JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal has portrayed a very sad picture where the Appellant is said to have killed his own teacher. 2. The prosecution case in brief, as stated in the trial Court's judgment is that the deceased Bijay Kumar Pradhan was working as the Headmaster of Kansamunda U.G.M.E. School. He was residing in that village with his family members. The Appellant happened to be one of his relation and his house was situated near the house of the deceased. Since he became way-ward and had gone astray, his father requested the deceased to take care of his son. Sometimes, it so happened that the deceased used to warn/chastise the Appellant due to his bad companions, for which the latter threatened the deceased with dire consequences. The Appellant left the house some days prior to the occurrence and was seen in the village on 7.8.1992. In the night of occurrence, i.e., on 7.8.1992, the deceased and his wife Pankajini Pradhan (P.W.4) were sleeping on the verandah on different beds. P.W.4 on a blow being given by the Appellant on her, suddenly woke up and noticed the Appellant attempting to give the second blow to her by an axe, to which she resisted. The Appellant then escaped from the spot leaving the axe. By then the deceased, the husband of P.W.4 was already dead. The Appellant was found missing for several days from the village. The matter was reported to police by one Jhasaketan Pradhan, on the basis of which a case was registered u/s 302/307, IPC against the Appellant. During investigation, the O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station visited the spot, seized the weapon of offence, seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth, sent the deadbody for post mortem examination and also sent requisition for medical examination of P.W.4, sent the incriminating articles for chemical examination and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed against the Appellant for commission of murder of the husband of P.W.4 and also attempting to do away with her life. 3. The plea of the Appellant before the Trial Court was one of complete denial of the occurrence. He claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. 4. From the evidence of P.W.1, Dr. 3. The plea of the Appellant before the Trial Court was one of complete denial of the occurrence. He claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. 4. From the evidence of P.W.1, Dr. Hrushikesh Misra, who conducted post mortem examination over the deadbody of Bijay Kumar Pradhan, it appears that the deceased met a homicidal death on receiving the following injury: Incised wound over front of neck 2" above the suprastenal spindal shed of 3? and 1? breadth. 5. On dissection it was further confirmed that the trachea as cut and thyroid bone was cut esophagus was cut, left side (sic) artery was cut and jugular vein was cut. He has opined that in ordinary course of nature, the said injuries would cause death. Thus, from the medical evidence, there could be no doubt that the deceased Bijay Kumar Pradhan met a homicidal death on account of the aforesaid injuries. Similarly, P.W.2 Dr. Pabitramohan Rout, examined the injured Pankajini Pradhan (P.W.4), the wife of the deceased, on 8.8.1992 and submitted the injury report. As per the evidence bf P.W.2, it has been established that P.W.4 received one cut injury 4" x 2" x 2" dimension over back of the left scapula. The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon and it was grievous in nature. The I.O. produce the tangia, M.O.I, for taking an opinion from P.W.2 as to whether the injury on the person of P.W.4 can be possible by such weapon, to which P.W.2 submitted his opinion in the affirmative. The evidence of P.W.3 does not however help the prosecution in as much as he was declared hostile and the prosecution sought leave to cross-examine the witness. P.W.4 was one of the injured and wife of the deceased. Since she was injured in the night of incident, she appears to be a natural witness for the prosecution. Undisputedly, the incident had taken place in the house of Late Bijay Kumar Pradhan. From her testimony, it appears that the Appellant's father had requested the deceased to look after the Appellant since he had gone astray. The Appellant was also otherwise related to the deceased's family. In the fateful night P.W.4 and her husband were sleeping separately on the verandah. She slept by the side of her husband in a separate cot. From her testimony, it appears that the Appellant's father had requested the deceased to look after the Appellant since he had gone astray. The Appellant was also otherwise related to the deceased's family. In the fateful night P.W.4 and her husband were sleeping separately on the verandah. She slept by the side of her husband in a separate cot. While she was asleep she received a blow on the left arm for which she suddenly woke up and noticed the Appellant attempting to give the second blow. At that juncture, she attempted to snatch away the axe from his hand, but the accused attempted to run away with the axe for which she chased him and shouted by uttering the name of her husband that the Appellant had assaulted her. On her return from the entrance door, she found her husband lying dead on his bed having cut injuries on his throat. A lantern was illuminating light on the verandah where she was sleeping and she could identify the Appellant in that light. The Appellant was one anti-social who was also addicted to liquor. His father, therefore, requested the deceased to take care of the Appellant so that he could be brought back to the mainstream. On previous occasions the deceased used to instruct the Appellant to give up his bad habits and companions, for which the Appellant threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Her mother-in-law was also living with them and she was sleeping inside the house. But the incident had taken place on the verandah. It has been brought out from her in cross-examination that while the Appellant attempted to give the second blow, she caught hold of the tangia M.O.I, and called her husband. On seeing her husband dead, she could not bear such ghastly scene and had lost her sense. Although she was subjected to incisive cross-examination but nothing substantial could be brought out from her to discredit her version in the examination-in-chief. Since she was injured as well as the wife of the deceased, she will not make any attempt to see the real culprit escape and implicate the Appellant falsely. Rather, it is transpired from the evidence of P.W.4 that her husband was taking utmost care to bring back the Appellant to the mainstream since he had become way-ward. Since she was injured as well as the wife of the deceased, she will not make any attempt to see the real culprit escape and implicate the Appellant falsely. Rather, it is transpired from the evidence of P.W.4 that her husband was taking utmost care to bring back the Appellant to the mainstream since he had become way-ward. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 it has appeared that on the date of occurrence, the Appellant came to his house around 2.30 P.M. when he set out for work to NTPC. On his return at about 8.00 P.M. while he was taking his meal, the Appellant reached there and he also took meal and thereafter left his house. At about 11.00 P.M. heard an out-cry that someone had committed murder of the husband of P.W.4, So, he went to the spot and found Bijay Kumar Pradhan lying dead on a cot. There were cut injuries on his throat. He also noticed that one lantern was illuminating light in the wall rack near his body. His axe was lying near the bed. He identified his tangia (M.O.I.) and also his shawal (M.O.II) which subsequently the I.O. seized from his house at the instance of the Appellant while in custody. 6. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has critically placed the evidence of P.W.5 and submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to connect the Appellant with the crime inasmuch as the-prosecution was unable to prove as to how the tangia belonging to P.W.5 was lying the house of P.W.4. In this regard, let us now discuss the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. On combined reading of their evidence, it has however appeared that on the date of incident, the Appellant went twice to the house of P.W.5, once in the after-noon when P.W.5 went out for work and then during night. The belongings of the Appellant were recovered from the house of P.W.5. Therefore, his presence in their house cannot be doubted. The tangia (M.O.I) undisputedly belongs to P.W.5. From the evidence of P.W.4 it is seen that the Appellant was holding that tangia which was lying near the deadbody. Therefore it can reasonably be inferred that the Appellant had taken the tangia belonging to P.W.5 and by the said tangia assaulted the deceased. A strong comment was made for non-examination of Jayatri Pradhan, mother-in-law of P.W.4. From the evidence of P.W.4 it is seen that the Appellant was holding that tangia which was lying near the deadbody. Therefore it can reasonably be inferred that the Appellant had taken the tangia belonging to P.W.5 and by the said tangia assaulted the deceased. A strong comment was made for non-examination of Jayatri Pradhan, mother-in-law of P.W.4. It is true that the prosecution did not examine Jayatri Pradhan since she had not claimed to have seen the culprit, according to us she cannot be termed to be an important witness for the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be criticised for having not examined her. Our attention was invited to the statement of Jayatri Pradhan recorded by the I.O. u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure We are afraid that such statement cannot be used by the Appellants inasmuch as Jayatri Pradhan was particularly not examined. P.W.7 is the seizure witness, who had proved the seizure of tangia (M.O.I.) stained with blood from the nearby cot on which the deadbody was lying. He was proved the seizure list Ext. 10 and also the bed-sheet containing blood stains. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.9 who was working as farm servant under the deceased Bijay Kumar Pradhan it has transpired that the Appellant had taken away the scooter which had been brought by the deceased from the school without the knowledge of the deceased. So, the deceased scolded the Appellant. At that time the Appellant is said to have uttered that the would see the deceased. In good gesture, the deceased wanted the Appellant to be brought back on correct path and to the mainstream but unfortunately he has become a victim at the hand of the Appellant. From the evidence of P.W.10 it has also transpired that on the date of occurrence, the Appellant had gone to him and purchased liquor of Rs. 5/- and had asked for a knife from his as well as from Udhaba to which they refused. In the same night they heard that Bijay Kumar Pradhan was murdered. 7. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who found that it was the Appellant who committed such horrendous act of commission of murder of Bijay Kumar Pradhan. In the same night they heard that Bijay Kumar Pradhan was murdered. 7. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who found that it was the Appellant who committed such horrendous act of commission of murder of Bijay Kumar Pradhan. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has been unable to bring to our notice any factual or legal infirmities in the impugned judgment warranting our interference in this appeal. 8. In the result; the appeal fails and is dismissed, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed