JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in ST. No. 167 of 1994 u/s 302; I.P.C. directing the Appellant to undergo imprisonment for life has been assailed in this behalf; 2. The brevity of the prosecution story as unravelled from the judgment of the learned Court below is as follows: Undisputedly deceased Makardhwaj Budek and the Appellant were not pulling on well with each other much prior to 1994. Many criminal cases were pending between them in different Courts. Prior to the date of occurrence i.e. on 21.3.1994, the Appellant had threatened the deceased Makardhwaj Budek to put an end to his life. Therefore, from the above circumstance a strong inference could be drawn as regards the motive on the part of the Appellant to do away with the life of the deceased. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 21st March, 1994 morning at 8.00 A.M. when the deceased Makardhwaj Budek was present near the house of Basu Bhoi. P.Ws.3's husband, the Appellant appeared there with a tangi and started inflicting successive cut injuries on the person of the deceased as a result of which he fell down on the ground in a pool of blood. P.W.3 (Bui Bhoi) the wife of Basu Bhoi. saw the assault on the deceased while she was cleaning her utensils in her bari. She therefore, shouted saying that the accused had killed the deceased. Hearing the outcry of P.W.3 the other witnesses, such as P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 reached at the spot, subsequently followed by many Ors. . The Appellant seeing those people ran away from the spot with the weapon of offence, namely the tangi, which was stained with blood. P.W.2 Sudhansu Budek who reached at the spot after hearing the shriek of P.W.3 asked the deceased as to how he was injured to which he explained that the Appellant inflicted cut injuries by means of an axe. So saying, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. While he was running away from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 made an attempt to apprehend the Appellant (Prakash Mishra.) but he brandished the tangi as a result of which P.W.5 could not dare to reach near the Appellant, and therefore, he could escape from the place of occurrence. So saying, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. While he was running away from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 made an attempt to apprehend the Appellant (Prakash Mishra.) but he brandished the tangi as a result of which P.W.5 could not dare to reach near the Appellant, and therefore, he could escape from the place of occurrence. After all the relations of the deceased reached the place of occurrence, they carried him in a charpoi to Jujumura Police Station and lodged information alleging that the Appellant committed murder of the deceased Makardhawaj Budek. On receipt of the information, a case u/s 302 I.P.C. was registered against the Appellant and the O.I.C. Jujumura Police Station, immediately rushed to the spot. He examined the witnesses, seized blood-stained earth and sample earth from the spot, despatched the deadbody of the deceased for post mortem examination. Despite frantic search, the Appellant could not be apprehended. On 24.3.1994 with the help of the villagers including P.W.5 the Appellant could be arrested along with an axe from 'Oebta Dungri' a part of Jujumura jungle. Be it noted here that the Investigating Officer while arresting the accused notice some blood-stains appearing on the clothes of the Appellant and be seized the clothes as well as the tangi, the weapon of offence. The nail clippings of the accused were collected with the help of the Doctor (P.W.6) and those were sent for chemical examination along with the seized incriminating materials. The tangi which was seized from the possession of the Appellant had been sent to P.W.7 for an opinion as to whether such injuries on the deceased could be possible by the weapon of offence like M.O.I, and after P.W.7 replied in affirmative, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. 4. The plea of the defence was a complete denial of the occurrence, and the accused claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case out of previous enmity. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge against the Appellant had examined 8 witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the Doctors. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, and P.Ws. 3 and 4 have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed about the dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge against the Appellant had examined 8 witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the Doctors. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, and P.Ws. 3 and 4 have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed about the dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased. P.W.5 is the post-occurrence witness who attempted to apprehend the Appellant, but could not succeed as the latter, brandished the tangi (M.O.I.). The trial Court relied upon the following circumstances while recording an order of conviction against the Appellant. (i) The accused had strong motive to kill the deceased because of previous enmity with him; (ii) The accused had earlier threatened the deceased to kill him; (iii) The eye witnesses have directly implicated the accused to have inflicted successive tangi blows on the person of the deceased; (iv) The deceased had made a dying declaration before his son and brother, P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively wherein he has very clearly and unambiguously implicated the accused to have inflicted cut blows on him; (v) The accused was seen escaping towards the jungle being armed with blood-stained tangi and his wearing apparels were stained with blood and the threatened the witness Ranjit Mirdha on the way to kill him in the event of obstruction in the same manner in which he had killed Makardhawaj Buaek; (vi) The accused was found to have concealed his presence inside Debta Dungri jungle of Ju|umura from where he could be nabbed by the police in presence of P.W.5 with the weapon of offence and his blood stained wearing apparels; (vii) The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination and examines the weapon of offence in of the opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible by the said weapon and the duration of the injuries also related to at or about the time of occurrence; and (viii) The Chemical Examiner's report has also supplied extrinsic corroboration to the main substratum of the prosecution case who found blood stains sticking to the weapon of offence and other seized incriminating materials. 6. From the evidence of P.W.7 who conducted the post mortem examination, it has, however, been established by the prosecution that the deceased met a homicidal death from injuries caused to him. 6. From the evidence of P.W.7 who conducted the post mortem examination, it has, however, been established by the prosecution that the deceased met a homicidal death from injuries caused to him. He further opined that death was due to shock resulting from haemorrhage of the countless number of incised and chopped injuries, on the various parts of the body of the deceased. The injuries could have been caused by weapon of offence, namely 'tangi' or 'tangia' like M.O.I. In ordinary course of nature those injuries are sufficient to cause death. 7. Now while coming to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is gathered that there was bitter enmity between the Appellant on the one hand and the deceased on the other. P.W.3 has clearly deposed about the manner of assault alleged to have been dealt by the Appellant on the deceased Makardhwaj Budek. Although some irrelevant suggestion has been put to P.W.1, it has been stoutly resisted. His evidence also stood corroborated by the evidence of P.W 3 in all material particulars. He also repeated that on hearing the outcry raised by P.W.3, he immediately rushed to the spot and noticed the Appellant inflicting successive blows on the deceased Makardhwaj Budek. 8. Similarly, P.W.2 after hearing the cry of P.W.3 rushed to the spot and at that time saw that the deceased had fallen on the ground after having been injured. On his query to the deceased as to who was his assailant, the deceased replied that the Appellant had inflicted successive fatal blows with the help of tangi (axe). Thus on a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. there appears to be no room for doubt that it was the Appellant who was the author of the crime. 9. It is in the evidence of P.W.3 that after causing assault on the deceased, the Appellant seeing the arrival of other witnesses fled away from the spot with the weapon of offence and escaped towards a nearby jungle. Now examining the evidence of P.W.5 it has appeared that while the Appellant was running towards the jungle with the weapon of offence, he made an attempt to apprehend him, but since be brandished the tangi. P.W.5 could not over power the Appellant. Thus he escaped with the weapon of offence. 10. Now examining the evidence of P.W.5 it has appeared that while the Appellant was running towards the jungle with the weapon of offence, he made an attempt to apprehend him, but since be brandished the tangi. P.W.5 could not over power the Appellant. Thus he escaped with the weapon of offence. 10. Now turning to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) it has further transpired that in spite of frantic search to apprehend the Appellant, he could not arrest him. But on 24.3.1994 he could apprehend the Appellant from the jungle along with the weapon of offence (M.O.I.). The weapon of offence such as a tangi with bamboo handle and also the wearing apparels of the Appellant which were seized after he was apprehended had been sent for chemical analysis through the S.D.J.M. Sambalpur, but since, there was sufficient time gap from the date of occurrence till those were seized, the Appellant might have destroyed all the evidence and. as such, no such blood-stains could be noticed on the wearing apparels of the Appellant, though, however, only blood was detected on the M.O.I, yet no opinion could be rendered, as blood stain had deteriorated due to lapse of time. Even if no human blood could be detected, yet since there is evidence of unimpeachable nature and the testimony of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is categorical about the participation of Appellant, there could be no room for doubt that it was the Appellant who alone was responsible for the commission of murder of deceased Makardhwaj Budek. 11. We further did not notice any factual or legal infirmity in the judgment assailed before us. Accordingly the appeal being bereft of merit, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. are hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed