn due to the fractured bone; (iii) Haematoma 3 x 2 x 1 on the left temporal region which had compressed the temporal lobe of left side brain; and (iv) Haematoma 3 1/2 x 2 1/2 TI x 1 which had compressed the right temporal lobe of the brain. Internal injuries (i) and (iii) correspond to external injury No. (i) and internal injuries (ii) and (iv) correspond to external injury No. (ii ). In the opinion of P. W. 1 death of the deceased was due to compression of the brain as a result of intracranial haemorrhage which could have been caused by the aforesaid injuries. The injuries were anti-mortem in nature and death following the injuries was possibly instantaneous. Ext. 1 is the post-mortem report. Ext. 2 is the opinion of P. W. 1 on police requisition that the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by the axe M. O. I. In cross- examination all that P. W. 1 has been asked and has said is that injuries like the ones found on the deceased could be caused if the assailant stood on one side of the victim and gave blows on the head. P. W. 1 has denied the defence suggestion that the injuries on the deceased were not ante- mortem in nature. The aforesaid medical evidence clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further, in the opinion of P. W. 1 the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the axe M. O. I. ( 5 ) P. WS. 3 and 6 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Further, in the opinion of P. W. 1 the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the axe M. O. I. ( 5 ) P. WS. 3 and 6 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 2 is the informant and he has stated that P. W. 3 is his first cousin and P. W. 6 is his nephew (sisters son) P. W. 3 has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 9 a. m. while he was collecting Mahua flower from a Mahua tree about 25 cubits away from the house of P. W. 2, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and demanded payment of Rs. 10/ -. When the deceased stated her inability to pay, the appellant dragged her out of the house and assaulted her on the left side of her head with the blunt side of the axe he was holding. The deceased fell down at the spot where after the appellant dealt a second blow on the left side forehead of the deceased. As a result of this assault the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries P. W. 3 saw the occurrence along with P. W. 6 and Brundi and as all of them came to the spot the appellant raised his axe in a threatening posture on account of which they receded from the place of occurrence. P. W. 3 and 6 and Brundi went to P. W. 2 and informed him about the occurrence. Thereafter all of them went to Subarnagiri Outpost where P. W. 2 lodged his written report with P. W. 8. P. W. 3 has identified M. O. I to be the axe with which the appellant had assaulted the deceased. In cross-examination P. W. 3 has explained that he could identify M. O. I in court as he had seen the appellant purchasing that very axe. He has denied the defence suggestion that he has any disputes with the appellant. P. W. 6 bas stated that along with P. W. 3 and Brundi who was near the Mahua tree about 50 to 60 yards from the house of P. W. 2 he had seen the appellant giving two axe blows on the bead of the deceased killing her at the spot. He had followed P. W. 3 behind him and was threatened by the appellant. He had followed P. W. 3 behind him and was threatened by the appellant. At that time the deceased who was lying in a pool of blood was almost dead. P. W. 6 had seen injuries on the right temporal region and the left forehead of the deceased. He had gone along with P. W. 3 and informed P. W. 2 about the occurrence. He was present along with P. W. 8 when the appellant while in custody stated that he had hidden the axe in Malaghan jungle and so saying the appellant had led them to the jungle and produced the axe M. O. I from under a Sargi tree which was thereafter seized by P. W. 8 under the seizure list Ext. 5/1. Ext. 5 is the signature of P. W. 6 and in court P. W. 6 identified M. O. Ito be that axe. In cross-examination P. W. 6 has stated that the frontage of P. W. 2's house was not visible from the Mahua tree where he was standing along with P. W. 3. Mr. S. P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, brought to our notice that this statement of P. W. 6 and the observation of the learned Sessions Judge in para 8 of the judgment that P. W. 6 in view of the aforesaid statement might not have seen the appellant actually dealing the axe blow on the deceased. We have carefully examined the entire evidence of P. W. 6 and we do not agree that the aforesaid statement of P. W 6 leads to the conclusion that he had not seen the occurrence. No doubt, the deceased was assaulted and killed in front of the house, but P. W. 6 has stated that he had seen the assault by the appellant on the deceased. It has not been elicited from him that the actual place of occurrence where the assault took place was not visible from near the Mahua tree where he stood along with P. W. 3. The evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 is straight-forward and although they are related to P. W. 2 we are satisfied that their evidence which is natural and worthy of credit. The evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 is straight-forward and although they are related to P. W. 2 we are satisfied that their evidence which is natural and worthy of credit. ( 6 ) P. W. 7 is a co-villager who has stated that on the date of occurrence while he was coming to the village along with two other persons, the appellant met him near Malghara Dangara and confessed that he had assaulted the deceased and thereafter the appellant proceeded towards the Outpost while P. W. 7 and his friends came to the village. P. W. 7 has further stated that when the appellant confessed his guilt, he was carrying the axe M. O. I with him and the axe was stained with blood. In Court the appellant has no doubt retracted from his extra-judicial confession, but P. W. 7s evidence in this regard is convincing and appears to be true. Nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of P. W. 7 to show any motive against the appellant to depose falsehood against him. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant bas urged that the evidence of P. W. ought not to have been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as the prosecution had failed to examine the two other persons who were admittedly present with P. W. 7 at the time when the appellant made his confession. Mr. J. Behera, learned Addi. Standing Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the evidence of P. W. 7 which has not at all been shaken in cross-examination bas been rightly accepted and no adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for Don-examination of the two persons who were present with P. W. 7. The evidence of P. W. 7 is entirely trustworthy and hence accepted. ( 7 ) ANOTHER important feature of this case is that the axe M. O. I which has been identified by P. W. 3 as the axe with which the appellant assaulted the deceased was sent for chemical examination along with the Saree of the deceased seized from the place of occurrence. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner. M. 0. I and the Saree contained human blood of the same AB group. ( 8 ) THUS the evidence of P. Ws. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner. M. 0. I and the Saree contained human blood of the same AB group. ( 8 ) THUS the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6, the eye witnesses, the recovery of M. O. I from the Sargi bush on the statement of and production by the appellant, the evidence of P. W. 7 as regards the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, the Chemical Examiner's report and the medical evidence clearly establish that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with the axe M. O. I on its blunt side and had killed her at the spot. On behalf of the appellant it has been urged that as the blunt side of the axe has been used the conviction should be under section 304 I. P. C. and not under section 302 I. P. C. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ban Ram v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court decision which was placed before us has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case the appellant has no doubt used the blunt side of the axe M. O. I, but the blow on the head which brought the deceased down was a severe one and as if that was not enough the appellant dealt a second severe blow also on the head of the deceased even after she had fallen down. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has fully brought home the charge under section 302 I P. C. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY this appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed. G. B. Patnaik, J.- I agree. Appeal dismissed .