B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant and the co-accused Khela Majhi stood charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) for Intentionally causing the death of Chhotrai Majhi (to be described hereinafter as Tthe deceased) on February 16, 1981 after nightfall at Tikarpada in the district of Mayurbhanj. It was alleged that when during the course of a scuffle, the deceased intervened, the appellant, by means of a crowbar (M. O. I), thrust it on the nose of the deceased resulting in serious internal injuries which caused his death. ( 2 ) TO bring home the charge, the prosecution has relied mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 4 to 6 who had figured as the witnesses to the occurrence and the recovery of M. O. I from the house of the father-in-law of the appellant consequent upon the statement said to have been made by the appellant which had been identified as the weapon of attack. There was, in addition, the medical evidence of P. W. 2 who had conducted the autopsy and had noticed one external injury, which had resulted in a number of internal injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The appellants plea was one of denial and false implication. According to him, in a scuffle, M. O. I might have hit the face of the deceased and caused injuries on his person. The appellant had examined his mother in his defence who had figured as D. W. 1. ( 3 ) THE trial court acquitted the co-accused under section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has not relied on the evidence of P. W. 5 as this witness had not stated in the course of investigation that she had seen the actual assault on the person of the deceased by the appellant. The learned trial Judge has accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6 and has discarded the plea of the defence and the evidence of D. W. 1 as unacceptable and has held that the charge of murder has been brought home to the appellant. The appellant has accordingly been convicted under section 302 of the Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 4 and 6 and has discarded the plea of the defence and the evidence of D. W. 1 as unacceptable and has held that the charge of murder has been brought home to the appellant. The appellant has accordingly been convicted under section 302 of the Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 4 ) THERE can be no doubt from the evidence of the doctor that internal injuries caused to the brain and other vital organs on the person of the deceased had resulted in his death. The question for consideration is as to whether the deceased suffered a homicidal death at the hands of the appellant or his death was due to an accidental hit by M. O. I during the scuffle. ( 5 ) WHILE judging the prosecution case and the plea of the defence, one may keep in mind that the doctor (P. W. 2) had noticed a lacerated wound 4 x 1/2 x 11/2 at the root of the nose which had caused injuries to the muscles and tissues of the nose and both eyes, fractures to the bones of the nose, fractures of the left temporal and right maxilla, defused haematoma under the scalp, fracture of the left side frontal bone into multiple fragments, facture of the left parietal bone, tear of the murameter and membrane of brain at multiple places, haematoma over the frontal parietal region and damages to the left eye. All these internal injuries, according to the doctor, corresponded to the external injury noticed by him which were ante mortem in nature and could be caused by means of a blow by M. O. I. Ext. 4 is his post-mortem report. He has also opined that if during a tussle over the possession of M. O. I the grip is released by one of the parties and strikes with sufficient force on that part of the body, an the injuries are possible. There may be many hypothetical theories as to how the same injuries might have been caused, but that theory which h in consonance with the evidence of the eye- witnesses is to be accepted by the court. ( 6 ) P. W. 4 is the father of P. W. 6. It is in their evidence that both of them had some dispute with Jauna, the mother-in-law of the appellant. ( 6 ) P. W. 4 is the father of P. W. 6. It is in their evidence that both of them had some dispute with Jauna, the mother-in-law of the appellant. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that for that reason, they may have falsely implicated the appellant. But it may as well be said that for this, the appellant had assaulted a relation of P. Ws. 4 and 6 to death. Close relations of the deceased normally do not screen the real culprit and rope in falsely innocent persons. The evidence of relations is not necessarily interested evidence. As would be clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6, they were present on the spot and were accordingly natural and competent witnesses. Describing as to how the occurrence took place, P. W. 4 bas testified thus: Last year in the month of Magh on a Monday, my brother Chhotrai expired. In the evening of that day myself, my son Jipa and my brother Chhotrai were going to the house of one Guruva Majhi to attend function there and to consume Handia there Guruva is my cousin brother. We were going on the village Danda. Soon after we reached the house of Jauna, 1 saw both these accused persons came out of the house. Lakhan was holding this M. O. I crowbar and Khela was bolding a twig. Lakhan aimed a blow at my back for which 1 tilted a little and the weapon could not touch me. Khela Majhi aimed a blow to my son Jipa, but he could run away. When Chhotrai protested, Lakhan Majhi dealt a blow to the nose of Chhotrai with M. O I for which Chhotrai fell down with bleeding injury. Lakhan shouted that two escaped but one became the pray. He has identified M. O. 1 to be the weapon of attack which was in the bands of the appellant, as testified by him. To the same effect is the evidence of P. W. 6 who has deposed thus: Chhotrai died on a Monday in last Magh. Myself, my father and my uncle Chhotrai were going to take Handia in the house of Gurruva on the village road. To the same effect is the evidence of P. W. 6 who has deposed thus: Chhotrai died on a Monday in last Magh. Myself, my father and my uncle Chhotrai were going to take Handia in the house of Gurruva on the village road. Near the house of Jauna, Lakhan armed with this crowbar M. O. I and Khela with a lathi came out from the house of Jauna, Lakhan aimed a blow to my father, but he slipped off. Khela aimed a blow to me, but 1 slipped off. We stayed at a distance of about 10 cubits. Lakhan dealt a stroke with this M. O. I on the root of the nose of Chhotrai, for which Chhotrai fell down. Chandra, Sida and Badha took him to the house of Sidha where he expired. ( 7 ) NOTHING substantial has been brought out in the cross examination of these witnesses to discard their testimony except as to whether they had sustained injuries because of assault on their persons by the appellant or as to whether the blows aimed at them had missed. There is no evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6 having sustained injuries on their persons. It would thus appear that that part of the story put forward by them with regard to the actual assault on their persons by the appellant by dealing blows is an embellishment to an otherwise true story. Their evidence with regard to the assault the deceased by the appellant is clear and cogent and is not to be discarded. ( 8 ) D. W. 1 is undoubtedly a highly interested witness who would look for a successful termination of the trial in favour of her son (appellant ). No suggestion has been made to any of the witnesses regarding her presence on the spot at the time of occurrence. There is no evidence except that of D. W. 1 to indicate the she was present. She has not in terms, stated in her evidence this the deceased had sustained any injury during the scuffle although she has spoken about the scuffle of which there is no other evidence. The clear and acceptable evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6 would negative the evidence of D. W. 1. She has not in terms, stated in her evidence this the deceased had sustained any injury during the scuffle although she has spoken about the scuffle of which there is no other evidence. The clear and acceptable evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6 would negative the evidence of D. W. 1. Besides, the evidence of the doctor and the injuries sustained by the deceased indicated above would give a clear indication that a very heavy blow had been dealt on the nose portion of the deceased by the appellant by means of M. O. 1 which could cause a number of injuries to the vital organs resulting in his death. It was not likely that such a heavy blow resulting in internal injuries could have been caused by an accidental strike with M. O. I. ( 9 ) NOTICE has been taken by the trial court of the fact that M. O. I had been recovered consequent upon a statement made by the appellant from the house of his father-in-law. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the story put forward by the prosecution and the plea of the defence, this would lend assurance to the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6, as rightly observed by the trial court in its judgment. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the finding recorded by the trial court that the appellant had assaulted the deceased to death cannot be dislodged. ( 11 ) MR. Mohanty has contended for the appellant the in case of acceptance of the case of the prosecution, the offence would be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as only one blow had been dealt on the person of the deceased by the appellant. The external injury and the consequent internal injuries sustained by the deceased would clearly give an indication that the appellant had dealt a very heavy blow on a vital of the deceased with considerable force and vengeance which had resulted in a number of internal injuries. It cannot laid down as a proposition of law that when one blow is dealt, the offence would not amount 10 murder, But would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Each case depends on its own facts and circumstances. It cannot laid down as a proposition of law that when one blow is dealt, the offence would not amount 10 murder, But would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Each case depends on its own facts and circumstances. Regard being bad to the nature of the weapon used, the seat of assault and the injuries sustained, there can be no doubt that the appellant had the intention of causing the death of the deceased and had, with that intention, caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The offence would thus be one of murder punishable under section 302 of the Code. ( 12 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .