JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - In this appeal from Jail the legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, in S.T. Case No. 49 of 1991 has been called in question. The convict Tipi alias Mata Naik faced trial before the trial Judge on a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing murder of one Bukulu Majhi. The trial Judge found him guilty of the charge, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, lies in short compass and may be stated as follows: The deceased Bukulu Majhi had two wives. He used to stay with his second wife, Saunri (Puturi) while his first wife Deula Majhiani (P.W.2) lived in a separate house along with her daughter (P.W.1) and son-in-law (P.W.4) On the date of incident at about 1 P.M. the accused came to the deceased and demanded a hen for him. At that time, the second wife of the deceased, namely, puturi went to the Bari side to tie a goat. While she was returning home after tying the goat she heard the cry of Bukulu calling her by her nick name 'Puturi, Puturi'. She hurried to their residence and noticed her husband Bukulu lying in a pool of blood with injuries on his neck, face and other vulnerable parts of the body. Delha (P.W.1) and Bhada Majhi (P.W.4) reported to her that the accused Mata Naik escaped from the house immediately before her arrival being armed with a blood stained axe and a Katari. They further reported that while escaping through the Bari of the Bukulu Majhi the accused had thrown the weapons inside the Bari. They also reported that the accused was wearing a black full pant and a white shirt, while entering the house of Bukulu and escaping therefrom. The informant raised a hue and cry and the villagers assembled. They noticed the dead body of the deceased lying inside his room with bleeding injuries on his person where after they called the Gram Rakhi to guard the spot. As it was night and the police station was about 24 K.Ms. away, the ward member Sitaram Purti reported the incident to the police-Station on the next day morning and on his verbal statement, a formal F.I.R. was drawn-up, registered and investigation started. As it was night and the police station was about 24 K.Ms. away, the ward member Sitaram Purti reported the incident to the police-Station on the next day morning and on his verbal statement, a formal F.I.R. was drawn-up, registered and investigation started. In course of investigation, the police recovered both the weapons of offence from inside the Bari and vegetable field of the deceased and seized them in presence of the witnesses. The wearing apparels viz., black full pant and the white shirt were also seized from the possession of the accused. Dead body of the victim was sent for post-mortem examination. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 302, I.P.C. 3. The defence is a plea of innocence. According to the accused, all the witnesses bore grudge against him and as such, they have conjointly foisted this false case against him. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. The prosecution sought to establish the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the present appellant by circumstantial evidence. It appears that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Nobody has seen the accused making murderous assault on the deceased. The case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence. It has been borne out clearly from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the deceased died a homicidal death. Dr. Mamata Sahu (P.W.6) is the Autopsy Surgeon. She conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Bukulu. The Autopsy Surgeon found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. Lacerated injury 1" x ?" x ?-2" over the left side temporal region's" above the mastoid process below left parietal pretuberance. 2. Right pinna was found to be lacerated and crushed effecting the bones and the muscles underneath. 3. Bleeding from the right ear and presence of dried clotted blood was noticed. 5. On dissection, he found the following internal injuries:- A large haematoma around the right ear was detected. It was of size 4" x 3". The muscles underneath were crushed and torn. 6. On further dissection, he noticed fracture to the temporal bone accompanied by fracture of base of the skull causing injury to the dura. The dura matter was found to be lacerated and torn. Intracranial pressure was found to have been exerted due to internal bleeding. It was of size 4" x 3". The muscles underneath were crushed and torn. 6. On further dissection, he noticed fracture to the temporal bone accompanied by fracture of base of the skull causing injury to the dura. The dura matter was found to be lacerated and torn. Intracranial pressure was found to have been exerted due to internal bleeding. Compound fracture was noticed on the right mandible causing dislocation of the right mandible joint. Presence of dried clotted blood was found on both the nostrils. According to the Doctor the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He opines that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the external injuries appearing on the head and ear of the deceased. She is of the view that all the injuries must have been caused by heavy blunt weapon. She is of further opinion that the injuries can be caused by the blunt sides of a Budia and a Bankia. As indicated earlier, the prosecution case depends solely upon circumstantial evidence. Dolhai Majhiani (P.W.1) is the daughter of the deceased by his first wife. She claims that she stays with her mother along with her husband. Her father, namely, deceased stayed in a house with his second wife, Puturi. Their house and that of her father, are situated in one campus intervened by a common courtyard. According to this witness, on the previous day her father locked her mother inside a room in the company of one Ganga Naik, the brother of the accused suspecting infidelity on the part of her mother. It is noticed from her evidence that accused came there all on a sudden and questioned all of them as to why his brother Ganga had been kept confined. When none could offer any satisfactory explanation for the detention of his brother, Ganga there, he broke open the door and took away his brother, Ganga. It is in her evidence that on the following day at about 1 p.m. while she was present at the residence along with her husband she noticed the accused going inside the room of her father. The accused was then wearing a black pant and a white shirt. At that time the second wife of the deceased went towards the Bari side to tie a goat. The accused was then wearing a black pant and a white shirt. At that time the second wife of the deceased went towards the Bari side to tie a goat. P.W.1 went inside their room and started taking lunch. She says that while they were taking food, they heard the cry of the deceased, calling his second wife in her nick name 'Puturi, Puturi' in loud voice. Being attracted by the cries, they rushed to the room of the deceased and found the accused coming out of the room of his father being armed with a blood stained Budia and a Bankia (Kata). She states that the accused threw the aforesaid weapons inside the Bari of his father and thereafter took to his heels. At that time, Puturi, the second wife of the accused came from the Bari side. All of them went inside the room of his father and found him lying dead in a pool of blood with cut bleeding injuries over his face and head. P.W.2 is the second wife of the deceased. She was away from home at the time of incident. She is a post occurrence witness. On her return, she noticed her husband lying head inside the room. P.W.3 is the first wife of the deceased. She was also not present when the fatal assaults were given to the deceased. She had gone out and on her return she notice that her husband had sustained bleeding injuries on his head, face and neck and was lying in a pool of blood. P.W.4 is the husband of P.W.1 He corroborates his wife, namely, P.W.1 As noticed earlier, there is no direct evidence of assault on the deceased by the accused. But the learned counsel for the State contends that the circumstances as disclosed during trial clearly establish the guilt of the accused. There had been an incident on the previous day when the deceased had locked the brother of the accused along with his first wife in one of his rooms. The accused intervened and rescued his brother by breaking open the door. According to the prosecution, this furnishes motive for the offence of murder of the deceased. There had been an incident on the previous day when the deceased had locked the brother of the accused along with his first wife in one of his rooms. The accused intervened and rescued his brother by breaking open the door. According to the prosecution, this furnishes motive for the offence of murder of the deceased. Of course, none of the witnesses has seen the accused giving fatal blows to the deceased but the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 and 4 have seen the accused coming out of the room of the deceased with a blood stained axe and Katuri. They also found the weapon of offence inside the Bari. After the accused fled away, witnesses entered the room and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The blood stained axe and Katuri were seized from inside the Bari of the accused. Moreover, the blood stained wearing apparels, such as, black pant and white shirt were also seized from the possession of the accused. The Chemical Examination report revealed presence of human blood in the blood stained wearing apparels of the accused. All these facts and circumstances, conclusively prove the guilt of the accused. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that all the witnesses on whom the trial Court has placed reliance are relations of the accused and as such, they are highly interested witnesses and so their evidence should not have been relied upon by the trial Court. It is of course true that P.Ws.1 to 4 are near relations of the deceased but this should not be a ground to discard their evidence. In our opinion, they are the most competent persons to depose about the incident. It is unlikely that they could try to shield the real offender and falsely implicate the accused for nothing. Of course the Court must examine their evidence with great care and caution. We have scrutinised their evidence thoroughly and we find nothing to disbelieve their testimony. So considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused. Accordingly, we see no justification to interfere with the findings of the Court below. In our view, the appeal is without any merit and is as such dismissed. A. Pasayat, J. - I agree Final Result : Dismissed