JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal assails the order dated 02.05.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. in S.T. Case No. 203 of 1993 whereby and whereunder he convicted the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") for committing the murder of his own brother Rama Marandi and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, as unravelled during the course of trial, is as follows: The deceased was none other than the own brother of the Appellant. Both of them were living in joint mess. On 14.06.1993, which was the Raja Festival day, in the evening, after the Appellant came home alongwith his wife, the deceased complained that the Appellant being the elder brother should not leave the house without making sufficient provision for observance of the festive occasions. It may be stated here that Raja is regarded as one of the important festivals by the tribal people. After saying so; when the deceased was lying on a cot the Appellant suddenly appeared with an axe and dealt some blows indiscriminately on the head of Rama, as a result of which he died instantaneously. Thereafter the Appellant threw the axe and fled away from the scene of occurrence. The Appellant's sister (P.W.2), who was present at the spot, made an attempt to prevent the Appellant from doing such dastardly act, but no such persuation could dissuade him from committing the heinous crime. Rather, he assaulted P.W.2 by elbow-push. Subsequently, many villagers gathered at the spot and the matter was reported to police the following morning. The police authorities reached the spot, seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth, despatched the dead body for post mortem examination, seized the weapon of offence, examined witnesses, and after completion of investigation, placed charge-sheet against the Appellant. 3. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom P.W.2 is the sister of both the Appellant and deceased. She is the only eye-witness to the occurrence and her evidence goes a long way in bringing home the charge to the Appellant. Of course, there has been no corroborative evidence with regard to the assault alleged to have been made by the Appellant on the deceased. In such situation, if P.W.2 is disbelieved, the entire prosecution case is bound to be discarded. Therefore, her evidence has to be examined carefully. 4. Of course, there has been no corroborative evidence with regard to the assault alleged to have been made by the Appellant on the deceased. In such situation, if P.W.2 is disbelieved, the entire prosecution case is bound to be discarded. Therefore, her evidence has to be examined carefully. 4. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2. it is seen that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the Appellant on the date of incident. But that quarrel was not to tense as to enrage the Appellant to inflict such murderous blows on the deceased. From the facts situation described by P.W.2. it transpires that on the date of incident, deceased Rama had brought 1/2 kg. of meat by borrowing some money. When he told the Appellant not to leave the house without making proper provision for the youngers to observe the festive occasion like Raja, the latter suggested that he can consume the meat with his wife and need not give meat to him (Appellant), his wife and children. To this, the deceased replied that he could not do so as the children of the Appellant were his nephews also. There was no violent quarrel between the brothers . Rama was lying on a cot. At that juncture, the Appellant Samarai went to the back side of their house and came back. Suddenly he picked up the axe which was there in the corner of the house, and dealt successive blows on the head of Rama near the left ear. When she went to prevent the Appellant from giving further assault, she was also given an elbow-push on the chest. At the time, she was pregnant and with such elbow-push on her chest, she became breath-less. This part of the story given by P.W.2 in her examination-in-chief has not been shattered during cross-examination. 5. The death of the deceased is not in dispute, so also the nature of death, i.e. homicidal, as opined by the doctor (P.W.4) who conducted post mortem over the dead body. The only question that survives for consideration is whether the Appellant Samarai was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 is so clear, cogent and clinching that it leaves no room for doubt that it was the Appellant who was the author of the crime. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. The only question that survives for consideration is whether the Appellant Samarai was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 is so clear, cogent and clinching that it leaves no room for doubt that it was the Appellant who was the author of the crime. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. who reached the spot subsequently after hearing the shout of P.W.2. also lends assurance to the prosecution story. Their statements corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the finding of guilt of the Appellant, as recorded by the trial Court. 6. Mr. Misra. learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, took a lervant plea that since the deceased as well as the Appellant are tribal people, who get enraged by the slightest provocative words, and the incident took place out of sudden provocation, the Appellant should at best by convicted u/s 304 either Part-I or Part-II, IPC and not u/s 302. IPC particularly when the prosecution has not been able to prove any intention on the part of the Appellant to do away with the life of the deceased. We would have considered this aspect had there been anything on record that the deceased entered into some quarrel with the Appellant On the contrary, from the evidence we gather that the Appellant was taking rest o? a cot when all on a sudden the Appellant came from behind and inflicted blows on the vital part of his body. It is true that at the relevant point of time both the Appellant and the deceased had consumed some liquor, but it was not to such extent that they would lose control, as deposed by P.W.2. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the crime committed by the Appellant, we do not have any other option but to uphold the order of his conviction and sentence, as passed by the trial Court. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant are hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra. J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed