JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — The appellant has assailed the order of conviction and sentence under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 96 of 1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore, whereby and whereunder the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution story tersely stated is that on 24.10.1993 at about 8.00 P.M. the appellant was said to have given a heavy blow by means of a wooden handle (‘Pahurani’) on the head of his co-villager Chanda Mohankud while the latter was sitting in the village road after taking his dinner in front of the house of his younger brother, Arjuna Mohankud. After receiving the injury. Chanda Mohankud fell down on the ground and immediately thereaf¬ter when his condition became bad to worse he was taken to the hospital in a critical state, where he succumbed to the injury on the day following. P.W.2, the brother of the deceased, reported the matter to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who came to the hospital and a case was registered under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. Subsequently after closure of investigation charge sheet was placed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge on resume of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was, however, inclined to record an order of conviction under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced the appellant in the manner already stated. 3. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial of the occurrence and that a false case has been foisted against him. No witness was examined in support of the defence. 4. In order to establish the crime against the accused, prosecution had examined eight witnesses of whom P.W.1. Dr. Pravanjan Mohapatra was the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and noticed that all the injuries appearing on the person of the deceased were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. P.W.2, the informant and younger brother of the deceased is post-occurrence witness, who immediately reached the spot after the assault and saw the deceased lying with injury on his head. P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are said to be post-occurrence witnesses. P.W.2, the informant and younger brother of the deceased is post-occurrence witness, who immediately reached the spot after the assault and saw the deceased lying with injury on his head. P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are said to be post-occurrence witnesses. P.W.6 has further proved that the ‘Pahurani’ was seized from the house of the appellant. P.W.7, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandrapur Outpost, drew up the F.I.R. P.W.8 was then Officer-in-Charge of Muniguda Police Station. 5. From the evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W.1) it has, however, appeared that the deceased received the following injuries : “1. Bruise 6" x 4" over the left temporal region extending to the neck. “2. Bruise 4" x 4" over the anterior aspect of the left parietal region of scalp with fracture of left side parietal bone.” He opined that both the injuries appearing on the deceased were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has deposed that M.O.I. was sent by the Investigating Officer for his opinion as to whether the injuries appearing on the deceased could be possible by the weapon like M.O.I., which was sent along with the query, to which he replied in the affirm¬ative. Therefore, from his evidence it can safely be concluded that the injuries appearing on the deceased were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. 6. P.W.2, is the brother of the deceased who immediately rushed to the spot after having learnt that his brother was lying injured. It has been further stated by him that his brother was sitting on the village road after taking his dinner. After hear¬ing a sound ‘Ea Maa’ of Chanda, he rushed out and found that Chanda was lying on the road sustaining injury on the left side head and he simultaneously noticed that the accused was fleeing away holding the M.O.I. Punja Majhi, Sethy Master (P.W.3) and Gumu (P.W.4) were near his brother and all of them told that the accused assaulted Chanda by means of M.O.I. The evidence of P.W.2 is fully corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the eye-witnesses in this case. The evidence of these witnesses appears to be clear, consistent, natural and trustworthy so as to be accepted in totality about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. It is true that the defence had given a suggestion that out of enmity P.W.3 must have stated falsely against the appel¬lant. But on a closer examination of the evidence, we find that the testimonial value of this witness is above board inasmuch as he is a natural witness and presented a graphic picture about the prosecution story. Even if we leave the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4’s evidence is categorical, consistent and leaves no room for doubt as regards the veracity and truthfulness of such wit¬ness. P.W.3 has further stated that on 25th October, 1993, at about 5.30 P.M. the Officer-in-Charge came to their village with the accused who was at that time under arrest and the accused stated to have kept the weapon of offence like M.O.I. inside his house. So lying, he led them and the police to his house which was then locked up. The police broke open the lock and the ac¬cused went inside the house along with them and brought out M.O.I. from the front room which was kept in the north-west corner of the room and produced the same in presence of witnesses before the Police who prepared the seizure-list (Ext.4). Nothing sub¬stantial was elicited in cross-examination to impeach the credi¬bility of P.W.3. Merely because a suggestion has been given that out of enmity P.W.3 must have deposed in Court, is by itself not sufficient to discredit the evidence of P.W.3 if it is otherwise true and credible. By virtue of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it has been established that the appellant was alone responsible for causing the head injury by a ‘Pahurani’. 7. P.W.6 is another seizure witness who also corroborated the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to discovery of M.O.I. There may be some discrepancy here and there, but that by itself would not be sufficient to impeach the evidence of the witness as untruthful. 8. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who presented the prosecution story at great detail. It is true that M.O.I. did not contain any blood-stain. But on a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 it is gathered that the deceased received injury over his head and it was given to the scalp. 8. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who presented the prosecution story at great detail. It is true that M.O.I. did not contain any blood-stain. But on a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 it is gathered that the deceased received injury over his head and it was given to the scalp. Added to it M.O.I was seized after expiry of a considerable time. In the aforesaid premises, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that even though there might be some blood-stain the same would have been degenerated by lapse of time. 9. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has further submitted that in the instant case, the appellant has been in custody for more than five years and interest of justice could be properly subserved if the conviction is converted to be under Sec. 304, Part-I of Part-II, I.P.C. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by dealing the blow by means of a ‘Pahurani’ without any provocation and, therefore, there is no reason as to why the appellant shall be convicted for a lesser offence in case his conviction is upheld. We also do not find any other extenuating circumstances to reduce the sentence by converting his conviction to be under Sec. 304, Part-I or Part-II, I.P.C. 10. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, we find that there is hardly any merit in the appeal so as to either record an order of acquittal or impose lesser sentence against the appellant. Accordingly, the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appel¬lant is hereby confirmed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.