PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal from Jail Gangadhar Behera (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has questioned legality of his conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') and the sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur. Three other persons stood trial with him under Section 302/109, IPC, but learned trial Judge acquitted them. ( 2 ) LAW was set into motion by Manoj Kumar Sahu (P. W. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the 'informant') to the effect that the accused was involved in gambling activities in his house. Other accused persons and Saroj Kumar Sahu (P. W. 4) were parties to the gambling. Dayanidhi Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), who was father of P. W. 4, objected to such activities. He blamed the accused for spoiling the people of the locality. Because of this, the accused bore grudge against him. Other accused persons thought that the deceased was creating problem and his life was to be done away with. On 16-9-1991 early in the morning the deceased had gone to attend call of nature. At that time Raghunath Behera (P. W. 7) had gone out for fishing. The accused-appellant was present on the culvert of Gogai Nala with a fishing net, but was not fishing. While the deceased was brushing his tooth sitting on the culvert, the accused-appellant gave axe blows on his head as a result of which he fell into the canal. This act was witnessed by P. W. 12 and her sister. They informed the matter to some of the villagers and Suresh Kumar Das (P. W. 5) informed the matter to Brandaban Swain (P. W. 6) who in turn informed Manoj Kumar Sahu (P. W. 1 ). All of them came to the spot and saw the deceased lying dead. The informant went and reported the matter to the police. During investigation the Investigating Officer (P. W. 13) held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet. ( 3 ) ALL the accused persons pleaded innocence. ( 4 ) TO further its plea prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The informant went and reported the matter to the police. During investigation the Investigating Officer (P. W. 13) held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet. ( 3 ) ALL the accused persons pleaded innocence. ( 4 ) TO further its plea prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Placing reliance on the evidence adduced, more particularly P. W. 12, the eye witness, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty, and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Evidence of P. W. 5 was also highlighted for holding the accused guilty. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the accused-appellant the evidence of P. W. 12 on which great emphasis has been laid is shrouded in mystery. This witness claimed that she resided at Gangapur in rented house and was selling dry fish by going to different villages. Though she claimed to know the residents of the nearby locality, she failed to even name her landlord. She was also not able to identify the two cyclists of the nearby village before whom she allegedly disclosed about the occurrence. Therefore, her claim that she is residing at Gangapur in rented house has to be discarded. The only conclusion that can be arrived at is that she was residing at her native place at Surala which is 150 K. Ms away from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, P. W. 12 informed P. W. 5, who in turn informed P. W. 6, and he in turn informed P. W. 4, the son of the deceased about the incident. P. W. 1 was also present with P. W. 4 at that time and first information report was lodged by P. W. 1. There is no material to show that P. W. 12 had disclosed about incident to P. W. 5, as he has not stated that P. W. 12 had disclosed about the incident before him. Therefore, the prosecution version has no credibility. There is also no material to show as to how the I. O. came to know that P. W. 12 was a vital witness. The prosecution has failed to prove about the alleged statement of the accused leading to discovery of weapon of offence. Evidence of P. W. 7, who is a pre-occurrence witness shows that the accused was sitting on the culvert with net and basket. The prosecution has failed to prove about the alleged statement of the accused leading to discovery of weapon of offence. Evidence of P. W. 7, who is a pre-occurrence witness shows that the accused was sitting on the culvert with net and basket. Neither this witness nor P. W. 12 has stated anything regarding weapon of offence. Additionally, evidence of P. W. 1 to the effect that the accused disclosed about his killing the former's father is not acceptable as it has not been shown as to why the accused would repose confidence on him. Factual position being that P. W. 1 is son of the deceased, it is unnatural that accused would repose confidence in him. Additionally it was submitted that she is at the best a chance witness, whose presence is doubtful. The learned counsel for State on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and sentence stating that the evidence has been elaborately dealt with and the accused has been rightly found guilty. ( 6 ) AT this juncture, it is to be seen how far the evidence of P. W. 12 is relevant, and acceptable. One thing significant to be noted is that P. W. 12 has no reason to falsely implicate the accused. There is no suggestion that his witness was inimically disposed towards the accused and would falsely implicate him. She is a rustic lady who was examined on 17-9-1991, that is, on the next day of occurrence. That being the position, the stand of the learned counsel for accused that this witness was residing about 150 K. Ms away from the place of occurrence does not stand to reason. Additionally it is not the case of the accused that this witness was a stock witness of the police. Her specific evidence is to the effect that she used to reside at Gangapur in a rented house and sell dry fish by going to different villages, She has stated that she herself and her younger sister were going to sell dry fish. ( 7 ) COMING to the plea of the accused that P. W. 12 was a 'chance witness' who has not explained how she happened to be at the alleged place of occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness is an independent witness. ( 7 ) COMING to the plea of the accused that P. W. 12 was a 'chance witness' who has not explained how she happened to be at the alleged place of occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness is an independent witness. There was not even a suggestion to the witness that she had any animosity towards the accused. In a murder trial by describing the independent witness as 'chance witness' it cannot be implied thereby that his or her evidence is suspicious and his or her presence at the scene is doubtful. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual. ( 8 ) P. W. 5's evidence is to the effect that two ladies who sell dry fishes informed him about the incident, and about the role played by the accused. P. W. 12 has clarified that her sister was dead before trial. Her evidence is cogent, clear and inspite of lengthy cross-examination nothing material has been brought out to discredit her version. The learned trial Judge was justified in placing reliance on her evidence to fasten guilt on the accused. ( 9 ) IN view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider whether the provisions of S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'act') have been complied with or not, or acceptability of alleged extra judicial confession. ( 10 ) SUBMISSION was made to the effect that the case is not one under S. 302, IPC. Merely because some minor injuries were there, it cannot be said that S. 302, IPC is not to be attracted. ( 10 ) SUBMISSION was made to the effect that the case is not one under S. 302, IPC. Merely because some minor injuries were there, it cannot be said that S. 302, IPC is not to be attracted. Though the number of injuries does not determine the question whether S. 302, IPC is to be attracted, yet the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the places where the injuries exist are relevant factors. In view of the evidence of the doctor about the nature of injuries, there is no iota of doubt that the case is covered under S. 302, IPC. ( 11 ) THERE is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. ( 12 ) S. C. DATTA, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.