JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - In this appeal, the order of conviction of the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "Indian Penal Code") and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna, in S.C. No. 41 of 1991 has been called in question. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story, as unravelled in course of trial is as follows: On 29.1.1991 morning, victim Raibari, the wife of the informant Dhanurjaya Majhi (P.W.1) of village Tomora, along with Srabani Dei (P.W.3) had been to the river Gaidhar to fetch water. About ten minutes thereafter, the Appellant came and enquired about Raibari from P.W. 1. On getting information that she had gone to the river, the Appellant proceeded in that direction. At about 6.30 A.M., P.W.3 came running and informed P.W.1 that the Appellant had committed the murder of Raibari by assaulting her with an axe. Having learnt about the incident from P.W.3, P.W.1 proceeded towards the river side and found his wife lying dead with bleeding injuries. The pitcher and other pots were lying there. He also found a pair of Chappals and a Chadar belonging to the Appellant lying at the spot. It may be stated here that the Appellant is the husband of the younger sister of the victim. On the preceding night, the Appellant had threatened his wife Jhula Dei (P.W.5) with dire consequences as a reason whereof she had hidden herself and had spent the night in the red gram field of one Chamaru Majhi. P.W.1 rushed to Kuturu Out-post and explained the incident at about 10.00 A.M. on the same day. The oral version of P.W.1 was reduced to writing by the A.S.I. of Police (P.W.17), which was read over and explained to P.W. 1. who after having understood the contents signed the report and the same was treated as F.I.R.P.W.17 then sent the F.I.R. to Jaipatna Police-station for formal registration. He also visited the spot, examined witnesses, seized a brass pitcher, an earthen pot, a brass Handi, a pair of Chappals, a Chadar, a Singula of white cloth, some blood-stained earth, sample earth and some blood-stained hairs as per seizure list (Ext.4). He held inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. He also visited the spot, examined witnesses, seized a brass pitcher, an earthen pot, a brass Handi, a pair of Chappals, a Chadar, a Singula of white cloth, some blood-stained earth, sample earth and some blood-stained hairs as per seizure list (Ext.4). He held inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. On the same day at about 2.00 P.M., he handed over the charge of investigation to the S.I. of Police (P.W. 18), who also visited the spot, examined witnesses, searched for the Appellant who was absconding and seized the wearing apparels of the deceased on production of the same by a Constable after post-mortem examination. P.W. 18 further seized a golden ring and brass utensils, which were given in zima to P.W.1. Thereafter, he made over the charge of investigation to the O.I.C., Jaipatna P.S.(P.W. 20). On receipt of the charge of investigation. P.W. 20 too visited the spot and examined witnesses. In the meantime, the Appellant had surrendered in court and remanded to custody. P.W. 20 made a prayer for his police custody, which was allowed. After bringing the Appellant, P.W. 20 interrogated him and seized the weapon of offence, the axe (M.O.I) at the instance of the Appellant. A query was made to the doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body as to whether the injuries found on the dead body could be possible by means of M.O.I. to which the Doctor replied in the affirmative. The incriminating materials were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the Serologist's report was also received. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the Appellant. 3. In order to bring home the charge to the Appellant, prosecution had examined as many as twenty witnesses. P.W.1 was the informant and the husband of the deceased. P. Ws. 2 and 3 had claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. Ws. 6, 7, 10 and 16 were the witnesses to the seizure, P. Ws. 9 and 14 were the witnesses to the inquest, P.W. 15 was a witness to the recovery of M.O.I., P.W. 5 was the wife of the Appellant, P.W. 4 was the doctor who held post-mortem examination over the dead body. P.W. 19 was the Constable who escorted the dead body for post-mortem examination, and P. Ws. 17, 18 and 20 were the investigating officers. P.W. 19 was the Constable who escorted the dead body for post-mortem examination, and P. Ws. 17, 18 and 20 were the investigating officers. It may be stated that some of the prosecution witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 11, 12, 13 and 16 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The learned Sessions Judge, after closely scrutinising the evidence placed before him, was inclined to record an order of conviction against the Appellant. 4. At the outset, it may be seen whether Raibari met a homicidal death. In this connection, the evidence of P.W. 4 is relevant. He found that there were severe incised wounds on the buttock, there was a lenier abrasion horizontal 12 cm x 11 cm on the left lower abdomen and the thorasic wall was cut by an incised wound on the left upper back. The underlying pleura was cut and the ribs were unaffected. He also found the following incised wounds on the dead body: 1. 21/2" x 2" x 1" on the lower part of left lower arm. 2. incised-avulsion wound on the left shoulder joint, 41/2" diameter. 3. 11/2" x 1" x 1" on the top of left shoulder. 4. 21/2" x 11/2" x 1" obliquely over lower part of left sternomastoid muscle. 5. 2" x 1" x mouth depth horizontal on the left cheek. 6. 3" x 11/2" x 1" behind right angle of lower jaw affecting the right ear pinna about 0.5 cm. 7. Three adjacent incised wounds on top and back of right shoulder joint, 2"x11/2" & 1" in length, breadth 1" each, depth 1" each. 8. 3"x 2" x 1" on outer side of right upper arm oblique. 9. 2" x 1" x 1" oblique front of middle of right forearm. 10. 21/2" x 11/2" x 1/4" horizontal right flank. 11. 21/2" x 11/2" x 11/2" oblique inner side of left middle thigh. 12. 3" x 11/2" x pleural cavity underlying pleura cut, oblique at the medial side of left scapula. 13. 3"x 2" x 1/2" on medial side of right scapula, vertical. On dissection, he found that the stomach was empty, the small intestine and the large intestine contained natural contents and gas, and the bladder was empty. According to P.W. 4. death was due to external haemorrhage and shock resulting from several incised wounds on the deceased. 13. 3"x 2" x 1/2" on medial side of right scapula, vertical. On dissection, he found that the stomach was empty, the small intestine and the large intestine contained natural contents and gas, and the bladder was empty. According to P.W. 4. death was due to external haemorrhage and shock resulting from several incised wounds on the deceased. Therefore, from the facts stated above, there can be no room for doubt that the deceased met a homicidal death on account of the injuries on her person, which might have been caused by an axe. The opinion of the doctor would also reveal that all the injuries appearing on the deceased would cause death in ordinary course of nature. 5. Now, let us see how far the prosecution has been able to prove the culpability of the Appellant. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that the deceased along with P.W.3 had been to the river to fetch water. P.W.3 has seen the Appellant assaulting the deceased. In this connection, Mr. Panigrahi has highlighted that P.W.3 had not seen the entire incident from the beginning till end and in the midst she came running and narrated the incident to P.W. 1. Such approach is unrealistic, unnatural and against normal human conduct. When P.W. 3 saw the deceased was being assaulted, it was normally expected of her to immediately go and inform the husband of the victim, which she did. By the time P.W.1 reached the spot, he found his wife lying dead with bleeding injuries. The vessels were also lying at the spot along with a pair of Chappals and a Chadar. of course, the prosecution has proved the seizure of the Chappals and the Chadar through P.W. 6, but he was unable to say whether those belonged to the Appellant. However, apart from the seizure of those materials, the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 2 and 3, is tell-tale to connect the Appellant with the crime. 6. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that there has been no evidence whatsoever placed by the prosecution to show that the Appellant had any intention or premeditation to cause the murder of the deceased. In an incident of murder, intention cannot be proved always by direct evidence. It has to be gathered from the surrounding facts and circumstances. Panigrahi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that there has been no evidence whatsoever placed by the prosecution to show that the Appellant had any intention or premeditation to cause the murder of the deceased. In an incident of murder, intention cannot be proved always by direct evidence. It has to be gathered from the surrounding facts and circumstances. In this connection, the Court cannot be oblivious to the evidence of P.W. 5, who is none other than the wife of the Appellant. On a careful study of her testimony, it is seen that on the preceding night of occurrence, the Appellant commanded his wife to ask her sister (the deceased) to come and join him, to which P.W. 5 resisted. For that reason, the Appellant became enraged and wanted to assault his wife. So she had taken shelter in the red gram field of one Chamaru Majhi. That apart, it is well settled that in a case of murder intention can seldom be the prime cause for holding a person guilty. 7. It is then submitted that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the direct testimony. But, where the direct testimony is credible, clinching and trust inspiring, the same should be preferred to the expert's opinion. In the present case, however, we have not noticed any inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. 8. Within hours of the incident, P.W.1 had lodged the report at the Out-post whereafter P.W.17 reached the spot and did preliminary investigation awaiting further orders from the O.I.C. Subsequently, the O.I.C. took over the charge of investigation. By that time the Appellant had already surrendered in court. On proper prayer being made, he was given to police custody and M.O.I., the weapon of offence, was seized at his instance. Thus, there has been no lacuna in the investigation. The learned Sessions Judge has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and materials placed before him before recording an order of conviction. We see no illegality or irregularity to have been committed by the trial court warranting out interference. 9. In the result, this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant by the trial court is hereby affirmed. Final Result : Dismissed