JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — The sole accused-appellant in S.T. No. 93 of 1994 has assailed the order of conviction and sentence under Section 302, I.P.C. passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundar¬garh directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The outline of the prosecution story as depicted in the judgment of the trial Court is as follows : One Kuanr Oram (P.W.17) a ward member of village Musabira lodged a report at Chandiposh Outpost by stating that one of his co-villagers Ganduru Oram was killed by the appellant on 9.1.1994 at about 9.00 AM. It was further indicated in the report that the deadbody of Ganduru Oram was lying at the spot on the village Panchayat road of village Musibira. On receipt of the said report the A.S.I. of Chandiposh Outpost entered it into station diary and sent it to Banki Police Station for registration of a case. The S.I. of Banki Police station after receiving the said report registered a case against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and immediately thereafter swung into action. He rushed to the spot, recorded the statement of the informant and other witness¬es, held inquest over the deabbody of Ganduru Oram, arranged to conduct post mortem examination over the deadbody of deceased, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth so also the cloths and thereafter the accused was arrested and after comple¬tion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bonai. 3. In course of trial 9 witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. While considering the case of the prosecution, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is of much significance since P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased whereas, P.W.3 is the first cousin who is related to both parties. On a brief resume of evidence of P.W.1,who is the informant in this case, it is re¬vealed that on the date of occurrence while he was busy in pack¬ing rice, heard an outcry coming out from the house of deceased Ganduru Oram and the appellant. So he proceeded in that direction being accompanied by one Bijla Oram. he found deceased Ganduru Oram lying with bleeding injuries on his dead. So he proceeded in that direction being accompanied by one Bijla Oram. he found deceased Ganduru Oram lying with bleeding injuries on his dead. On his query P.W.7 who was present at the spot, however, narrated the incident to P.W.1 by stating that the appellant had assaulted her husband by means of an axe as a result of which he instantaneously died. Therefore, he proceeded to Chandiposh Outpost and lodged the F.I.R. vide Ext. 1. Subsequently when the police came and held inquest over the deadbody of the deceased in his presence and prepared the inquest report vide Ext.2 and he signed on the inquest report vide his signature Ext. 2/1. P.W.1 is said to have rushed to the spot immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, he is a post-occurrence witness. His evidence some how lends corroboration with the evidence of P.W.2 who is the wife of the deceased. From the testimony of P.W.2, it has come to the fore that on the fateful day the appellant came to their house and entered into a brawl over a trifling cause. When such hot discus¬sion continued the appellant immediately dealt blows on the head of the deceased by means of a Tangia. P.W.1 immediately arrived at the spot to whom she narrated the incident. To impeach her testimony the defence put several questions, but nothing was the outcome to discredit her evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has, however, made an endeavour challenging her evidence by stating that assuming that P.W.2 was present at the spot, it is not understood why she did not make any attempt to raise an outcry nor had gone to rescue her husband, therefore, her testimony seems to be unnatural and must be rejected on that count alone. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted at the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help and others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush for rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter attacking the assailant. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help and others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush for rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter attacking the assailant. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. Discarding the evidence of a wit¬ness on the ground that he/she did not react in any particular manner would only amount to an unrealistic and unimaginative approach. Therefore, in this particular case we noticed for her evidence that when she attempted to come to the rescue of her husband the appellant threatened on her life, so, she had become panic stricken and did not dare to come to the rescue of her husband and for that reason her evidence cannot be brushed aside nor any slightest doubt arises with regard to her testimony. 4. Turning to the evidence of P.W.2, another comment has been made that she did not utter a word by stating the presence of P.W.3, nor P.W.3 narrated her presence. On a close reading of the evidence of P.W.2 it appeared that no question was put to her by suggesting whether P.W.3 was also present. In the aforesaid premises since the evidence of P.W.2 is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and natural, therefore there is no reason to reject her evidence. 5. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.3 we found that she too reached the spot at the time of incident. It is true that P.W.3 stated to have not marked the presence of P.W.2, but that by itself cannot arouse any suspicion with regard to her presence. The Medical Officer (P.W.6) had conducted post mortem examination over the deadbody of deceased Ganduru Oram and found six incised wound on the person of the deceased and he opined that the in¬juries were ante mortem and could cause death in ordinary course of nature. The weapon of offence, M.O.I. was referred to P.W.6 for rendering any opinion whether the injuries on the deceased could be possible by such weapon to which he answered in affirma¬tive. Learned counsel for the appellant made an unsuccessful attempt by arguing that it was not mentioned in the post mortem report. The weapon of offence, M.O.I. was referred to P.W.6 for rendering any opinion whether the injuries on the deceased could be possible by such weapon to which he answered in affirma¬tive. Learned counsel for the appellant made an unsuccessful attempt by arguing that it was not mentioned in the post mortem report. There is no necessity for P.W.6 to note in the post mortem report as to by what weapon the injuries had been caused, such weapon had been referred to him. It is true that the weapon of offence was referred for serological examination, but since there was long gap between the referral date and the date of examination, therefore, the scientific expert could not give any opinion regarding existence of the blood. Merely because the marks of blood were disintegrated or deteriorated, it cannot be said such report of the serologist would not be accepted. Be that as it may, since the prosecution has proved the case through the ocular evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, we have least doubt to hold that the appellant was responsible for causing such dastardly murder of deceased Ganduru Oram. We did not notice any factual or legal infirmities in the judgment assailed before us or the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed under Section 302, I.P.C. is hereby affirmed. 6. The appeal being bereft of merit is, therefore, dis¬missed. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.