JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The accused in Sessions Trial No. 259/7 of 1993-94 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela has assailed in this appeal the validity, legality and propriety of the order of his conviction u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short. "IPC") and sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. The essential facts leading to this appeal are as follows: The de facto complainant Md. Mahiddin (P.W.3) was running a hotel by the Side the of the road locally known as "Gandhi Road" at Biramitrapur. The house of the deceased was just on the opposite side of the hotel. The house of the Appellant was situated 100 feet away from the hotel. The house of Appellant and that of the deceased are situated on the same line, i.e. opposite the hotel run by P.W.3. The deceased is the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the Appellant. 3. On 18.9.1993 at about 10.30 A.M. the Appellant came to the hotel and took a cup of tea. He continued to stay inside the hotel even after he had finished the tea. At that juncture, the deceased arrived at the hotel and wanted some newspaper from the informant. Since that day's newspaper was not available, he collected that of the preceding day, borrowed the spectacles of the informant and started reading the said newspaper inside the hotel. He also placed orders for a cup of tea. The Appellant, who was then inside the hotel, had a brief talk with the deceased. But suddenly he flared up without any rhyme or reason, took out of knife and stabbed into the belly of the deceased and ran away carrying the knife with him. The deceased was found roiling on the ground with agonising pain. A Maruti van was immediately requisitioned and the injured was sent to Ispat General Hospital at Rourkela. P.W.3 stayed back at the Biramitrapur Police Station and lodged a report, on the basis of which, a case u/s 307, IPC was registered against the Appellant. Pursuant to the said report, the IIC, Biramitrapur Police Station immediately sprang into action and took up investigation. The deceased succumbed to the injury on the way to the hospital and the dead body was brought back. The case was then converted to one u/s 302, IPC. Pursuant to the said report, the IIC, Biramitrapur Police Station immediately sprang into action and took up investigation. The deceased succumbed to the injury on the way to the hospital and the dead body was brought back. The case was then converted to one u/s 302, IPC. In course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the spot, recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161. Code of Criminal Procedure, collected blood stained earth and sample earth and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The Appellant was not apprehended immediately after the occurrence. However, he was arrested subsequently from Pratapghat mines area. It is alleged that the blood stained knife was recovered from his possession. The investigating officer sent the blood stained earth, the sample earth and the blood stained knife for chemical examination and serological test through "the S.D.J.M., Panposh, On completion of investigation; charge-sheet was placed against the Appellant. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on brief resume of the evidence, namely, P.Ws. 3 and 4. Accordingly, he recorded an order of conviction u/s 302, IPC against the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 5. The defence plea before the trial Court was one of denial of the occurrence and the Appellant had claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. Out of 8 witnesses examined for the prosecution, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is important to connect the Appellant with the crime. On careful scrutiny of the' evidence of P.W.3, who is the de facto complainant in this case, it is revealed that on the date of incident, the Appellant came a little earlier to take a cup of tea from the informant's hotel and after finishing his tea he remained for a while. At that time, the deceased came there, placed orders for a cup of tea and wanted to go through that day's newspaper. But the informant could not provide same to him as it had not been delivered. Therefore, the deceased informally went through the previous day's newspaper by borrowing the spectacle of P.W.3. At this juncture, the Appellant pierced a knife on the belly of the deceased without any provocation. He took out the knife from the belly and fled away from the spot. P.W.4 just saw the Appellant running away with the blood stained knife in his hand "and found the deceased rolling with agonising pain. At this juncture, the Appellant pierced a knife on the belly of the deceased without any provocation. He took out the knife from the belly and fled away from the spot. P.W.4 just saw the Appellant running away with the blood stained knife in his hand "and found the deceased rolling with agonising pain. A Maruti van was somehow or other arranged and the injured was immediately taken to the police station. The I.I.C., Biramitrapur Police Station, however, advised the de facto complainant to shift him to the Ispat Hospital, Rourkela. To the misfortune of the deceased, he could not survive and breathed his last before he had reached the hospital. After he succumbed to the injuries, post mortem examination was conducted and the doctor (P.W.1) found one stab injury inside the belly, which, according to him, was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. 7. Learned State Defence Counsel appearing for the Appellant has strenuously contended that no credibility should be attached to the evidence Of P.W.3. inasmuch as he had not actually seen the Appellant piercing the knife into the belly of the deceased. He also took us through the evidence P.W.3 and contended that the said witness only saw the process of taking out the knife from the belly by the Appellant, and not the piercing of knife by the Appellant. As such no inference should be drawn that the Appellant caused the injury to the deceased by plunging knife blow on his belly. We are yet to understand such an illogical contention inasmuch as piercing and taking out the knife were simultaneous. That too, after the knife was taken out from the belly, the Appellant ran away from the spot with the blood stained knife in his hand, which was also witnessed by P.W.4. Although the contents of the F.I.R. cannot be used for any other purposes except for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction, in this case we find that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 along with the averments in the F.I.R. reinforce the fact that it was the Appellant and the Appellant along who caused the ghastly murder. 8. learned Counsel for the Appellant in court of argument, submitted that in this case the Appellant should be convicted u/s 304, either Part-I or Part-II, IPC and not u/s 302, IPC. 8. learned Counsel for the Appellant in court of argument, submitted that in this case the Appellant should be convicted u/s 304, either Part-I or Part-II, IPC and not u/s 302, IPC. But we fail to appreciate this submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant inasmuch as there was suggestion to P.W 3 that it was he who caused injury on the belly of the deceased resulting in his death and only to escape from such liability, the Appellant was falsely implicated, though such plea was totally false. Further, we do not find that there was any provocation from the side of the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of the Appellant cannot be altered to that u/s 304, either Part-I or Part-II, IPC. 9. Lastly, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that for bringing home the charge u/s 302, IPC to the Appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove any intention or pre-mediation. We find hardly any logic in such submission. Motive or intention can be best known to the Appellant and there cannot be any direct evidence to prove the same. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no other option than to uphold the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. P.K. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed