JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal assails the order of conviction and sentience passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No. 156 of 1992 under Sections 302 and 323, IPC whereby the appellant was directed to (sic) rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The bravity of the prosecution story as depicted by the prosecution in course of trial is as follows: Appellant Rasananda Sahu and his brother Dharanidhar Sahu (P.W.2) used to reside in their ancestral house at Badabagdari of Pallahara Police station. Deceased Kamini Sahu was the wife of the appellant. On 6.7.92 at about 8.00 P.M. in night after all the family members took their dinner, the appellant had taken his dinner After consuming some curry catered to him, he demanded some more curry to which the deceased-wife replied that the stock had already been exhausted So the appellant was unhappy. The deceased after service of dinner went to prepare the bed for her sleep on the outer verandah. While she was preparing bed the deceased suddenly appeared therewith an axe and dealt blows on the head of deceased Kamini. P.W.2, Dharanidhar Sahu seeing the appellant assaulting Kamini wanted to come to the rescue of the deceased and attempted to snatch away the axe from the hand of the appellant, in the tussle the axe could hit on his skull the appellant also beat P.W.2 at which P.W.2 raised an outcry for help. The mother-in-law of the appellant (P.W.3) and other inmates of the house had also witnessed the occurrence. By hearing the commotion the other neighbours also subsequently reached at the appellant's house. In the process of tussle, the appellant P.W.2 and P.W.3 also received injuries. Some how the witnesses over-powered and snatched away the axe from his hand and tied him down with a rope. Immediately thereafter P.W.2, Dharanidhar Sahu proceeded to the police station, lodged a written report which was treated as FIR and on the basis of that report the I.O. proceeded with the investigation of the case. During investigation, witnesses were examined, blood stained earth and sample earth were collected, and the incriminating materials were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination" the dead body of Kamini was sent for post-mortem examination, the axe was also seized from the spot and on completion of investigation the I.O. placed the charge-sheet in Court. 3. During investigation, witnesses were examined, blood stained earth and sample earth were collected, and the incriminating materials were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination" the dead body of Kamini was sent for post-mortem examination, the axe was also seized from the spot and on completion of investigation the I.O. placed the charge-sheet in Court. 3. The plea of the appellant in the trial Court was complete denial of the occurrence and he claimed to have been falsely implicated. 4. In this case there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence besides Ors. who reached the spot immediately after the incident P.W.2 is the younger brother of the appellant, who presented a graphic picture of the incident From his evidence it has been proved that while the appellant was taking dinner, asked for more curry to which the deceased could not satisfy him and within a law moment thereafter the deceased was indiscriminately assaulted with an axe. P.W.2 when made an attempt to prevent the appellant from further assaulting the deceased and tried to snatch away the axe from his hand, in the process he also got some injuries. P.W.3 who is mother of the deceased also supported the version of the prosecution and she was also injured. A suggestion was given to P.W.3 that P.W.2 made an attempt to have sexual intercourse with the deceased and when she shouted P.W.2 inflicted such injury as a result of which she died. But that suggestion was belied by P.W.3 as there has been no such version in the statement recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of the matter we can safely hold that the plea taken by the appellant that his brother attempted to commit rape was falsified. 5. P.W.3 being the mother of the deceased will never make an attempt to permit the real culprit to be escaped. She deposed in her evidence that the appellant gave murderous blows on the skull of the deceased Kamini and when she wanted to separate him, she also received some injuries. P.W.4 was the Halia (a servant) working in the house of the appellant. According to him, after hearing the outcry raised by P.Ws. 2 and 3 reached the place of incident and had seen the appellant inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.4 was the Halia (a servant) working in the house of the appellant. According to him, after hearing the outcry raised by P.Ws. 2 and 3 reached the place of incident and had seen the appellant inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.5 was a post-occurrence witness who immediately reached the spot after hearing the shriek of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and found the deceased lying with injuries on the right side of her head. He was a witness to the seizure. P.W.6 also supported the version of P.W.5 so also P.W.7. 6. P.W.1 was the Medical Officer at Pallahara Sub-divisional Hospital. He examined the dead body of Kamini Sahu and found an incised wound situated obliquely on the right side of the face in between lateral angle of right eye and the right ear. On dissection he found the internal injuries were corresponding to the external injuries. In his opinion the death was due to brain injury. On the same day he examined P.W.2 and also the accused. The accused had multiple bruises which were quite likely to occur while the witness over-powered him. The injuries on the person of the appellant also probabilise the version of P.Ws. 2 to 4 that while they attempted to tie him with a string (rope) he might have sustained the injuries. That apart, the eye witnesses account namely, testimony of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, particularly of P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are no other than the brother and mother-in-law of the accused is confidence inspiring, unequivocal and unimpeachable. Therefore, considering the prosecution case from any angle there is no slightest doubt that it was the appellant who commuted such gruesome murder of his own wife in the fateful night. Since there has been no factual or legal infirmities in the judgment assailed before us, we have no other option than to uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed