JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The Appellant was prosecuted for commission of two ghastly murders of Khagapati Paik and Sukadei (the latter was none other than his own wife). 2. The horrendous picture as revealed from the trial Courts judgment is as follows: The deceased Khagapati, Appellant Sanyashi Harijan, Baidyanath Jani (P.W.1). Raghu Jani and Laki Harijan (P.W.2) used to work in the brick kiln of one Bhaskar Rao. The Appellant was the next door neighbour of deceased Khagapati, whom he suspected to have extra-marital relationship wit his wife, Sukadei (the other deceased). The Appellant had married the deceased Sukadei against the will of her parents. Before the incident, there were frequent bickering misunderstanding and quarrel between the Appellant and his wife Sukadei (deceased). The other deceased Khagapati used to intervene in such quarrels and console them quite often. 3. On 6.12.1993 at about 8.00 a.m. Khagapati had been to collect fire-wood from a nearby jungle. At the time of his return, he kept the axe near the brick kiln and sat on the ground for preparing Khaini (tobacco). At that juncture, the Appellant who was working in the brick kiln came there and prepared Khaini. All on a sudden surprisingly the Appellant inflicted three axe blows successively on the neck of Khagapati causing his instantaneous death. P.Ws. 1, 2 and Raghu Jani who were working at the brick kiln immediately rushed there and they informed the father of the deceased Khagapati regarding the occurrence. He came to the place of occurrence and noticed his son dead. At that time the mother and brother of the Appellant had also raised alarm by stating that the Appellant had killed his own wife Sukadei in his house by means of an axe. The father of the deceased Khagapati also observed that blood was trickling out from the house of the Appellant. The further-case of the prosecution is that since the Appellant was suspecting his wife and the deceased Khagapati to have extramarital relationship, he committed the ghastly murder of both. The matter was reported on 6.12.1993 at 9.30 a.m. at Dabugaon Police Station by the father of the deceased Khagapati, on the basis of which the case was registered u/s 302, IPC against the Appellant for commission of offence of murder of Khagapati and Sukadei. 4. The matter was reported on 6.12.1993 at 9.30 a.m. at Dabugaon Police Station by the father of the deceased Khagapati, on the basis of which the case was registered u/s 302, IPC against the Appellant for commission of offence of murder of Khagapati and Sukadei. 4. The plea pf the Appellant in the lower Court was one of complete denial of the occurrence and his false implication in the case. 5. The prosecution had examined 8 witnesses in order to sustain conviction against the Appellant. 6. So far as the death of Khagapati and Sukadei is concerned, there is no dispute that they met a homicidal death. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.6, it ' has transpired that Sukadei Harijan had received four external injuries corresponding to two internal injuries which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Similarly, Khagapati received five external injuries corresponding to two internal injuries, which were also sufficient to cause his instantaneous death. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. it has appeared that the Appellant was working brick in the kiln of Bhaskar Rao which was situated adjacent to a tank. The brick kiln was about half a kilometer away from village. The deceased reached near the kiln around 8 a.m. on the date of incident. Some time thereafter, he took Khaini from the Appellant. kept the axe on the ground for the purpose of preparing Khaini. At that juncture, the Appellant suddenly picked up the axe and indiscriminately inflicted three blows on the neck of the deceased, who sustained severe bleeding injuries and instantaneously he died. The axe was picked up so suddenly by the Appellant that the deceased was caught unaware that the Appellant would cause such severe injuries on his neck. Within hours of the incident, the I.O. (P.W.7) visited the spot, seized the axe (M.O.I), collected the blood-stained earth and sample earth, prepared the seizure list, held inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. 7. After the commission of murder of Khagapati, the Appellant proceeded to his house and allegedly assaulted his wife causing" her death whereafter he made an attempt to escape unnoticed. However, his mother (P.W.3) who was the opposite neighbour, noticed him fleeing away from the spot. There was no other inhabitant residing in the house. The evidence of P.Ws. 7. After the commission of murder of Khagapati, the Appellant proceeded to his house and allegedly assaulted his wife causing" her death whereafter he made an attempt to escape unnoticed. However, his mother (P.W.3) who was the opposite neighbour, noticed him fleeing away from the spot. There was no other inhabitant residing in the house. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 is so credible and trustworthy that we have no other option but to accept the same. From the Serologist report, it is noticed that the tangi (axe) which was seized from the spot contained human blood of 'B' origin which belongs to the deceased. Therefore, it has clinched the evidence with regard to the complicity of the Appellant in the commission of the offence. The circumstances are so tell-tale that there remains hardly any doubt to connect the Appellant with the commission of murder of Khagapati and Sukadei. No other extenuating circumstance has been placed before us to take any contrary view in the matter. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant u/s 302, IPC. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. P.K. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed