JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT dated 25.11.1992 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge. Berhampur, camp at Bhanjanagar. in Sessions Case No. 13/92 (18/92 GDC). whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (for short. "Indian Penal Code") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and six months respectively; the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The Appellant was prosecuted for commission of murder of his wife Rochana Naik in the night between 24th and 25th May. 1991. Undisputedly, the marriage between the deceased and the Appellant was solemnised a few years before the date of incident. About 1-1/2 years after the marriage, a female child was born. The deceased was living with the Appellant in her matrimonial house at Buguda under Buguda police-station. Three days preceding the incident, Bhikari Naik (P.W. 9). who was the father of the deceased. his wife and brother-in-law Dhanu Naik had come to the Appellant's house and requested his parents to allow the deceased to visit her parents' house, to which the Appellant and his parents had agreed. It was tentatively fixed that on 25.05.1991 morning. the deceased would visit her parents' house. 3. In the night between 24th and 25th May, 1991, after all the inmates including the parents of the Appellant had taken their dinner, the deceased and her husband along with their baby slept in one room, whereas P.W. 9 and the father of the Appellant. namely. Rajan Naik (P.W. 1) slept together on the front verandah of that room. Dhanu Naik and Kishore Naik (brother of the Appellant) slept together on the front verandah of the house. P.W. 1's second wife Maya Naik (P.W. 6) and the mother of the deceased slept together in the entrance room. In dead of night. the deceased made a shrill shriek uttering "Mother, I am dying", on hearing which, all the inmates immediately roused from their sleep and rushed to the room where the Appellant and the deceased were sleeping. They noticed bleeding injuries on the person of the deceased who fell down on the courtyard situated between the two rooms. P.W. 1.6 and 9 had also seen bleeding from a Dibiri (kerosene lamp). At that juncture. They noticed bleeding injuries on the person of the deceased who fell down on the courtyard situated between the two rooms. P.W. 1.6 and 9 had also seen bleeding from a Dibiri (kerosene lamp). At that juncture. the Appellant came running from inside the room by uttering that he had committed the murder of his wife Rochana and further made an attempt to put and end to his life. At that time, all the above witnesses found the Appellant having bleeding injuries on his neck. Immediately thereafter. P.W. 1 brought a trolly rickshaw and shifted the deceased to Buguda P.H.C. whereas P.W. 9. his brother-in-law. Dhanu Naik and the Grama Rakhi Ganga Naik went to the police-station. The matter was orally explained to the O.J.C.. Buguda P.5. (P.W. 10), who recorded the F.I.R. (Ext. 10) and proceeded for investigation. In course of investigation. he visited the spot. examined witnesses. seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth. conducted inquest over the dead body. sent medical requisition for examination of the Appellant. and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to Bhanjanagar Sub-Divisional Hospital where Dr. Snchalata Mohapatra (P.W. 2) and Dr. S.K. Panda jointly conducted autopsy over the dead body of Rochana Naik and prepared post-mortem report (Ext. 2). The case of the Appellant was also referred to Bhanjanagar Sub-Divisional Hospital for X-ray examination. The weapon of offence (M.O.I.), a Dadhi (sharp cutting weapon) \'vas seized from) the house of P.W. 1. On production by the Appellant, P.W. 10 seized his blood-stained Lungi. A II the incriminating materials were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, P.W. 10 placed charge-sheet ul1..der Sections 302/309 Indian Penal Code against the Appellant. 4. The plea of the Appellant was one of denial of the occurrence. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. he explained that in the night of occurrence. while he and his wife were sleeping together inside the room, the latter stabbed him with M.O.I., but he did not commit any offence. It was also stated that the deceased had extra-marital relationship with one Ramesh Naik, for which she tried to kill the Appellant. 5. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W.s. I and 6 were the parents of the Appellant whereas P.W. 9 was the father of the deceased. It was also stated that the deceased had extra-marital relationship with one Ramesh Naik, for which she tried to kill the Appellant. 5. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W.s. I and 6 were the parents of the Appellant whereas P.W. 9 was the father of the deceased. P.W. 2 was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, P.W. 10 was the investigating officer and Ors. were either seizure or post-occurrence witnesses. 6. Death of Rochana is not in dispute. Nor has the Appellant seriously raised any dispute that she died of injuries. The doctor (P.W.2) who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, found the following injuries I. Clean cut injury over the right hypochondrial region, Yz" x W' x 1- Y2", crossing the abdom inal wall and piercing the liver (on the anterior abdominal wall). 2. Injury over left second intercostal space on back side, Y2" x y.;" X I-Y2", 1/2 inches away from the spine, crossing the chest wall and injuring the lungs. 3. Injury over left third intercostals space on back side, Yz" x I;"" X I-Yz", two inches away from the spine, crossing the chest wall and injuring the lungs. 4. Injury over left 5th rib and 5th space, Yz" x W' x 3", injuring the lungs and the heart. 5. Injury over the 6th left intercostal space, Yz" x y.;" x I-Yz", two inches away from the spine, piercing the chest wall and lungs. 6. Injury over the 7th left intercostal space, Y2" x I;"" X Y2", two inches away from the spine, which did not cross the chest wall. 7. Injury on over the 7th left intercostal space, Y2" x 14" x Y2", one inch away from the spine, which did not cross the chest wall. 8. Injury over the 10th left intercostal space, Y2" x 14" x 1-Y2", crossing the chest wall and injuring the spleen on the back side. 9. Injury over the third intercostal space, Y2" x Yo" X l-Y2", one inch away from the spine, crossing the chest wall and injuring the right lung. 10. lnjury over the right fifth intercostal space on back side, Y2" x Yo" x 1-Y2", one inch away from the spine, crossing the chest wall and injuring the right lung. II. One stab injury over the outer aspect of left thigh, W' x Yo"'x I". 10. lnjury over the right fifth intercostal space on back side, Y2" x Yo" x 1-Y2", one inch away from the spine, crossing the chest wall and injuring the right lung. II. One stab injury over the outer aspect of left thigh, W' x Yo"'x I". According to P.W. 1.2, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Death was due to injuries to vital organs like heart, liver, spleen and lungs leading, to severe internal haemorrhage and shock. Thus, it has been proved beyond doubt that the deceased Rochana Naik met a homicidal death. 7. From the evidence of P.W. 4, it is clear that the Appellant had an injury on his neck, which was simple in nature and could be possible by a blunt cutting weapon. 8. On a careful recline of the evidence of P.W. I, it appears that in the night of occurrence, he heard an outcry raisedby the deceased. Accordingly, he along with others reached the spot. They found the deceased Rochana lying in a pool of blood. Her wearing clothes were also drenched with blood and she was unconscious. The Appellant was also lying by her side with cutting injury on his neck. At this, he was declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. But, at least from his evidence it has been proved that the deceased was found lying in front of the room with bleeding injuries in an unconscious state. The Appellant was also having an incised injury on his neck. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W. 6, who is the wife of P.W. 1, it is found that she has substantially and in material particulars lent assurance to the evidence of her husband. She also claimed to have seen Rochana lying with bleeding injuries in an unconsciolls state. There was also a cut injury on the neck of the Appellant. Therefore, on a combined reading or the evidence or P.W.s.1 and 6, it appears that both the Appellant and the deceased had received injuries in the night of occurrence. Although both the aforesaid witnesses were declared hostile, the intrinsic value of their testimony cannot be whittled down only because they-did not support the entire prosecution story. 9. Therefore, on a combined reading or the evidence or P.W.s.1 and 6, it appears that both the Appellant and the deceased had received injuries in the night of occurrence. Although both the aforesaid witnesses were declared hostile, the intrinsic value of their testimony cannot be whittled down only because they-did not support the entire prosecution story. 9. From the statement of P.W. 9., who was none other than the father of the deceased, it is found that in the fateful night, the Appellant slept with the deceased in one room. He heard the shout raised by his daughter uttering "Mother, I am dying". At this stage, P.W.s. 1 and 6, he himself, his wife and other inmates immediately rushed to the spot and found Rochana lying on the middle of the courtyard with multiple bleeding injuries. She was not able to say anything. He could observe the incident with the light of a Dibiri burnt in the courtyard. Although his wife supplied water to the deceased, she could not take it as she was already dead. At that juncture, the Appellant came running to that place from inside and shouted that he had committed the murder of his wife and also tried to commit suicide. This witness reported the matter to police within hours of the occurrence. 10. Mr. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has critically placed the evidence of P.W. 9 and has tried to persuade us not to place any reliance on his testimony. It has been contended that the evidence of P.W. 9 is tainted on the ground of interestedness, he being the father of the victim. Another contention raised by Mr. Mishra is that although the mother of the deceased was allegedly present, she has not been examined by the prosecution, nor has any independent witness come forward to support the prosecution story. 11. It has to be remembered that the offence was committed inside a room where the deceased and the Appellant were sleeping together. At the midnight, the deceased came out running by making an outcry and immediately thereafter fell down in a sinking condition. No sooner did she fall down than P.W.s. I, 6 and 9 rushed to the spot and noticed Rochana lying unconscious and after a little while she died. The Appellant also came running to the spot with a bleeding injury on his neck. In this background, it. No sooner did she fall down than P.W.s. I, 6 and 9 rushed to the spot and noticed Rochana lying unconscious and after a little while she died. The Appellant also came running to the spot with a bleeding injury on his neck. In this background, it. was 'unexpected that others would be present in the house of P.W. 1. Besides, there is no reason to discard the evidence of P.W. 9 merely because he was a relation of the deceased. He was also equally related to the Appellant being his father-in-law. Therefore, we do not find any cogentreason-te reject the testimony of P.W. 9 while considering the involvement of the Appellant. 12. A faint attempt has been made by submitting that Rochana after assaulting the Appellant committed suicide. We have carefully examined this stand taken by the Appellant. Injuries have been found on the back side of the deceased, which would rule out the possibility of the deceased committing suicide. Besides, there were so many injuries on the body of the deceased that no inference can be drawn that she herself made an attempt to put an end to her life. It was also suggested to the doctor that such injuries could be self-inflicted. We, therefore, summarily reject the plea taken by the defence. 13. Another significant feature, which cannot be lost sight of is that M.O.I. was recovered from the house of the Appellant and it contained human blood of 'B' origin, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. The Lungi used by the Appellant as also his nail clippings contained the same blood group. It has been argued by Mr. Mishra that the blood group of the Appellant was not examined. We db not find any substance in the submission that it was also necessary to deterring the blood group of the Appellant. 14. Since there are sufficient material, which clinches about the implication of the Appellant in the commission of the crime, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The order of conviction and sentence of the Appellant, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is hereby affirmed. The Appellant, who is on bail, be taken to custody forthwith 13. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The order of conviction and sentence of the Appellant, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is hereby affirmed. The Appellant, who is on bail, be taken to custody forthwith 13. Hence, while maintaining the conviction having regard to the nature of offence, we modify the sentence of Respondent No. 2 - Gopal holding him guilty u/s 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and sentence him for a period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Therefore, we set aside the conviction of Gopal u/s 302. So far as Respondent No. I-Kalu is concerned, we hold him guilty u/s 304, Indian Penal Code and confine is sentence to the period already undergone while imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. Respondent No. 2-Gopal shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of sentence. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.