JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1994 u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in short 'IPC, has been assailed in this appeal. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story as narrated in the trial Courts' judgment is as follows: On 20.4.1993 at about 6 P.M. when the deceased Mangaraj Hontal was in his house, the Appellant Buda Muduli came armed with bow and arrows and shot two arrows at the deceased Mangaraj, one of which hit him on the left side chest near the armpit and the other, on the navel. At the juncture, the other Appellant who is none' other than the son of the Appellant Buda Muduli, dealt lathi blows on the pareital region of Mangaraj as a result of which Mangaraj died instantaneously. The incident was reported at Mundiguda Police Out-post by P.W.1, the brother of the deceased. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered against both the Appellants u/s 302/34, IPC and investigation was proceeded. During investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, seized the bow and arrows, collected the blood-stained earth and sample earth, arrested the Appellants, sent the deadbody of Mangarai for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, despatched the incriminating materials to the RFSL, Berhampur through the learned S.D.J.M. and on completion of investigation, placed charge-sheet against both the Appellants. 3. The Appellants' plea was one of denial of the occurrence. They claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The prosecution, in order to sustain conviction, had examined 7 witnesses apart from proving the other incriminating materials and documents. Learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore on resume of evidence and other materials on record, inclined to convict the Appellants u/s 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 5. In this case the death of Mangaraj is not in dispute. Further, from the evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W.7), who conducted post mortem examination on the deadbody of Mangaraj, it has appeared that the deceased had received three external injuries corresponding to other internal injuries. From his evidence, it has also transpired that the injuries were ante mortem in nature, and it could cause death in ordinary course of nature. Further, from the evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W.7), who conducted post mortem examination on the deadbody of Mangaraj, it has appeared that the deceased had received three external injuries corresponding to other internal injuries. From his evidence, it has also transpired that the injuries were ante mortem in nature, and it could cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, we have no reason to doubt that Mangaraj met a homicidal death on account of the injuries inflicted on his person. 6. To bring home the charge to the Appellants, the prosecution has relied on the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased. From her evidence, it is revealed that on the date of incident, when the Appellant Buda Muduli and his wife were quarrelling, her husband came to the village Danda and dissuaded them from quarrelling on such festive occasion. She was present at that time on the verandah. But within a flickering of an eye, the Appellant Buda Muduli went inside his house and came out with a bow and arrows. His son also came with a lathi and assaulted her husband. Buda Muduli shot two arrows, out of which one pierced on the left side of the chest and the other on the navel, whereas the other Appellant Soma dealt blows by the lathi on the head of her husband. After receiving such indiscriminate blows, her husband fen down on the ground and died instantaneously. She also identified the bamboo portion of the arrows marked as MOs. II & III. She presented a vivid picture as to how the assault on her husband took place. The defence did not put a single question to discredit her testimony. Furthermore, she being the wife of the victim, her statement is not easily to be brushed aside. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.2, it has also appeared that on the date of incident while he was on his verandah, he noticed the Appellant Buda shooting arrows from his bow at the deceased Mangaraj. One arrow pierced on the navel and the other struck on the left side chest below the armpit of the deceased. Appellant Soma Muduli also dealt two blows on the head of Mangaraj by means of a lathi. 7. One arrow pierced on the navel and the other struck on the left side chest below the armpit of the deceased. Appellant Soma Muduli also dealt two blows on the head of Mangaraj by means of a lathi. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has canvassed before us that the number of blows alleged to have been inflicted by Soma Muduli as deposed by P.Ws. 2 and 3 being discrepant and inconsistent, this Appellant should, therefore, be acquitted. In this connection, he took us through the evidence of these two witnesses. We noticed that P.W.2 has stated that Appellant Soma dealt two blows by means of a lathi, whereas P.W.3 has stated that the Appellant dealt about four blows. This discrepancy, according to us, being a minor one, therefore, can safely be ignored. The fact remains that the Appellant Soma also dealt blows on the deceased, which indicates that he shared summon intention with his father (the other Appellant) to kill the deceased. 8. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and also on resume of the evidence of other witnesses, either post occurrence witnesses or seizure witnesses, we have least doubt to hold that the Appellants had common intention to commit the murder of Mangaraj. Therefore, the judgment impugned before us does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity so that the same can be interfered with in this appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed