JUDGMENMT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — This appeal has assailed the order dated 9.8.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balan¬gir (Camp at Sonepur) in Sessions Case No. 23/17 of 1995 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The essential facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows : While the deceased Bali Pradhan was returning from the canal after taking bath with a bell-metal Gadu, soap, towel, etc. the appellant inflicted 4 to 5 cut blows with an axe on her neck in a narrow lane behind the house of the appellant, as a result of which 3/4th portion of the neck found flapping and she fell down on the ground dead. In has been disclosed that preceding the ghastly incident, there as absolutely no altercation, nor provo¬cation by the deceased. The ghastly incident was witnessed by one Hadu Bhoi, who informed about it to Ghanashyam Pradhan, the de facto complainant. After receiving information, Ghanashyam Pradhan went to Dunguripali Police Station and submitted F.I.R. on the basis of which a police case bearing No. 73/94 was registered and thereafter the investigation was directed to proceed with. 3. The defence plea was one of complete denial of the occurrence. 4. The prosecution had examined 7 witnesses to prove its case, whereas the defence did not examine any witness in its support. P.W.1’s evidence assumes significance. He states that the appellant while in police custody admitted his guilt to have killed the deceased and said that he concealed the axe, the weapon of offence and led the police and witnesses to his house and gave recovery of the axe. He further stated that he heard from his wife that the appellant had killed the wife of Jadu Pradhan (the deceased). He proceeded towards the house of Jadu Pradhan and on the way found the dead body of Bali Pradhan lying in front of the house of the accused. His evidence further certi¬fied that he had seen the injuries at the back and also the back side neck of the deceased Bali Pradhan. He proceeded towards the house of Jadu Pradhan and on the way found the dead body of Bali Pradhan lying in front of the house of the accused. His evidence further certi¬fied that he had seen the injuries at the back and also the back side neck of the deceased Bali Pradhan. P.W.1’s testimony further clarified that one Garjan Bhoi was present when the appellant admitted his guilt and disclosed about concealing the axe in his house and so saying, the appellant led the police and gave recov¬ery of the axe (M.O.I.) which was seized under Ext.1 in his presence. The learned defence counsel has severely criticized the evidence by stating that had Sananda Pandey (P.W.1) witnessed the seizure, then, why was he left out and not examined under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. to strengthen the case of recovery and seizure of the axe (M.O.I.). Mr. Mohanty, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that since it has been already proved through P.W.1 and the I.O., it is, therefore, not obligatory to examine all other prosecution witnesses to prove the discovery. But it is seen that the recovery of the weapon had taken place in the night. P.W.4 is stated to be an eye-witness to the incident. He deposed that on 23.12.1994 at 9 A.M. while Bali was returning from canal after taking her bath, in a narrow lane, behind his house, the appellant attacked her with an axe (tangia). P.W.4 has deposed that the appellant inflicted 4 or 5 cut blows on the neck of the deceased as a result of which the head of Bali sagged down. When he shouted that the appellant committed murder of the deceased, hearing the same, Debadhi Budek, Jatan Bariha, Gha¬nashyam Pradhan immediately reached at the spot followed by other villagers. P.W.1 had also identified the M.O.I. held by the appellant at the time of incident. The deceased was wearing a violet colour saree (M.O.IX).The accused appellant was wearing Panjabi, white Koria Lungi which were examined by the serologist who found existence of human blood of ‘B’ origin. 5. We found form the evidence of P.W.4 that he has fully supported the prosecution case and there has been absolutely no cross-examination to impeach his testimony; rather it lends assurance to the prosecution story. 6. 5. We found form the evidence of P.W.4 that he has fully supported the prosecution case and there has been absolutely no cross-examination to impeach his testimony; rather it lends assurance to the prosecution story. 6. M.O.I. was sent for chemical examination to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur, and it was noticed that human blood of ‘B’ origin was available on the axe. On a cogent reading of the evidence of P.W.7 the I.O. and P.W.3, the informant, it is found that the seizure of saree used by the deceased as well as the wearing apparels of the accused has been fully established. It is further proved as per Ext-II that the wearing apparels of the accused, the saree of the deceased contained human blood of ‘B’ group and also on M.O.I. the weapon of of¬fence. From the prosecution evidence it has been further estab¬lished that the saree used by the deceased had also been seized from her possession. From the narration of evidence of P.W.2 it has appeared that M.Os. VI, VII and VIII,the wearing apparels of the appellant, were seized from appellant’s house as per seizure list Ext. 5. It has been elicited that the said M.Os. seized were kept in a corner of the house belonging to P.W.4. 7. The Investigating Officer has sent the wearing apparels of the deceased also the R.F.S.L., Sambalpur for examination. It was found that it contained human blood of 'B' group which was the blood group of the deceased. Medical Officer had also exam¬ined the injuries over the deceased and according to him these injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. Therefore, on the aforesaid situation, we find after referring to the ocular evidence and testimony of the Medical Officer that it was the appellant who caused the death of the deceased Bali Pradhan. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has, however, invited our attention to some of the inconsistencies alleged to have crept in the evidence of P.W.4. It is true that P.W.4 has stated that at the back side of the house of the appel¬lant the incident had taken place, but in the sketch map the position of the dead-body at the time of visit of the I.O. has been noted to be in front of appellant’s house. It is true that P.W.4 has stated that at the back side of the house of the appel¬lant the incident had taken place, but in the sketch map the position of the dead-body at the time of visit of the I.O. has been noted to be in front of appellant’s house. Merely because there was some discrepancy as regards the place where the dead¬-body was lying, the entire prosecution case on that ground alone cannot be thrown over board. On this score, we rely upon the decision reported in 63 (1987) C.L.T. 501 (Daitari Suna and five others v. State of Orissa) where it has been held as follows : “It is the duty of the prosecution in a case of this nature to bring out in the evidence of the doctor as to whether the injuries on the person of the murdered could be caused in the manner deposed to the prosecution witnesses. None of the doctors has testified that any of the injuries could not be so caused. No doubt, if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, it may not be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence, but if the medical evidence rules out the possibilities of the injuries in the manner deposed to by the prosecution witnesses, ocular testi¬mony cannot be accepted. See Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana.In the instant case the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 with regard to the complicity of the appellants Daitari and Jibardhan has been demolished by the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11.” 9. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1982 (70) S.C. 484 (Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat), wherein it was held : “Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corrobo¬rative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby dis¬credit the eye-witnesses. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby dis¬credit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibili¬ties whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.” 10. The learned State Defence Counsel has brought to our notice that when the injuries caused on the deceased were by a sharp cutting weapon, how she had lacerated injury on the neck. We had carefully gone through the evidence of the Medical Offi¬cer. The opinion of the Medical Officer is only based on hypothe¬sis, whereas the evidence of P.W.4 is straight forward and clinching. Therefore, we can rely on the clinching and cogent evidence of P.W.4. We also do not notice any inconsistency be¬tween the ocular and the medical evidence. The cut injury was found over the neck excepting a portion of the neck which was connecting the head and the body. In the aforesaid situation, at the time of examination it might appear to the Medical Officer that the deceased suffered from cut injuries as well as lacerated injuries. In the aforesaid background, there has been no substan¬tial difference between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. In the result, we see no reason to differ with the observa¬tion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the appellant had committed the murder of Bali Pradhan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed are hereby confirmed. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.