JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 114/92 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The bravity of the prosecution story is as follows: The appellant was prosecuted for commission of murder of one Dadu Munda at about 4.30 P.M. on 15.&92 in village Lasarda under Barbil police station. Undisputedly both parties belong to aboriginal tribe and have their different behavioural pattern and perceptive habits quite uncommon to the people of the country side. Prosecution had attributed motive for the murder of the deceased on account of having insulted the wife of the appellant. Their relationship was not cordial. On the fateful day when the deceased was reclining on his outer verandah the appellant all on a sudden went to that place and picked up an axe which was lying there and inflicted successive strokes on the body of the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. The incident was witnessed by the wife of the deceased who was examined as P.W.1 immediately after the incident the brother of the deceased. Sama Munda (P.W.5) reached the spot followed by his parents. P.W.5 lodged a report on the following morning at Kiriburu Outpost under Barbil police station and en the basis of the same a case was registered. The I.O. upon registration of the case visited the spot, held inquest despatched the dead-body for post mortem examination, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth, sent the incriminating materials through (he learned Magistrate to the Forensic Laboratory for examination, arrested the appellant and after completion of investigation placed the charge-sheet in Court. 3. The defence plea of the appellant in the trial Court was one of denial of the occurrence and claimed that a false case has been foisted against him. 4. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to sustain the conviction against the appellant. P.W.1 was the wife of the deceased and she happens to be only solitary eye witness to the occurrence. Merely because she is a relation of the deceased that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that her version was unworthy of evidence. Rather the close relation of the deceased will not ever make an attempt to see that the real culprit to escape. Merely because she is a relation of the deceased that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that her version was unworthy of evidence. Rather the close relation of the deceased will not ever make an attempt to see that the real culprit to escape. On a close reading of her evidence it has appeared that on the fateful day between 1.00 to 4.30 P.M. while the deceased was reclining on the outer verandah of his house the appellant suddenly appeared there and picked up an axe which was lying at the spot. Thereafter, he inflicted successive blows as a result of which the deceased instantaneously died. Prior to the moment there was no love lost between them as some time before the incident the deceased allegedly insulted appellant's wife. Possibly that must have been the motive for commission of the crime. P.W.1, stood the test of rigorous cross-examination by the defence, but nothing could be elicited to discredit her testimony. Rather the cross-examination of the defence strengthened her deposition stated in chief. Since the evidence of P.W.1 is clinching, credible and unequivocal and confidence inspiring, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge relied on her testimony to pass the conviction against the appellant. P.W.2. however, did not support the prosecution story. P.W.3 was the Medical Officer attached to Champua Sub-divisional Hospital. He conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Dadu Munda and found seven incised wounds. On dissection he also found fracture of the manubrium sternie and certilages of both 2nd ribs, and cutting, of trachea behind the manubrium. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage the injuries were ante mortem, and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. From the evidence of P.W.4 it has appeared that the appellant while in custody went to the place of discovery and recovered a blood stained axe which he handed over to the police. Accordingly, the I.O. seized the same in his presence and prepared the seizure list, vide Ext. 3. P.W.5 was the brother of the deceased. His statement is that on the date of occurrence while he returned after grazing his cattle, he found P.W.1 crying, and the deceased was lying on the verandah after having sustained several injuries. His parents were also there. After some time he proceeded to the outpost and reported the incident. Accordingly, investigation was carried on. His statement is that on the date of occurrence while he returned after grazing his cattle, he found P.W.1 crying, and the deceased was lying on the verandah after having sustained several injuries. His parents were also there. After some time he proceeded to the outpost and reported the incident. Accordingly, investigation was carried on. 5. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 we found that the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of an axe as a result of which he instantaneously died. In the aforesaid situation we do not find any factual or legal infirmities which would warrant our interference. 6. Accordingly, the appeal being bereft of merit, is, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Keonjhar are hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed