JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 103 of 1993 dated 10.11.1994 has been assailed in this appeal. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story is as follows : That on 21.12.1992 at about 6.00 P.M. the appellant in the company of the deceased holding an axe and a lathi respectively went towards the bari of one Langesa for consuming date-palm juice (Khajuri tadi). At that time some villagers including P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7 were sitting near a fire in front of the house of one Dandi which was situated at a distance of about 40 to 50 cubits from the 'bari' of Langesa. P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7 heard an outcry "Marigali, Marigali" (in Oriya). So they rushed towards the "bari" of Langesa from the place of fire and noticed the deceased lying dead in that bari sustaining bleeding injury on his right shoulder. At their sight, the appellant was running away throwing the axe near the deceased. P.W. 2 chased and over - powered the appellant and thereafter apprehended him. All the witnesses tied the appellant whereafter he confessed to have committed the murder of the deceased Mambalaka Badeda. A report was subsequently lodged by P.W. 1, the cousin brother of the deceased before the O.I.C. Gudari Police Station and accordingly a case was registered u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The O.I.C. proceeded to the spot, arrested the appellant held inquest over the dead body, seized the axe and lathi, collected the blood stained earth and the sample earth, and collected the blood stained clothes of the accused - appellant so also his nail clippings through P.W. 3, the doctor. He sent the dead body for post - mortem examination through P.W. 4. The doctor, P.W. 5, conducted autopsy over the dead body 3 days after the incident. After closure of investigation the I.O. placed the charge sheet against the appellant. 3. The defence plea was one of denial of the occurrence. 4. At the outset we will have to consider whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or natural. The doctor, P.W. 5, conducted autopsy over the dead body 3 days after the incident. After closure of investigation the I.O. placed the charge sheet against the appellant. 3. The defence plea was one of denial of the occurrence. 4. At the outset we will have to consider whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or natural. From the evidence of P.W. 5 there can be room for doubt that the deceased died out of injuries which were ante mortem in nature, and in ordinary course of nature such injuries were sufficient to cause death. In view of such unimpeachable medical evidence it has been established by the prosecution that the deceased met with a homicidal death. 5. There is no direct evidence nor has any eye witness been examined on behalf of the prosecution. But certain circumstances which are of conclusive character had been placed before the Court below. The trial Court on a careful consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1 did not place any reliance on his ocular statement in as much as it found certain important omissions in his statement u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by the I.O. and he attempted to make some substantial development in course of trial. But, apart from the evidence of P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7 who were allegedly present near the place of occurrence had noticed the appellant and the deceased going together with an axe and lathi in their hands towards the bari of Langesa which was situated about 40 to 50 cubits away from them. Immediately after hearing the outcry "Marigali, Marigali" (in Oriya), all the aforesaid persons are said to have rushed to the place of incident and noticed the appellant fleeing away from the spot throwing the axe near the dead body. Therefore, P.W. 2 chased the appellant and over-powered him. Thereafter, he was apprehended and got confined till the arrival of the police. The trial Court who had an occasion to mark the demeanour of the witnesses, however, placed reliance on their testimony and held that the evidence of P.W. 2 was unimpeachable and trustworthy in nature. His evidence substantially corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7. Thereafter, he was apprehended and got confined till the arrival of the police. The trial Court who had an occasion to mark the demeanour of the witnesses, however, placed reliance on their testimony and held that the evidence of P.W. 2 was unimpeachable and trustworthy in nature. His evidence substantially corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7. It is true that the defence made an attempt in the trial Court to bring out certain inconsistencies between the statements alleged to have been made during investigation and that made in course of trial. But such inconsistencies were minor in nature. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly ignored such minor contradictions and inconsistencies. In a criminal trial such minor contradictions are bound to occur. Rather such contradictions would inspire the belief of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It has ruled out all possibilities of parrot-like story of the prosecution witnesses. The wearing apparels, such as, shirt and lungi belonging to the appellant said to have stained with blood were seized and sent for chemical examination. On careful examination it was found that the wearing apparels had contained human blood of "A" group which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. It is true that no human blood could be detected on the axe, but it is quite natural that by the time of examination, existence of blood must have deteriorated. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it has further transpired that the appellant made an extra judicial confession by stating that he had killed the deceased without any fault. 6. Although there is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant had committed the offence of murder, but the circumstantial evidence shows clinching materials which raise no manner of doubt to connect the appellant with the crime. Accordingly, we do not find any extenuating circumstances to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed