S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT in his petition from jail assails his conviction for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life passed thereunder. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, in brief, is that on 10. 2. 1990 at about 7. 30 ANR. Chaturi Suna (mother-in-law of P. W. 1 informant) had gone to her land for transplanting paddy seedlings and then appellant Atar Nag directed her to leave the place, otherwise he would kill her if she did not comply. At this Chaturi claimed her right to transplant paddy seedling in that land and did not leave the place. Thereupon the appellant assaulted Chaturi by means of a Tangia (M. O. 1) as a result of which, she died at the spot. ( 3 ) THE appellant took the plea of denial. ( 4 ) THE doctor (P. W. 7) who held postmortem examination over the dead body of Chaturi on 10. 2. 1990 itself, found as many as five incised injuries on her persons. They were over the anterior back and lateral side of the neck, below the angle of mandible and right parietal region of the scalp. He also found the neck muscles cut, sterno cleidomastoid tom, jugular vein cut, sterno cleidomastoid of right side tom, mam-brance and parietal lobe tom and blood clots present on the right parietal lobe. The doctor has opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature, death was homicidal the cause of death being injury to the vital organs like brain and right carotid artery. Considering the above evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the death of Chaturi was homicidal in nature and this finding is not assailed before us. Prosecution relied on the direct testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 3 in support of its case. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that P. W. 1 is the son-in-law of the deceased and P. W. 3 has not deposed about any assault by the appellant on Chaturi and therefore, the evidence on record was inadequate for finding the appellant guilty for the offence alleged against him. 1 to 3 in support of its case. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that P. W. 1 is the son-in-law of the deceased and P. W. 3 has not deposed about any assault by the appellant on Chaturi and therefore, the evidence on record was inadequate for finding the appellant guilty for the offence alleged against him. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 has stated that after taking watered rice in the morning at about 7 A. M. , he went towards canal to wash his face and then saw the appellant assaulting his mother-in-law Chaturi with a Tangia and as a result of the assault, Chaturi fell down and when he went near her with his wife, they found Chaturi dead. P. W. 1 then went to the police station and lodged F. I. R. , Ext. 1. P. W. 2 claims that at the relevant time he was ploughing the land of Bhojraj (father of appellant) which he had taken on lease. According to him, when Chaturi came to her land with paddy seedlings for the purpose of transplanting, the appellant who was leveling the field for transplantation warned Chaturi to go away from that land or else he would kill her. Chaturi claimed ownership over that land and instead of leaving, stayed there. Thereupon the appellant assaulted Chaturi by means of a Tangia and on seeing the assault, P. W. 2 fled away. According to P. W. 3, when he was ploughing the land of aforesaid Bhojraj which he had taken on lease and the appellant was leaving the paddy had Chaturi came to her land and started transplanting paddy seedlings. Seeing this, the appellant directed Chaturi to leave the place or else he would kill her. But Chaturi did not leave the place and there was a quarrel between Chaturi and the appellant. According to P. W. 3, he thereafter left the place. Thus P. W. 3 did not support the prosecution case so far as assault part is concerned though he had stated about it in her statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) IT is thus seen that P. W s. 1 and 2 categorically claimed to have seen the assault on Chaturi by the appellant by means of a Tangia. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these two witnesses to discard their testimony. P. C. ( 6 ) IT is thus seen that P. W s. 1 and 2 categorically claimed to have seen the assault on Chaturi by the appellant by means of a Tangia. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these two witnesses to discard their testimony. There seems to be no reason as to why P. W. 1 would falsely replicate the applicant. Merely because he is a relation, his evidence cannot be ignoredt. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is partly corroborated by P. W. 3. It is significant to note that P. Ws. 2 and. 3 are none else but the lessees under the father of the appellant. The aforesaid ocular evidence firms corroboration from the medical evidence which is to the effect that aforesaid injuries can be caused by Tangia. The above evidence is also fully corroborated by the F. I. R. , Ext. 1 which was lodged promptly after about 4 hours of the incident at the police station which is 18 KM5. away from the spot. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the above evidence, we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that it is the appellant who caused death of Chaturi Suna by inflicting blows by means of Tangia, a sharp cutting instrument. The postmortem report clearly reveals that as many as five incised wounds were found on the vital parts of the body namely the neck, face and head and the doctor also opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion that the appellant intentionally caused death of Chaturi Suna is unassailable. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been convicted for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. The sentence being the minimum prescribed under law, does not call for any interference. In the premises the criminal appeal is dismissed. Criminal Appeal dismissed. .