JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No 2 of 1994 convicting the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Brief narration of the prosecution case, stated in the F.I.P. is as follows: On 22.6.1993 at about 7.00 P.M. P.W.1 Sundar Muduli and the deceased Dambaru Muduli while returning home after witnessing "Gundicha Jatra" at Jeypore in front,the house of the Appellant the deceased is said to have whistled by mouth. Accordingly a quarrel ensued between the deceased and the Appellant. P.W.1. intercepted and separated the deceased as well as the Appellant. Thereafter, they (the deceased and P.W.1) proceeded to their respective houses. At this juncture, the Appellant in a fit of anger chased them by holding a tangi. Out of fear, P.W.1 an into his house which is situated near the house of the Appellant. But the deceased stayed back in front of the house of P.W.1 without entering into the house. At that juncture, the Appellant assaulted on the neck of the deceased by means of the tangi, as result of which he sustained severe bleeding injuries on his neck, fell down on the ground and instantaneously died. After assaulting the deceased, the Appellant ran away to his house along with the weapon of offence. P.W.3. who is the uncle of the deceased on being informed about the incident reached the spot and gathered that the Appellant had assaulted his nephew. So, he proceeded to Jeypore Sadar Police Station and lodged a repot vide Ext.1. The O.I.C., Sadar Police Station. Jeypore after registering a case u/s 302, IPC proceeded to the village. During investigation, he held inquest over the dead body of Dambaru Muduli in presence of the witnesses, seized blood-stained earth and sample earth, examined the witnesses, arrested the Appellant, sent the seized incriminating materials for scientific test and serological examination and after completion of investigation placed charge-sheet against the Appellant. 3. The Appellant's plea was one of denial of the occurrence. He has claimed to have been falsely implicated. 4. The death of the deceased Dambaru Muduli is not in dispute. P.W.7, the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy found the following external and internal injuries on the dead body of Dambaru Muduli. 3. The Appellant's plea was one of denial of the occurrence. He has claimed to have been falsely implicated. 4. The death of the deceased Dambaru Muduli is not in dispute. P.W.7, the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy found the following external and internal injuries on the dead body of Dambaru Muduli. (i) A chop would 6 in length, 3" in breadth x 3 ?" in depth located at the back of the neck. Underlying neck muscles arid blood vessels were completely cut with little amount of laceration. 3rd cervical vertebra was transversely cut. Spinal cord was completely cut. (ii) A linnear incised wound 4" x 1/2" skin deep over the right scapular spine. (iii) A avulsion injury 1 x 1/2",on the back side of the left middle finger. As opined by the doctor, those injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 5. P.W.1, who was coming with the deceased after witnessing "Gundicha Jatra" at Jeypore at about evening time, has stated that the deceased whistled by mouth in front of the Appellant's house, to which the Appellant took exception and Challenged the action of the deceased. Therefore, a quarrel ensued between both the deceased and the Appellant. Thereafter P.W.1 and the deceased went to the house of P.W.1 and the Appellant chased them being armed with a Tangi (M.O.I.). While P.W.1 was on the verandah and the deceased was standing infront of his house, the Appellant dealt two blows on the backside of the neck of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries and instantaneously died. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 who was sitting on the verandah and noticed the incident. Her testimony substantially corroborates and lends assurance to the evidence of P.W.1. It is not understood why P.W.1 and his mother will a false story to implicate the Appellant in an heinous crime like murder. No such suggestion had also been given either to P.W.1 or to his mother as to what prompted them to depose against him. Since their evidence is credible, trustworthy and faith inspiring, we do not find any cogent reason to disbelieve them. P.W.5, 3 and 4 immediately after the incident came and noticed that the deadbody of Dambaru was lying on the spot having marks of injury on the neck. P.W.3 has substantially corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Since their evidence is credible, trustworthy and faith inspiring, we do not find any cogent reason to disbelieve them. P.W.5, 3 and 4 immediately after the incident came and noticed that the deadbody of Dambaru was lying on the spot having marks of injury on the neck. P.W.3 has substantially corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The contents of the F.I.R. can be used for corroboration or for contradiction. On ' bare perusal of the Contents of the F.I.R., it also lends assurance to the case of the prosecution if the same is read with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. There were formidable points for the prosecution to the effect that the Appellant went himself to the police station and handed Over the Tangi (M.O.I.) in presence of P.W.4. The weapon of offence, namely, the Tangi, on chemical analysis, was found to have contained human blood, but the blood group could not be determined as mark of blood had deteriorated. Be that as it may, the presence of blood on the axe produced by the Appellant at the police station is also an incriminating circumstance against the Appellant while determining his guilt Or otherwise. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant while winding up his argument has fervently submitted that the incident took place at the spur of the moment and the Appellant inflicted injuries in a fit of anger. However, the learned Trial Judge did not consider this aspect of the case as to whether he could be convicted u/s 304, either Part-I or Part-II, IPC or u/s 302, IPC. While repelling the said, contention, Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, has submitted that had the incident taken place in front of the house of the accused when challenge was made as to why the deceased blew whistle, it could have been a mitigating circumstance to be taken into consideration. But since the quarrel was over and the deceased and P.W.1 had already proceeded upto the house of P.W.1. there was no reason for the Appellant to chase them and inflict successive blows one after Anr. on the neck of the deceased, which is the vital organ of the body. For the reasons, the intention of the Appellant is quite implicit/apparent for causing death of Dambaru. 7. there was no reason for the Appellant to chase them and inflict successive blows one after Anr. on the neck of the deceased, which is the vital organ of the body. For the reasons, the intention of the Appellant is quite implicit/apparent for causing death of Dambaru. 7. Since there has been no extenuating circumstance, we do not find any adequate reason to alter the conviction from Section 302, IPC to Section 304, either Part-I or Part-II, IPC. 8. In the result, the appeal fails. The conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant is hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed