JUDGMENT : B. Panigraphi, J. - The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in S.T. Case No. 225/11 of 1993/94 u/s 302, I.P.C. has been assailed by the Appellant in this Jail Criminal Appeal. 2. Prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased Kulaplani was the nephew of the Appellant. On 17.6.1993 at 4.00 P.M. while the Appellant was engaged in repairing the fence of his threshing floor, the deceased went towards that side following which an altercation had ensued. The Appellant dealt three to four blows on the neck and head of the deceased consequent upon which he succumbed to those injuries. 3. The Appellant took a plea of complete denial of the prosecution case. 4. In order to bring home the charge to the accused, it appears that the prosecution examined 10 witnesses out of whom P. Ws. 1 to 3 was said to be eye witnesses to the incident. It is true that P. Ws. 1 and 2 were related to the deceased, but it should not be lost sight of the fact that the Appellant was also a close relation of the deceased as well as P. Ws. 1 and 2. Merely because P. Ws. 1 and 2 were close relations of the deceased that does not by it discredit their ocular evidence if it otherwise does inspire belief. P. Ws. 1 and 2 will not ever leave the culprit escape from the punishment inasmuch as they claimed to have seen the occurrence. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant has severely criticized the prosecution case on the ground that the wife of the deceased was not examined in 'Court. It is not obligatory on the part of the prosecution to examine each and very eye witness to the incident. There is no sense in multiplying the same evidence by examining number of witnesses. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are characterized as eye witnesses to the incident. P.W. 1 has stated that on the fateful day when there was a heated discussion between the Appellant and the deceased, all the witnesses, namely P. Ws. 1 to 3, were present. The Appellant is said to have inflicted three successive 'fatal blows on the head and neck of the deceased as a reason whereof he fell down on the ground and succumbed to those injuries after a little while. 1 to 3, were present. The Appellant is said to have inflicted three successive 'fatal blows on the head and neck of the deceased as a reason whereof he fell down on the ground and succumbed to those injuries after a little while. The witnesses had also identified the Tangia (M.O.I.) by which the Appellant is said to have inflicted those blows. The Appellant while in police custody went to his house and recovered the M.O. and handed over the same to the police which was seized by them. In course of evidence, certain doubt crept in as to whether the name of P.W. 3's son was either 'Kulamani' or 'Nisamani', but P.W. 3 had clarified that his son's name was Kulamani and there was no person named Nilamani. P.W. 2 might have uttered the name of Nilamani in a state of confusion, but from the other evidence a trite position has emerged that it was 'Kulamani' who was the victim in this case and died out of Injuries. 6. It has further transpired from the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 9 that the accused while in custody led the I.O. to his house and showed the place where he had concealed M.O.I., the Tangia, which he recovered and handed over to the I.O. The seized Tangia contained blood-stains. Due to insufficiency of blood stains, the blood group could not be ascertained although the report suggested that the Tangia contained human blood. Within hours of injury, the victim was examined and P.W. 3 noticed incised wound on the neck, left temporal region and had opined that those injuries were grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death. But, however, he referred the matter to V.S.S. Medical College, Burla. P.W. 10 who was the Professor of F.M.T. on examination noticed the injuries and opined that death was due to incised wound on the neck, left temporal region, and on dissection he further found that the vertebral artery and cervical vertebra were cut. Therefore, the cumulative effect of those injuries would suggest that the death must have been caused in ordinary course of nature. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant has strenuously contended that the Appellant might have caused such injury out of sudden impulse and at the spur of the moment following an altercation. Therefore, the cumulative effect of those injuries would suggest that the death must have been caused in ordinary course of nature. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant has strenuously contended that the Appellant might have caused such injury out of sudden impulse and at the spur of the moment following an altercation. Therefore, at the best even assuming that such dastardly act was committed, it cannot be said to be culpable homicide amounting to murder. On a close and careful examination of the evidence, we noticed that there was no iota of evidence to establish that there was sudden provocation and those injuries inflicted on the deceased were on account of sudden impulse. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, we are constrained to hold that the Appellant inflicted the blows with intention to cause murder of the deceased. We also did not find any extenuating circumstances which will weigh in favor of the Appellant. 8. Therefore, from the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we are, however, constrained to uphold the conviction and sentence of the Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal being bereft of merits is, therefore, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed