K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargath, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in short is that P. W. 3, Bhainri alias Kamala was married to the appellant and both of them were living in village Saraphgarh, within Lephripara Police Station of Sundargarh district. The deceased along with his parents was also a resident of the same village. The deceased and P. W. 3 fell in love and eloped. They returned to the village after about a fortnight. At the instance of the appellant, a caste meeting was convened in which it was decided by the Panches that the appellant would be excommunicated and P. W. 3 shall be kept by the deceased. In the night between 17th and 18th June, 1984 the deceased and P. W. 3 were sleeping in the inner room of the house. His parents were sleeping in the outer room. At about 10. 00 p. m. sounds emanated from the inner room where the deceased and P. W. 3 were sleeping. P. W. 1, father of the deceased went inside the said room and found his son lying dead in a pool of blood having marks of incised injuries on his neck. Next day in the morning, he came to Lephripara Police Station and lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 5 ). Investigation commenced and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmonem examination. The appellant was no where to be found, because he had absconded. A few day after, he was arrested and N. O. 1. an axe (Budia) was seized from him. After close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. ( 3 ) DEFENCE of the appellant was that he was not the perpetrator of the murder of the deceased, and a false case was brought against him, ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as already referred to above. ( 5 ) MR. A. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence on the grounds that the evidence of P. Ws. ( 5 ) MR. A. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence on the grounds that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 is unacceptable, and, if their evidence is taken out of consideration, there is no other material for coming to the conclusion that the appeuanthad committed the crime. Mr. S. S. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that the prosecution evidence is convincing, free from material contradiction and so cannot be thrown out of consideration. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 was the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital at Sundargarh: He conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: A cut wound of the size of 3 x 1/2 x2 below the lows of the left ear situated horizontally; A cut wound of the size of 3 x itt X 2 situated 1/2 above the right sterno clavicular joint situated obliquely and slicing the right clavicle in the medial portion; and A cut wound of the size of 3 x 1/2 x 2over the right side of the lower jaw medial and 1/2 below the lower jaw. According to his opinion in the post-mortem report (Ext. 1), the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries. Later, the weapon of offence (M. O. 1) was sent to him for opinion as to whether the above-mentioned injuries could have been caused by it. In Ext. 2 he opined that all the three injuries could be caused by M. O. 1. The evidence of the witness will show that the death of the deceased was on account of homicide. This aspect of the case was not challenged at the time of hearing. ( 7 ) THE prosecution sought to prove the offence against the appellant by the following evidence: (1) The deceased and P. W. 3, the wife of the appellant, had fallen in love and had eloped. This aspect of the case was not challenged at the time of hearing. ( 7 ) THE prosecution sought to prove the offence against the appellant by the following evidence: (1) The deceased and P. W. 3, the wife of the appellant, had fallen in love and had eloped. After they returned to the village, by a Panch decision, both of them were living together in the house of P. W. 1; (2) P. W. 3 saw the alleged murder of the deceased by the appellant; (3) P. W. 1, father of the deceased saw the appellant running away from his house immediately after the murder; (4) The appellant had absconded soon after committing the crime. ( 8 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 5 will show that the deceased and P. W. 3, who had married the appellant earlier, had fallen in love so much so that they had eloped. After about a fortnight or so, they returned to the village, and there was a meeting of caste, men, where it was decided that P. W. 3 should live with the deceased. According to the Panch decision, P. W. 3 began to live with the deceased in the house of P. W. 1. It is important to mention that P. W. 5, father of P. W. 3 had substantially corroborated the above fact. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope to doubt the version of these witnesses to the effect that P. W. 3 and the deceased lived together in the house of P. W. 1 after the Panch decision. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 was an eye witness to the occurrence. According to her version, in the night she was sleeping in the same bed with the deceased in the inner room of the house. The outer room was occupied by P. W. 1, his wife and some other children. All on a sudden, she woke up and found that the appellant was assaulting the deceased by means of an axe (M. O. 1 ). He dealt three cut blows on the neck and face of the deceased. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds. She went to the outer room to wake up P. W. 1. The appellant attempted to conceal himself, but subsequently ran out from the house. He found P. W. 3 going to the Chawkidar of the village. He dealt three cut blows on the neck and face of the deceased. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds. She went to the outer room to wake up P. W. 1. The appellant attempted to conceal himself, but subsequently ran out from the house. He found P. W. 3 going to the Chawkidar of the village. The appellant forced P. W. 3 under threat to accompany him. Therefore, P. W. 3 was compelled to accompany the appellant and subsequently after a few days both of them were arrested from village Baladabandha. Although she has been cross-examined, nothing substantial was brought out so as to disbelieve her version. On the other hand, she clarified that even though it was a dark night and it was drizzling, there was no difficulty for her to identify the appellant who was her previous husband. We do not find any material whatsoever so as to disbelieve the version of the eyewitness to the occurrence. If the appellant had not been the culprit, she would not have implicated him for the murder of the deceased in view of her previous relationship with him. We, therefore, accept the evidence of P. W. 3 as credible and true. ( 10 ) P. W. 1, father of the deceased stated that at about midnight sounds came from the inner room of the house, where the deceased and P. W. 3 were sleeping. P. W, 3 woke him up, and saw the appellant and P. W. 3 leaving the house. He saw that his son was dead lying in a pool of blood inside the room. He saw the injuries in the light of a Dibiri which was burning inside the room. Although he was not an eye witness to the occurrence, he was an immediate post occurrence witness who saw the appellant going from the house along with P. W. 3. Statements to this effect have been corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 3 herself. In cross-examination, no material contradiction has been brought out On the other hand, this witness was good enough to say that the night was dark and it was drizzling. It was not difficult on his part to identify P. W. 3 and the appellant who were known to him. There is little scope to disbelieve the evidence of this witness either. It was not difficult on his part to identify P. W. 3 and the appellant who were known to him. There is little scope to disbelieve the evidence of this witness either. ( 11 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3 and the Investigating Officers (P. Ws. 6 and 7) will show that soon after the occurrence, the appellant had absconded from the village and was ultimately found to be concealing in village Baladabandha. This is a piece of circumstantial evidence to incriminate the appellant. ( 12 ) ON consideration of the aforesaid evidence, we are convinced that the prosecution was able to establish its case against the appellant for the murder of the deceased beyond any reasonable doubt. The judgment of the le3med. Sessions Judge is, therefore, unexceptionable. We uphold his conviction and sentence under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 13 ) IN me result, the appeal is dismissed. .