JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The two Appellants, related as father and son, have filed the present appeal assailing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Add/. Sessions Judge, Balasore on a charge of murder. By the impugned judgment, they have been found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case, as borne out from the materials on record, may be stated thus: Katia alias Ramakanta Mallik (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") had married to Sukanti Mallik (P.W. 12). Soon after marriage, the deceased got involved in a criminal case and was sent to prison, where he remained for about two years. After his return, he found that his wife had gave birth to a male child, who was then about three months old. He suspected the validity of his wife, who on being questioned, had disclosed that Appellant Laxmikant was the father of the said child. In view of her stich disclosure, the deceased asked Laxmikant to keep both mother and child in his house to which he did not agree. On 7.1.1991 at about 2.00 P.M., the incident of the present case happened. At that time Abhiram Mallik (P.W. 2), while was engrossed in his study, heard hulla emanating from the house of the deceased, hearing which, he came out and saw both the Appellants chasing and assaulting the deceased with crowbar and dauli (Katuri). The deceased entreated them not to assault him, so also P.W. 1 and Ors. raised protest, but they paid no head to it. After having so assaulted, they brought the deceased, who was then alive, to their ?rouse and made him lie on their varenda. Appellant Laxmikant then went out to call a rickshaw. Sometime after, the other Appellant Baikuntha come out and declared that the deceased had been killed. P.W. 2 went to Soro Police Station and reported the incident, whereupon the F.I.R, was drawn up u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and investigation commenced and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was fried against both the Appellants to stand their trial for the aforesaid offence. 3. The Appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence. 3. The Appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence. A further plea was taken by Appellant Laxmikant that he along with his father as well as father of the deceased went to the land where the deceased was lying injured and brought him to their house, whereafter Appellant Laxmikant went to call a rickshaw to take him to the hospital. 4. Prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the Appellant, examined as many as 13 witnesses, of whom, P. Ws. 2 and 5 were eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The learned trial Judge, on evaluation of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other attending circumstances, recorded a finding of guilt against the Appellants and convicted and sentenced them as herein before stated. 5. Sri B.K. Panda, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D.P. Dhal, contends that the evidence of the eye-witnesses being discrepant in material particulars, the same should not be accepted and relied upon to base conviction against the Appellants. It is his submission that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive which impelled the Appellants to mercilessly assault the deceased and cause his death and therefore, the entire prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion. Lastly, he has contended that the prosecution having not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in a serious charge of murder, benefit of doubt should be given to the Appellants and the finding of guilt recorded against them should be set aside. Sri Jairaj Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, urges that the eye-witnesses examined in the case were independent and disinterested and they had an axe to grind against the Appellants. Their evidence being cogent, consistent and trustworthy, the learned trial court accepted the same as true and consequently held the Appellants guilty of the charge. Since the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court are based on thorough scrutiny of the materials p laced before it, there is no reason to take a contrary view and record a finding of acquittal in favour of the Appellants. 6. Since the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court are based on thorough scrutiny of the materials p laced before it, there is no reason to take a contrary view and record a finding of acquittal in favour of the Appellants. 6. The fact that the deceased sustained twelve number of injuries all over his body, of which, injuries to abdomen, occipital eminence and neck, below the thyroid were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature, as deposed to by the autopsy doctor-P.W. ll, has been disputed in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, the question arises whether the Appellants were responsible for the injuries which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased. 7. We will first evert to the evidence of two eye witnesses namely, P.W. 2 and 5 on whose version the prosecution sought to rely upon to prove its case. P.W. 2 have given a &retailed account as to how the incident occurred. It would appear from his evidence that hearing shouts he came out from his Bari and noticed that both the Appellants being armed with a crowbar and dauli (Katari) chased the deceased and assaulted him with the weapons held by them. Thereafter, they brought him to their house and made him lie in their inner varanda. Some time after, Appellant Baikuntha came out and declared that the deceased has been killed. This version of his gains support from the F.I.R. which was lodged within a few hours of the incident. To the same effect is also the evidence of P.W. 5. As stated by him, he saw both the Appellants chasing the deceased being armed with lethal weapons such as crowbar and Katari. The deceased ran to a distance, but as he could not cross a thorny bush, the Appellants assaulted him causing injuries on his person. They then brought and kept him inside their house. Sometime after the Appellants came out and declared that they had killed the deceased. The aforesaid two witnesses were subjected to searching cross examination, but nothing substantial could be brought out to impeach their credibility. On a scrutiny of their evidence, we find that their presence at the scene of occurrence was quite natural and probable and they being disinterested witnesses deposed as to how and in what manner the deceased was mercilessly assaulted by the Appellants. On a scrutiny of their evidence, we find that their presence at the scene of occurrence was quite natural and probable and they being disinterested witnesses deposed as to how and in what manner the deceased was mercilessly assaulted by the Appellants. Two other witnesses viz. P. Ws. 1 and 3 were examined as having witnessed the incident. But they were declared hostile: since they did not support the prosecution case. However, a scrutiny of their evidence would show that to certain extent they corroborated the ocular version of P. Ws. 2 and 5. According to P.W. 1, while he was sleeping in his Bari, hearing hullah rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying with bleeding injuries. So far as evidence of P.W. 3 is concerned, it would appear that he witnessed the second part of the incident, inasmuch as, he stated that on hearing hullah he went to the spot and found both the Appellants carrying the deceased to their house. Though in his chief-examination he had not stated anything as to how the deceased received injuries, however, on being cross-examined by the defence he stated in Para-3 of his evidence that the deceased while running away, was assaulted by Appellant-Baikuntha with a crow-bar. 8. Now we will turn to other circumstantial evidence appearing in the case. It is the admitted case of the defence, as brone-out from the statement of Appellant Laxmikanta recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure that they brought the 'deceased to their house from the place where he was lying injured. No explanation was offered by the Appellants as to why they brought the deceased to their house instead of taking him to his own house. Moreover, if at all they were innocent and desirous to help the deceased, on noticing injuries on his person, they would have taken him to the hospital for immediate treatment, but they did not do so. Rather, they brought him to their house and kept him inside closing the door, so as not to allow the villagers to come to his help. 9. Regard being bad to the materials on record, as discussed above, we concur with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the trial court holding both the Appellants guilty of the charge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed