K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge Joypore sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1991 for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that the deceased went to the house of her father Laxman Muduli (P. W. 5), the informant in the case along with her one year old son after quarrelling with her husband (the accused) about one month prior to the date of occurrence and stayed with her father the accused came to the house of the informant about fifteen days prior to the date of occurrence to take the deceased and his son to his house. He became unsuccessful when the deceased refused to go due to fever. Again the accused came to the house of the informant on a Tuesday i. e. on 18. 9. 1990 to take his wife and son. The informant told the accused that they will go on Friday i. e. 2 1. 9. 1990. It is alleged that the accused on the following Thursday (26. 9. 1990) took away his son and went to his village Girliguma. At this, the deceased insisted her father (informant) to take her to the house of the accused. Accordingly, the deceased, her father Laxman Muduli (P. W. 5), elder sister Pratima Muduli (P. W. 2) and Jim Muduli (P. W. 6), the husband of P. W. 2 left the house in the morning on 21. 9. 1990 to go to the house of the accused. On the way to village Girliguma near village Miandra, they met the accused, his mother and brother coming from their village, they talked with them and the informant Laxman Muduli left the deceased in the company of her husband (accused) and left the spot along with Pratima Muduli and Jiiru Muduli with a view to return to their house. Hardly they covered a distance of 80 cubits from the spot they heard the sound Man Gait, Man Galit coming from the spot where they left the deceased in the company of the accused. They looked back and saw the accused pulling out a Tangia from the neck of the deceased. Hardly they covered a distance of 80 cubits from the spot they heard the sound Man Gait, Man Galit coming from the spot where they left the deceased in the company of the accused. They looked back and saw the accused pulling out a Tangia from the neck of the deceased. The accused fled away throwing the Tangia when the informant, his daughter and son-in-law rushed towards the spot. The deceased died then and there having sustained bleeding injury on her neck. The informant on the very day of occurrence at 6. 00 P. M. went to Girliguma Outpost functioning at village Muran and orally reported the incident to Dhruba Charan Mallik (P. W. 8) the A. S. I. of Police Dasamantpur P. S. in-charge of the said Out-post. His oral report was reduced into writing, a case was registered on treating the said report as F. I. R. subsequently at Dasamantpur P. S. Investigation followed and ultimately charge-sheet under section 302 I. P. C. was placed against the accused after completion of the investigation. ( 3 ) THE accused while being examined under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. abjured his guilt and pleaded that on the date and time of occurrence he was going to village Singpur along with his mother and brother. They met the deceased, her father, elder sister and brother-in-law on the Mandra road. The accused on seeing them asked the deceased as to why she was staying in the house of her father and suggested to go to her house. Saying so, the accused started dragging the deceased. At that time Jiru Muduli rushed towards the accused raising a Tangia to assault him. When the accused bent down the Tangia blow fell on the neck of the deceased as a result of which she fell down and died. Thereafter Jiru Muduli fled away With the Tangia. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION has examined P. W. 10 and also P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6 who are said to have seen the occurrence. P. W. 4 is the post-occurrence witness and P. Ws. 3 and 7 are seizure witnesses. P. W. 9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. ( 5 ) THE appellant has not disputed the death of his wife on the alleged date and place of occurrence. P. W. 4 is the post-occurrence witness and P. Ws. 3 and 7 are seizure witnesses. P. W. 9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. ( 5 ) THE appellant has not disputed the death of his wife on the alleged date and place of occurrence. There is also no dispute that the death was homicidal. In defence the accused-appellant has examined one witness. The corroborative statements of P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6 are that no sooner they left the spot, they heard the cries of the deceased. When they were at a distance of 80 cubits they found that the appellant dealt with Tangia blow on the neck of the deceased with the result she died at the spot. The appellant raised doubt in the presence of these witnesses. But the lower court relying on the statement of P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6 and the medical evidence of the doctor, P. W. 9 has convicted the appellant under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for life. P. W. 2 is non-else but the mother of the accused appellant. According to P. W. 10, the accused suggested his wife Sundei Jani to accompany him to his house but she refused to go with him. At this accused picked up quarrel with P. W. 5. They assaulted each other. He says that P. W. 6 was also holding a Tangia, raised the same to give blow on the person of the accused, but it struck the neck of Sundei Jani who fell down with bleeding injuries and died on the spot. This witness P. W. 10 has been declared host he and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. This theory of defence has been denied by P. W. 6. He says that it is not a fact that he picked up quarrel with the accused-appellant. He also denies the fact that there was tussle between him and the accused and in that tussle, he attempted to give a blow on the person of the accused which struck the deceased. D. W. 1 is a co-villager of the accused-appellant. He admits the incident and says that at that time, the wife of the accused, his brother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law came from the side of their village. They met the accused, his brother and mother. D. W. 1 is a co-villager of the accused-appellant. He admits the incident and says that at that time, the wife of the accused, his brother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law came from the side of their village. They met the accused, his brother and mother. But he says that the accused protested the quarrel with P. W. 6 and they pushed each other. According to him, the accused was holding a lathi and P. W. 6 was holding an axe. He intervened and tried to separate them. But the Tangia struck the neck of the deceased, she fell down with bleeding injuries and died at the spot. ( 6 ) SO the incident is admitted by the accused, his mother P. W. 2 and his co-villager, D. W. 1. Had it been a fact that the deceased died due to tussle between P. W. 6 and the accused, then the accused would have been the first person to lodge a report for the death. But it is surprising to note that no such report was lodged by the accused appellant. On the contrary, the report was lodged by P. W. 5 immediately who is the father of the deceased. It was also not put to the doctor, P. W. 9 that such nature of illiury could be caused on the neck of the deceased by fall of Tangia. The doctor, P. W. 9 has described the injuries as under:1. Bruise 5 Cm. x 3 Cm. on the back at inter scapular region 6 Cm. below the nape of neck. 2. Incised wound 11 Cm. x 4 Cm. x 7 Cm. depth on the right side of neck at the middle part. The great vessels, artery and veins and nerves muscles were cut through on the right side of the neck. On dissection he notices that fourth servical vertebra fractured on the right side. Spinal cord injured. Eppiglotis injured on the right border. According to him, the cause of death was due to syncopa on account of sudden loss of blood from great vessels by injury no. 2. Spinal cord injury and nerve injury are contributing factors for the cause of the death. ( 7 ) IN view of the facts that there is ample evidence of P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6 and also the defence version and the accused-appellant having failed to prove his plea offence is proved beyond doubt. 2. Spinal cord injury and nerve injury are contributing factors for the cause of the death. ( 7 ) IN view of the facts that there is ample evidence of P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6 and also the defence version and the accused-appellant having failed to prove his plea offence is proved beyond doubt. Accordingly there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .