JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal assails the order dated 09.01.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, in S.T. Case No. 9 of 1993. whereby the appellants have been convicted u/s 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story, as unfolded in course of trial, is as follows: On 07.11.1992 at about 7.00 P.M., while the deceased Tima Munda and his brother Tepa Munda (P.W.2) were returning from Ukhunda Market, in village Katha Baunsuli under the Sadar P.S., Keonjhar, they were waylaid by the appellants, who obstructed their movements. It is alleged that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, brutally assaulted the deceased by means of iron rod, Bhaia and Lathi, as a result of which he sustained severe breeding injuries and fell down. When his brother (P.W.2) made an attempt to rescue the deceased, he too was assaulted resulting injury or, him. Tima was shifted to the Padampur P.H.C. on a cot in unconscious state and died at the P.H.C. due to shock and haemorrhage. P.W.1. the Medical Officer of Padmapur P.H.C, lodged a report at the police-station since it was a medicolegal case, on the basis of which a case was registered. The I.O. immediately swung into action and proceeded with the investigation of the case. He examined witnesses, held inquest over the dead body, despatched (he same for post mortem examination seized the blood-stained earth, sample earth and other incriminating articles and sent the same to the State Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination through the S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the appellants. 3. The defence plea was one of complete denial of the occurrence and false implication of the appellants. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examines is many as seven witnesses P.W. 1 was the Medical Office; of Padmapur P.H.C. who sent information to the police-station. P.W.2 was the brother of the deceased and is said to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. He was also injured curing the same transaction. P.W.3 was Anr. brother of the deceased. PW.4 was the doctor who determined the blood group of the appellants. P.W.5 was a seizure witness. P.W.6 was the Scientific Officer who examined the incriminating materials and submitted his report. P.W.7 was the I.O. 5. He was also injured curing the same transaction. P.W.3 was Anr. brother of the deceased. PW.4 was the doctor who determined the blood group of the appellants. P.W.5 was a seizure witness. P.W.6 was the Scientific Officer who examined the incriminating materials and submitted his report. P.W.7 was the I.O. 5. The prosecution case totally rests on the ocular evidence of P.W.2. who was none other than the brother of the deceased and was also Injured in course of the same transaction. He stated that at the time of occurrence, appellant -8ava was armed with an iron rod, appellant Sepa and Lakintira were holding Lathis and appellant Ladara had a Shala in his hand. Appellant Sepa assaulted him en the head by means of the Lathi, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury. Appellant Ladara assaulted the deceased by means of the Bhaia on the right leg. Appellants Sepa and Baya assaulted the deceased on the head and chest by means of the respective weapons held by them. The statement of P.W. 2 further revealed that there was a strong motive on the part of the appellants for assaulting him and causing the death of his brother. According to him, prior to the incident,-there was a quarrel over some land dispute between the appellants on one hand and the deceased and his family on the other. That quarrel led to several litigations between them. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants strongly contended that since were was bitter enmity between the appellants and the family of F.W.2 it is unsafe to place implicit reliance on his evidence without seeking corroboration from independent source. Law is well settled that the testimony of a witness does not deserve rejection on account of enmity alone. While examining such evidence, the Court should be circumspect. Rule of prudence demands that it should seek corroboration from other independent sources. In the present case P.W.2 himself was injured in course of the fame transaction. His evidence receives corroboration from P.W.1, who was the Medical Officer of Padmapur P.H.C. and had examined the deceased as well as P.W.2. Thus, on a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. Land 2, it unmistakably suggests that the appellants assaulted the deceased who collapsed on account of the injuries sustained by first. P.W.2 himself had also received injury and P.W.1 has proved such injury. Thus, on a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. Land 2, it unmistakably suggests that the appellants assaulted the deceased who collapsed on account of the injuries sustained by first. P.W.2 himself had also received injury and P.W.1 has proved such injury. Therefore, we do not find any circumstances which would weaken the prosecution case. 7. P.W.3 was Anr. brother of the deceased. He too corroborated the evidence of P.W.2. He immediately ran to the spot and found his brother Tima (deceased) lying with severe injuries. He arranged a cot and shitted the deceased to Pacrnapur P.H.C. where the latter collapsed. The I.O. had seized a Lathi (M.O.1), Bheia (M.O.II) and bamboo Lathi (M.O.V) at the instance of the appellants while they were in custody On reference of those weapons to the Medical Officer (P.W.1), he opined that those weapons were likely to cause the injuries found on the deceased as veil as P.W.2. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants then brought to our notice that one of the appellants, namely, Ladara Munda, also received an injury. In such a situation, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to explain the injury. Since in the present case, that duty has not been discharged, the prosecution case should be viewed with strong suspicion. While examining this aspect, we noticed that appellant Ladara had received a contusion with laceration on his left elbow, which is otherwise possible by coming in contact with hard and blunt substance. It is also likely that while assaulting the deceased and P.W.2, he night have fallen down on the ground and received such injury. The doctor (P.W.1) has opined that the injury was simple in nature. It is not obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain each and every injury even if it is superficial in nature. Since the injury on the body of appellant Ladara was a superficial one, it was not necessary to explain the same Further there is no evidence that ha received the said injury in course of the same transaction. We are therefore, not in a position to accept that he received such injury in course of the same incident in his statement recorded u/s 313. Code of Criminal Procedure this appellant has never claimed to have received the injury during the same Incident. Had he stated so, the fact situation would have changed. We are therefore, not in a position to accept that he received such injury in course of the same incident in his statement recorded u/s 313. Code of Criminal Procedure this appellant has never claimed to have received the injury during the same Incident. Had he stated so, the fact situation would have changed. We, therefore, reject this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. 9. We notice that the blood group of the deceased tallies with the blood seen on the weapons of offence used by the appellants and also on the Lungi worn by appellant Ladara. Therefore, on a comprehensive study of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there appears little doubt that the appellants had appalled the deceased Tirna and his brother (P.W.2). Further, we do not find any extenuating circumstance to altar that conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304, either Part I or Part II. IPC. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby affirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed