JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1994 u/s 302. I.P.C. for commission of murder of one Rajbai are called in question in this appeal. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story as unravelled in course of trial is as follows: There was bitter feeling between the families of the informant and of the Appellant long before the date of occurrence. It is alleged that the Appellant had threatened on many occasions to do away with the life of a member of the informant's family in order to avenge the previous enmity. On 6.12.1993 in the morning the Appellant holding a sickle came to the house of the informant and picked up quarrel over a petty cause. But as the informant dissuaded him from quarrelling with him, the Appellant rushed at him with the sickle to kill him. Immediately thereafter, the informant entered into his house and the accused went away from the place. At that time it was found that the deceased had gone outside from the house to play games. Thereafter at about 8.00 A.M. P.Ws.1 and 2 hurriedly came to informant's house and informed him that the Appellant committed murder of the deceased by cutting her throat on the village road in front of the house of P.W.5. Chaituram Rout. Accordingly the informant and his father after getting such information rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying dead on the village road in front of the house of Chaituram Rout. 3. P.W.5, who was said to be present at the time of occurrence and in whose presence the ghastly murder had taken place narrate the story to the informant and said to have snatched away the sickle from the Appellant at the time of occurrence. So the informant (P.W.6) narrated the incident to Sarpanch who wrote a written report which was treated as F.I.R. (Ext.2). At 10.00 A.M. of the same daddy it was submitted at Kundei Outpost, on the basis of which Station diary entry was made and accordingly investigation was -carried out. So the informant (P.W.6) narrated the incident to Sarpanch who wrote a written report which was treated as F.I.R. (Ext.2). At 10.00 A.M. of the same daddy it was submitted at Kundei Outpost, on the basis of which Station diary entry was made and accordingly investigation was -carried out. The A.S.I, sent Ext.2 to Raighar Police Station for registration of the case and subsequently on that day itself at 2.30 P.M. the O.I.C., Raighar Police Station took charge of investigation from the A.S.I, went to the spot, examined the witnesses, arranged to despatch the deadbody for post mortem examination, seized the incriminating materials and sent the same for chemical examination and after closure of investigation, placed charge-sheet in Court. 4. The prosecution had altogether examined nine witnesses, of whom. P.W.6 was the informant, P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 were said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. On a close reading of the evidence of P.W.1 it appears that on the date of occurrence at about 8.00 A.M. he found the accused holding the tuft of hair of the deceased and cut her right side neck by a sickle (M.O.I.) on the road infront of the house of P.W.5 (Chaituram Rout). At that time-P.W.2 (Maguru Rout) and P.W.5 (Chaituram Rout) were also present. P.W.5 detained the Appellant at the spot immediately after the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the ward member and narrated the incident. The deceased then sustained severe bleeding injury on her neck and died instantaneously. M.O.I. was identified to have been held by the Appellant and it was stained with blood. The defence was unable to bring out any circumstance to impeach the evidence of P.W.1. It is true that P.W.1 is a relation of the informant. But they by itself would not be a ground to spurn his evidence. 5. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.2 it is also found that it substantially corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. In cross examination he has said that at that time he was in his land hardly within 100 feet away from the spot which was quite visible from the place of incident. He presented a graphic picture in the manner by which the Appellant has committed the dastardly crime. P.W.3 was the Ward Member of the village. In cross examination he has said that at that time he was in his land hardly within 100 feet away from the spot which was quite visible from the place of incident. He presented a graphic picture in the manner by which the Appellant has committed the dastardly crime. P.W.3 was the Ward Member of the village. From his testimony it is however established that he learnt about the incident from P.Ws.1 and 2 and immediately rushed to the spot. The sickle was collected from the place of occurrence. By the time P.W.3 arrived at the spot. P.W.6, the uncle of the deceased was already there. He went to the Sarpanch and narrated the incident to him. The sickle was stained with blood. P.W.4 was the Sarpanch of Hata Bharandi Gram Panchayat who proved the report being the scribe of the same. From his evidence it has been established that P.W.6 came and narrated the story on the basis of which the report was prepared and handed over to Kundei Outpost. 6. Turning to the evidence of P.W.5 who is the linchpin of the prosecution to prove its case we found that on hearing the outcry raised by P.W.2 he reached at the spot from the house and noticed the Appellant was cutting the neck of the deceased Rajbai by a sickle (M.O.I.) By such inquiry Rajbai instantaneously died. He immediately snatched away the bided stained sickle from the Appellant's hand and guarded the Appellant at the spot. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to inform the Ward Member who too arrived at the spot. P.W.6 on being informed by P.Ws.1 and 2 also reached the spot. 7. From a combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1. 2 and 5 it has been established that the Appellant had cut the throat of the deceased Rajbai by the sickle (M.O.I.) and was caught red-handed by P.W.5 with the weapon of offence which was stained with blood. 8. P.W.6 is the informant of this case but not an eye witness. But he has reached at the spot immediately after the occurrence. He collected the blood stained sickle (M.O.I.) from the spot. He also claimed to have learnt about the incident from P.Ws.1 and 2. He proved the report which was scribed by P.W.4. The defence has not been able to place any material to discard his evidence. But he has reached at the spot immediately after the occurrence. He collected the blood stained sickle (M.O.I.) from the spot. He also claimed to have learnt about the incident from P.Ws.1 and 2. He proved the report which was scribed by P.W.4. The defence has not been able to place any material to discard his evidence. P.W.7 was Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination on Rajbai on 7.12.1993 and found the following injury: One incised wound present on the right side of the neck size-11 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm above root of the neck, semi circular in shape, horizontally placed extending from middle of the front portion to the back portion of the neck on the right side. It was a clean cut injury having welt defined edges. Internal and external carotid arteries, jugular veins, muscle and skin were completely cut. Accordingly P.W.7 the cause of the death was haemorrhage and shock due to excessive bleeding due to the above cut injury. He opined that the injury on the deceased might have been caused by a sickle (M.O.I.). 9. Mr. Das. appearing for the Appellant has however made a fervent plea by stating that if the injury alleged to have been caused on the deceased by a sickle, how could there be an incised would present over the neck. On perusal of the Doctors evidence, we noticed that the type of injury sustained by the deceased could be possible by a sickle and the defence did not suggest that the same could have been possible by any other weapon. The aforesaid submission at the appellate stage appears to be hypothetical and academic and accordingly we are not persuaded to hold that it might have been caused by any weapon other than a sickle. In the sickle also there was trace of human blood. 10. For the aforesaid reasons and on resume of the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, we have, therefore, no option but to hold that it was the Appellant who was the perpetrator of the crime, there having been no factual or legal infirmity found which would warrant our interference. Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. are hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed