JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1994 charged under Sections 452/302/307/324. I.P.C. is the Appellant in this case. 2. The accused was prosecuted for commission of murder of one Hemanta Majhi and also for causing assault on Parabali Makhi (P.W.8) and Sudarsan Majhi (P.W.9) in the night of 7.9.93. The brief narration of the prosecution story which emerged in course of trial is as follows: The deceased along with his mother and one Sudarsan Majhi were sleeping in their house in the night of 7.9.93. At about mid night the Appellant being armed with a Tangia entered into the house and killed deceased Hemanta Majhi and attempted to commit murder of Parabali Majhi (P.W.8) when she came out to protect her son. By hearing the out cry of P.W.8 Sudarsan Majhi (P.W.9) reached there and he too was assaulted by the Appellant. In course of incident hue and cry was raised by P.Ws 8 and 9 as a sequel thereof P.W.1, the informant, whose house was quite near the place of incident, rushed to the spot and found P.W.8 Parabali Majhi and P.W.9 Sudarsan Majhi were injured and Hemanta was lying dead. So he shouted for help of other villagers for their rescue. Hearing the shriek raised by P.W.1, the son of the accused Niranjan Naik arrived at the spot and snatched away the axe from the hand of his father. The injured was taken to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter the Appellant went to P.W.4 Prabeen Sekhar Deo along with P.W.1 and explained to him regarding the incident and made an extra-judicial confession admitting to have killed Hemanta Majhi and caused injuries to P.Ws.8 and 9. P.W.1 on the following morning went to Talsara Police Station and informed the Officer-in-charge of the police station about the incident which was reduced to writing and treated as F.I.R. Immediately after registering it a case, the Officer-in-charge of Talsara police station (P.W.12) rushed to the spot and started investigation. During investigation he collected blood stained earth and sample earth, prepared the spot map, held inquest over the deadbody of Hemanta. seized the wearing apparells of the accused as well as the injured persons, sent the deadbody for post mortem examination and arrested the accused-Appellant. During investigation he collected blood stained earth and sample earth, prepared the spot map, held inquest over the deadbody of Hemanta. seized the wearing apparells of the accused as well as the injured persons, sent the deadbody for post mortem examination and arrested the accused-Appellant. The I.O. sent the weapon of offence (M.O.I) and the other incriminating materials to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation placed the charge-sheet in Court. 3. The prosecution in order t6 sustain the conviction against the Appellant had examined 12 witnesses including the two I.Os and two Medical Officers, who conducted post mortem examination over the deadbody of Hemanta and also examined the injured, P.Ws. 8 and 9. 4. . P.W.8 is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence has lent great assurance to determine the culpability of the Appellant. Apart from it she claimed herself to have been injured in course of the same incident. Her evidence certified that in the month of Bhadraba on Monday mid night the incident had taken place. The Appellant assaulted her son by means of a Tangia (M.O.I) as a result of which her son met an instantaneous death. The deceased and her nephew Sudarsan (P.W.9) were sleeping in the outer verandah whereas she had slept in the other room. When she made an attempt to snatch away the axe from the hand of the Appellant, it had struck her left hand causing bleeding injury. When her nephew tried to over-power the Appellant, the latter aimed the axe at him and it struck on the right ear of P.W.9. In course of the incident when they raised hue and cry P.W.1 reached at the spot. After arrival of P.W.1. P.W.9 gained courage and so both of them caught hold of the Appellant. During her cross-examination a question was put to P.W.8 as to whether she had stated specifically before the I.O. regarding the assault alleged to have been made on the deceased, to which P.W.8 stated that although she did not state before the I.O. about the assault caused by the Appellant, but she had described that the accused had caused injuries on the neck, chest and hand of her deceased son. We found from the evidence of P.W.8 that even though there are some minor discrepancies here and there, but the same did not affect the substratum of the prosecution story. We found from the evidence of P.W.8 that even though there are some minor discrepancies here and there, but the same did not affect the substratum of the prosecution story. From this it cannot be contended that the genesis of the prosecution story has been distorted. As a matter of fact by examining the evidence of P.W.8 it has further strengthened the prosecution story that the Appellant caused the injuries by an axe on the neck and chest which is supported by the medical evidence as deposed by P.W.6. From the evidence of P.W.6 it is noticed that the deceased Hemanta received four incised external injuries on the neck, chest and right wrist joint. According to P.W.6 all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and death was due to syncope and haemorrhage and might have been caused by an axe like M.O.I, which was sent to him for examination by the I.O. 5. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.9 who was also injured in course of same incident along with P.W.8 in the night of occurrence, it appeared that he corroborated P.W.8 and stated that the deceased and himself were sleeping on the outer courtyard whereas P.W.8 was sleeping in a room. P.Ws 8 and 9 have consistently deposed that a dibri' was burning inside the house. According to him when the deceased went outside to answer call of nature by opening the door, he heard a beating sound and when he went near the door the accused suddenly charged on his right ear by means of an axe. It is true that he had not seen the assault on Hemanta as he went towards the door on hearing the banging sound upon the deceased, but it cannot be said that he had not seen the occurrence. Rather his statement further strengthens the fact that the Appellant entered into the room and assaulted the deceased. A false suggestion was given to P.W.9 that he was subjected to sexual assault on P.W.8 which he stoutly dismissed. In his examination u/s 313. Code of Criminal Procedure he did not whisper about such unsavourly remarks. This suggestion has no bearing to determine the culpability of the Appellant since it does not bear an iota of truth. P.W.1 is almost next door neighbour and his house is hardly 30 feet away from the house of P.W. 8 and of the accused. Code of Criminal Procedure he did not whisper about such unsavourly remarks. This suggestion has no bearing to determine the culpability of the Appellant since it does not bear an iota of truth. P.W.1 is almost next door neighbour and his house is hardly 30 feet away from the house of P.W. 8 and of the accused. In the night of occurrence on being called by P.W.8 he rushed to the spot and noticed that the accused was standing near the house of P.W.8 and P.W.8 was injured. Thereafter P.W.1 having asked P.W.8, she explained that the Appellant forcibly entered into her house and committed murder of her husband and caused injuries to P.Ws.8 and 9 by means of an axe. P.W.1 also noticed the Appellant standing with an axe in his hand. P.W.1 went to the house of the Appellant and called his son and other villagers. The son of the Appellant snatched away the axe from the hand of the Appellant. P.W.1 informed the incident to the son of Gountia (P.W.4) along with the Appellant. Before P.W.4, the Appellant made an extra judicial confession admitting to have killed the deceased Hemanta and also caused injuries on P.Ws. 8 and 9. The Appellant went with P.W.1 and surrendered?at the police station. P.W.1 explained the incident at Talsara Police station which was reduced to writing and treated as F.I.R. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 does not raise even slightest doubt since he is an independent witness and next door neighbour of P.W.8 and immediately rushed to the place of incident. P.W.2 also on hearing the outcry proceeded to the house of P.W.8 and found that P.Ws.8 and 9 were engaged in grappling each other. He also noticed that there was injury on the right hand ear of P.W.9 and also P.W.8 was injured on her left hand. His evidence is specific to the extent that he rushed to the spot immediately after the occurrence and found P.Ws.8 and 9 injured and the deceased Hemanta was lying dead. The evidence of P.W.3 substantially lends support to the evidence of P.W.2 that he too reached the house of the deceased and noticed injuries on the persons of P.Ws.8 and 9. They removed the injured persons to Balsankara Hospital and also guarded the deadbody of Hemanta. P.W.4 is a co-villager and the son of an Ex-Gountia. The evidence of P.W.3 substantially lends support to the evidence of P.W.2 that he too reached the house of the deceased and noticed injuries on the persons of P.Ws.8 and 9. They removed the injured persons to Balsankara Hospital and also guarded the deadbody of Hemanta. P.W.4 is a co-villager and the son of an Ex-Gountia. He certified that the Appellant along with P.W.1 went to his house in the night of occurrence, and the Appellant admitted to have killed Hemanta and caused injuries to P.Ws.8 and 9. The Appellant also explained the reasons for which he killed the deceased. 6. The accused was kept in their custody and oh the following morning the Chowkidar took the accused to the police station. P.W.5 is a post-occurrence witness, who supports the version of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.7 was the Medical Officer of Balisankar P.H.C. and examined the injured P.Ws.8 and 9 and found one incised injury on the person of P.W.8 and one cut injury and fracture of the left forearm on the person of P.W.9. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the police officers who conducted investigation one after Anr. immediately after receiving the report form P.W.1. 7. On a comprehensive and close study of the evidence as narrated above. we found, there has been no inconsistency or infirmity in the narration of the fact by P.Ws.1 to 4. 8 and 9. Thus considering case of the Appellant from any angle, we find that their has been no illegality or taotual infirmity so as to come to different conclusion other than that arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Sundargarh are hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed