JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal assails the judgment and order passed by the 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, in Sessions Case No. 15/93 (S. C. 55/93-G. D. C.) whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and u/s 323, I. P. C further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The scenario of the prosecution story depicted in course of trial is as follows :-- The appellant Nabin Pradhan is the eldest son of deceased Chhaila Pradhan. They were living in separate mess, but in the same house on the date of occurrence. The appellant was persistently demanding a share from the house, but the deceased could not part with a portion as the residential house was inadequate for partition. Therefore, the deceased suggested the appellant to take another house site adjoining to their residential house. Therefore, there was misunderstanding and bickering which turned out to the unfortunate incident. On 2-5-1991 at about 2.30 p. m. while Chhaila Pradhan (deceased) was taking rest in the outer room of his house on the floor and his wife Hema Pradhan (p. w. 1) sleeping near his feet, the appellant went into the house and gave a murderous blow on the head of the deceased by a rectangular wooden bar (ADAGEDA) used for locking the door, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and instantaneously died. On the protest made by the wife (p. w. 1), the appellant was further infuriated and gave two to three blows by the said wooden rafter, but fortunately she grappled the appellant as a result of which he could not inflict further blows and threw the wooden bar and took to his heels. After a while, one Jogendranath Pradhan (p. w. 5) came to the spot and immediately rushed to the police station and explained the incident verbally to the I. I. C. Aska P. S., who swung into action and proceeded to the spot, sent the injured as well as the deceased to the hospital, conducted the inquest over the dead body in presence of witnesses, called a photographer to take a snap of the place of occurrence, seized the wooden rafter, examined the material witnesses and placed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate. After commitment, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 302/307; I. P. C. against the appellant and after examining the witnesses held the appellant guilty under sections 302 and 323, I. P. C. and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 3. The plea of the appellant in the lower court was that there was a quarrel between p. w. 1 and the deceased and p. w. 1 pushed the deceased as a result of which he fell down on a grinding stone and sustained such injuries. The deceased after some time succumbed to those, injuries and died. P. w. 1 in order to deprive the appellant; from his legitimate share of the ancestral property had falsely implicated him in this case. 4. In order to sustain a conviction against the appellant, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses including his mother, who was the principal witness in this case. P. w. 1 is said to be the star witness of the prosecution. Her husband was a victim in the incident. The appellant is her son. In this back-ground, it is not expected of p. w. 1 to falsely implicate her own son. P. w. 1 presented a graphic picture of the incident in course of hearing. She has stated that on the fateful afternoon, the deceased as well as herself were sleeping in the outer room of their house, but when she woke up after hearing a sound, found the accused having assaulted her husband on his head on the right side of the ear. She also noticed the deceased was sinking down after receiving severe injury on his head. The accused at that time was holding a wooden bar (ADAGEDA) (M.O.I). When she tried to protest him, the latter also gave two to three blows by M.O.I, on her back as a reason whereof she received bleeding injury. Then the appellant threw away the wooden bar and left the place. She also proved that there was bad blood and rancour between the deceased and the appellant when the latter demanded, share from the properties, but the deceased was agreeable to give a piece of homestead, but not the house. 5. Keeping the aforesaid back-ground in view, let us advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. She also proved that there was bad blood and rancour between the deceased and the appellant when the latter demanded, share from the properties, but the deceased was agreeable to give a piece of homestead, but not the house. 5. Keeping the aforesaid back-ground in view, let us advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. P. w. 1, who had no axe to grind against the appellant, he being their own son, why should she make a false statement to implicate her own son. A suggestion has been taken by the defence taking a cue from the evidence of other witnesses that there was a quarrel between the deceased and p. w. 1, who pushed him as a result of which he fell down on a grinding stone. But how far such hypothetical question has been proved should be carefully considered. The Medical Officer examined as p. w. 12 and he has strongly refuted the suggestion of the defence. According to the Medical Officer in case a person falls upon a hard and blunt substance, the velocity and force must have been used to have such type of injury and there must have been some other allied or associated injuries when a person comes in contact with such hard substance. In this case, apart from the injuries narrated in the report, there are no other associated or allied injuries to suggest that the deceased might have fallen on a "GHORONA" or a grinding-stone. Therefore, in such back-ground, it is not understood as to why p. w. 1 would implicate her own son. 6. It is an unfortunate case that all the witnesses though supported the prosecution in course of investigation, yet turned hostile in course of trial. P. w. 2 is the wife of the appellant, who claimed to have seen the occurrence and narrated such story during investigation, but during trial she disowned her statement. It is reasonable to expect that since her husband is implicated in a murder case, she must have thought twice while deposing in Court as a reason whereof she might have given a go-by to her earlier statement and presented a different story. It is not understood why p. w. 1 would prefer to speak against her own son as she would not gain anything by making such a false statement in court. 7. It is not understood why p. w. 1 would prefer to speak against her own son as she would not gain anything by making such a false statement in court. 7. A far-fetched plea has been taken by the defence that she was unable to see objects because of defective eye-sight and, therefore, she could not have seen the appellant. But p. w. 1 had strongly denied such suggestion. She had claimed to have seen the appellant striking the blow by a wooden rafter on the head of the deceased. She might have some defective vision afterwards, but not at the time of occurrence. Even the informant (p. w. 5) had also turned hostile against the prosecution case, but merely because he has turned hostile, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside if it is otherwise credible. Taking the evidence of p. ws. 1, 10, 11 and 12 and also the chemical reports into consideration, there is no room for doubt that the husband of p. w. 1 met a homicidal death. In that event we are only to find out as to who was the culprit. The suggestion put-forward by the defence was elaborately discussed by the court below and it had discarded the same on account of it being a hypothetical and untrustworthy plea. Therefore, such suggestion cuts no ice to disprove the prosecution evidence. P. w. 4 is his own brother. The defence suggestion was that in order to deprive the appellant from a share he had been falsely implicated in this case. In such event, it was p. w. 4 who ought to have gained, but unfortunately he also fell in line with other prosecution witnesses and came forward with a false story. Therefore, the suggestion of the defence has no root to stand. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the defence has submitted that even assuming that the appellant gave one blow that must have been construed as heat of passion and without any pre-meditation and, therefore, the case should squarely come u/s 304, I. P.C. and not u/s 302, I. P. C . On this aspect also the trial court has left no stone unturned. It has discussed in detail whether the case will come u/s 304, Part-I or Part-II, I. P. C. or u/s 302, I. P. C. . On this aspect also the trial court has left no stone unturned. It has discussed in detail whether the case will come u/s 304, Part-I or Part-II, I. P. C. or u/s 302, I. P. C. . According to the prosecution story, the deceased was sleeping and the appellant went stealthily and without any provocation assaulted on the head of the deceased as a result of which he immediately sank down and instantaneously died. In the above back-ground, we have least hesitation to hold that the accused has committed the murder of his own father. Chhaila Pradhan and as such punishable u/s 302, I. P. C., Since p. w. 1 suffered simple injuries, the trial court has, therefore, convicted the appellant u/s 323, I.P.C. . Accordingly, we hereby hold that there is no merit in this appeal and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are hereby confirmed. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The bail Bond stands cancelled. N.Y. Hanumanthappa, C.J. I agree. 9. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed