DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE accused-appellant who was tried for an offence punishable u/s. 302 I. P. C. before the Sessions Judge, Sarguja at Ambikapur in S. T. No. 116/85, has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered against him by the learned Trial Judge, finding him guilty for the offence u/s. 302 Indian Penal Code in short 'ipc' and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case reveals the following facts- The accused was ill-treating his wife Rindi by not giving her food and physically torturing her. Non-availability of the basic essential, food, and the unbearable physical torture compelled Rindi to leave the house of the accused and stay at her brother's place in village Silsila. As the allegation proceeds, two days prior to the date of occurrence she had reached Silsila and stayed with her brother Ledo (P. W. 3 ). On the following Saturday the accused came to take back his wife and stayed at Ledo's residence. He expressed his desire to take Rindi with him but Khode, the elder brother of Rindi, told him that he would send his sister after two days. On the next day i. e. 17-2-85 in the early part of the morning the accused left the house of his brother-in-law. It is relevant to state here that Rindi was the second wife of the accused and she had one daughter, namely, Saniya (P. W. 2) through her first husband, Pooran. After the departure of the accused, Rindi, her brother, Khode, and daughter Saniya proceeded to the jungle at about 7-00 a. m. to collect wood. At about 4-00 p. m. while they were making arrangement to come back to the village the accused reached there and assaulted Khode on his neck portion continuously for 4-5 times with a 'tabbal'. Khode was seriously injured, bled profusely and ultimately breathed his last at the spot. Panic-stricken Rindi and Saniya took to their heels, reached their village and informed Ledo, and others. In the night itself Rindi, Ledo, Kunwar and Choukidar Saddum went to the forest to see the dead body of Khode. The villagers guarded the dead body in the night. Khode was seriously injured, bled profusely and ultimately breathed his last at the spot. Panic-stricken Rindi and Saniya took to their heels, reached their village and informed Ledo, and others. In the night itself Rindi, Ledo, Kunwar and Choukidar Saddum went to the forest to see the dead body of Khode. The villagers guarded the dead body in the night. On the next day the Choukidar went to P. S. Ambikapur and lodged the F. I. R. On 19-2-85 the sub-inspector Adityasingh went to the spot, locally called Jinga-Jhariya Jungle, and in presence of the witnesses did 'panchnama' of the dead body. He seized one red colour Lungi, Banian, some small pieces of wood and some blood-stained earth under the seizure list, P-4. At the place of occurrence the axe and 'basula' of the deceased were not available. In the course of investigation the accused stated that he has sold the 'basula' for rupees 4/- to a shopkeeper at Khapara Sakoli. Basula was seized from the shopkeeper under P-5. He also led to the discovery of 'tabbal' which was kept in his house. He also informed that the axe had been sold by him for Rs. 2/- to one Chumanbai. The said weapon was seized under P. 7. The investigating agency also seized a half-pant and a Chaddar (Article-C) under seizure list P-10. After completing further investigation the charge-sheet was laid before the competent Court who in turn committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge. ( 3 ) THE defence took the plea of complete denial and false implication. ( 4 ) THE prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined 18 witnesses. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence on record came to hold that the death of Khode was homicidal, the accused was ill-treating his wife Rindi and had assaulted the deceased with the intention to cause his death. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions he convicted him for the offence u/s. 302 I. P. C. and accordingly sentenced him for imprisonment for life. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Sudhir Rawat, learned counsel for the appeallant and Mr. Riyaz Mohd. Learned Govt. Advocate for the State. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions he convicted him for the offence u/s. 302 I. P. C. and accordingly sentenced him for imprisonment for life. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Sudhir Rawat, learned counsel for the appeallant and Mr. Riyaz Mohd. Learned Govt. Advocate for the State. It is contended by Shri Rawat that PW 1 and PW 2 the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence should not have been believed as they were extremely interested witnesses and moreso, when the relationship between Rindi and her husband had become totally strained. It is his further submission that the evidence is absolutely sketchy to be relied upon to hold the accused guilty of the offence. His last submission is that, assuming the assault has been proved, the accused should not be convicted u/s. 302 I. P. C. but u/s. 304-Part II I. P. C. inasmuch as he was a frustrated and anguished person as his wife had deserted him, and the deceased had become an obstacle in their path of reconciliation. The learned Govt. Advocate, controverting the submissions of Mr. Rawat, has contended that there is ample evidence on record and when the learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons in arriving at the conclusions, the judgment cannot be regarded as unsustainable. That apart, the learned Counsel for the State submits that the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be thrown out of consideration because of their relationship with the deceased when no such material has been brought on record that Rindi was so inimically disposed towards her husband that she would falsely rope him in a crime of the present nature. He has also vehemently urged that the facts in the present case do not call for conversion of the offence as the accused had assaulted the deceased with a deadly weapon, and the nature of blow and the part of body chosen, justify the determination of the nature of offence. The frustration and the aggravation of situation by interference of the brother are not acceptable grounds for treating the offence to be one under S. 302, I. P. C. Part II, has also been canvassed with force by the learned Counsel for the State. ( 7 ) ON a perusal of the impugned judgment with keen anxiety we find that the ocular evidence of P. Ws. ( 7 ) ON a perusal of the impugned judgment with keen anxiety we find that the ocular evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and the conduct of the accused leading to discovery of the weapon used by him and the sale of axe and 'basula', as has been indicated under Exs. P-4, P-9 and P-10, required appreciation for determination of the culpability of the accused-appellant. P. W. 1, the wife of the accused, has deposed that she was ill-treated by him and, therefore, she had come to stay in her parental house and two days after, her husband had come and spent the night at her brother's residence. She has stated in detail in regard to the wearing apparel of the accused and the weapon carried by him. She has vividly described the assault by the accused. She has deposed that the accused gave 4 to 5 blows with the 'tabbal' at the neck portion of the deceased. In the cross-examination nothing has been elicited except the incompatible relationship between her and the accused, P. W. 2, the niece of the deceased is a young girl of 13. It has been brought in her evidence that while she and her mother were collecting wood and her uncle, the deceased was cutting wood, the accused came there and gave blows on the neck portion of her uncle for which he fell down. She and her mother, scared of being assaulted by the deceased ran to their village. This witness has stayed imbedded in her version. She has also stood unshaken while answering to the Court's query. We have also scanned the evidence of P. W. 3, the younger brother of the deceased. He has categorically stated that on the day before the occurrence the accused came at about 4-00 p. m. to their house, spent the night with them and when he expressed his desire to take his wife Rindi with him, the deceased told him that he would send her after a day or two. He has also deposed that at about 7-00 a. m. in the morning the deceased along with P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the forest to fetch wood, and after they had gone to the forest the accused left their house. This witness has admitted that his sister Rindi was not willing to stay with the accused. He has also deposed that at about 7-00 a. m. in the morning the deceased along with P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the forest to fetch wood, and after they had gone to the forest the accused left their house. This witness has admitted that his sister Rindi was not willing to stay with the accused. On scrutiny of the evidence of these 3 witnesses it is crystal clear that the accused was not pulling well with his wife; his wife, P. W. 1 was not desirous of staying with the accused; on the date of occurrence P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased had gone to forest to collect wood; and the accused had assaulted with 'tabbal' on the neck portion of the deceased. The ocular testimony with regard to the assault also gets support from the medical evidence as has been brought on record through P. W. 12, who had found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased :- "external injuries : (1) There were multiple incised wounds present on the right index side of the back, left side of the neck, Maggots were present on the wounds found on the right side of the body. (2) Incised wound, 21/2" x 3" x bone deep, present on left shoulder region, extending from upper border of left scapula, down to 1" of the upper part of the left upper arm, exposing the head of humerus. (3) Incised wound, 51/2" x 2" x 2", present on left scapula, extending from posterior border of left axilla to 2" away from vertebral column, left scapular spine was cut. (4) There were three incised wounds, adjacent to each other extending from just below the left ear, and passing through the left side of nape of neck and backward up to the right scapular region, crossing the vertebral column, exposing the bisected thorasic vertebra at D-1-2 level. Spinal Cord and nerves were exposed, i. e. (i) 5" x 2" x muscle deep, (ii) 5" x 2" muscle deep, (iii) 5" x 21/2" x bone deep. (5) Abrasion, with contusion, was present on left hypochondrium, size 31/2" x 4" and another abrasion on right hypochondrium, size 11/2" x 1". (6) Contusion with abrasion, 4" x 2", present on medial aspect of right knee. Internal injuries : Brain was pale. (5) Abrasion, with contusion, was present on left hypochondrium, size 31/2" x 4" and another abrasion on right hypochondrium, size 11/2" x 1". (6) Contusion with abrasion, 4" x 2", present on medial aspect of right knee. Internal injuries : Brain was pale. Spinal cord was dissected and was wound cut at D-1, D-2 level. Spinal nerves were exposed. Both the chambers of the heart were full of blood. In the stomach, gastric juices about 25 ml. were present in stomach cavity. Urinary bladder was empty. " The doctor has also opined that the injuries were caused by a sharp and hard object and all the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death. ( 8 ) MR. Rawat has urged before us that these three witnesses have an axe to grind against the accused inasmuch as the wife of the deceased having deserted him might be wanting to lead a free and independent life of her own. He has also submitted that the daughter of P. W. 1, Saniya, might be harbouring a grudge against the accused because of her mother's second marriage with the accused. It is well settled in law that testimony of an inimically disposed of witness cannot be flung away but has to be scanned with due care and circumspection. On close scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses we find that there is no earthly reason on the part of P. W. 1 to implicate her husband in a case of murder and that too of her elder brother. True it is, her relationship with her husband was strained but it cannot be accepted that she would be so obsessed with her feeling of vengeance so as to leave the real accused and implicate her husband. Similarly there is no justifiable reason to ascribe motive to the version of P. W. 2, a young girl who had witnessed thirteen summers only. She might have a grievance against her step-father but it is inconceivable that she would exonerate the real assailant of her maternal uncle and implicate the accused. Quite apart from that no suggestion has been given to this witness regarding her enmity with the accused. The same parameters can also be made applicable to the testimony of P. W. 3. She might have a grievance against her step-father but it is inconceivable that she would exonerate the real assailant of her maternal uncle and implicate the accused. Quite apart from that no suggestion has been given to this witness regarding her enmity with the accused. The same parameters can also be made applicable to the testimony of P. W. 3. ( 9 ) WHILE judging the veracity of the aforesaid witnesses we may point out that the accused had himself laid to discovery of 'tabbal', the weapon used in the crime. There is no reason to disbelieve the seizure conducted by the investigating agency. The garments were seized along with the 'tabbal', 'stained earth' and sent for serological examination. The serologist report has been brought on record under Ex. P-19. It has been opined in that report that there was presence of blood on the wearing of 'chaddi', 'chaddar' and 'tabbal', 'pachar' 'stained earth' and wooden pieces. These aspects in the evidence clearly corroborate the unshaken testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2. In view of this there is no reason to discard the versions of these witnesses. On the contrary they have the reliability and acceptability and we accordingly accept and affirm the conclusion arrived at by the court below relating to the commission of the offence by the accused. ( 10 ) NOW we shall deal with the nature of the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the frustration and the mental make up of the accused have to be weighed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He has submitted that the wife of the accused had deserted him and he had made efforts to take her back. As the deceased acted as a stumbling block, he lost his mental equilibrium and assaulted him. The submission, we are afraid is not borne on material facts on record and, therefore, does not gain ground. It is not a case where there was a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the accused relating to his wife. Nor does the materials on record reflect or manifestly demonstrate that there was a quarrel immediately before the occurrence and the appellant in heat of passion committed the crime. It is not a case where there was a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the accused relating to his wife. Nor does the materials on record reflect or manifestly demonstrate that there was a quarrel immediately before the occurrence and the appellant in heat of passion committed the crime. It is perceptible from the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased told the accused that Rindi would go back to him within a day or two and arrangements would be made in that regard. Without showing any reaction whatsoever the accused departed. It was not the agony which perturbed him but it was the suppressed anger which corroded his human feelings and slowly he proceeded on the path of perverse revenge. In a cool, calculated and determined manner he proceeded to the jungle and put an end to the life of the deceased. There was no dialogue; there was no altercation but assault in silence. Blow after blows were given by the accused without any consideration but with a singular determination to achieve the end, the end of life of the deceased. In this factual backdrop we are of the considered view that the accused-appellant has rightly been convicted under S. 302, I. P. C. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant though express a subtle aspect of human character, does not merit consideration in the present case. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .