JUDGMENT : M. Papanna, J. - This Jail Criminal Appeal is against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. No. 186/49 of 1992. The learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The accused (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") was put up on trial basing on the following accusations. He suspected the deceased to be a witch. Prior to the alleged occurrence he was suffering from ailment. His sister was also suffering from mental illness. He was working under a wrong notion that the deceased applied witchcraft to them. There was quarrel between them on the said issue on some occasion. It was referred to the village Panch. On 12.8.1992 the deceased had gone to a nearby well to take bath. At that time the Appellant came there. He assaulted on her head by means of a lathi. He dealt her kicks. Then he threw her into the well. As a result, she died. Husband of the deceased came to know about the occurrence from his children on his return from field. The deceased was brought out from the well. By then she was already dead. She had sustained injuries on the backside of her head. On his information Raibaga P.S. Case No. 24 of 1992 was registered. Police held inquest over her dead body during investigation. It was sent for autopsy. On completion of investigation, the Appellant was charge sheeted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence denied the prosecution allegations. Stand of the Appellant is that the deceased fell down in the well of her own accord. She died due to drowning. He has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Evidence of nine witnesses has been pressed into service to prove the charge against the Appellant. P.W. 1 was an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 2 is the husband of the deceased. P.W. 3 is a Photographer. P.W. 4 is a witness to the seizure of incriminating articles. P.W. 5 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the mother of the accused. P.W. 7 is the Doctor. He conducted autopsy. P.W. 8 is an independent witness and P.W. 9 is the I.O. 5. No witness has been examined for the defence. 6. P.W. 4 is a witness to the seizure of incriminating articles. P.W. 5 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the mother of the accused. P.W. 7 is the Doctor. He conducted autopsy. P.W. 8 is an independent witness and P.W. 9 is the I.O. 5. No witness has been examined for the defence. 6. Relying on the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant and sentenced him as stated above. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has challenged the judgment impugned before us. According to him, the trial court has gone wrong in convicting the Appellant basing on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 5, who are not only interested witnesses but also they are inimical towards the Appellant. That apart, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence of the witnesses properly. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment. 8. In view of the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for both the parties, it is expedient and desirable to scan the evidence on record to see if there is any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in convicting the Appellant. 9. In a murder case, the Court has to find out whether the victim died a homicidal death. The Doctor (P.W. 7) has proved Post Mortem report (Ext. 11). Ext. 11 shows the following external injury: (i) Lacerated wound 2 1/2" x 1" x bone deep at the centre of occiput on the back. 10. The dead body was dissected by P.W. 7. He found the following internal injury: The occiput was fractured (compound and communited) over an area of 1 1/2" x 1". Collection of blood extra-durally over occipital region, base of skull extending to left parietal region posteriolly. Brain was congested and oedematous. Both lungs were congested. Oedematous and exude blood stained frothy fluid on cut Section. Heart was empty on both sides. The stomach contained semi digested food. Small intestine contained semi digested food and gas and large intestine contained feacal matter and gas. The liver, splean and kidneys were congested. 11. The Doctor (P.W. 7) opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Death was due to asphyxia caused by drowning and head injury. Drowning was ante mortem in nature. The stomach contained semi digested food. Small intestine contained semi digested food and gas and large intestine contained feacal matter and gas. The liver, splean and kidneys were congested. 11. The Doctor (P.W. 7) opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Death was due to asphyxia caused by drowning and head injury. Drowning was ante mortem in nature. Time since death was between 12 to 36 hours by the time of P.M. examination. 12. The Doctor also examined a lathi referred to him by the I.O. He opined that the injury found on the victim could be caused by the said lathi. The said injury was sufficient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature. He proved his opinion (Ext. 13). According to him, trivial fall cannot be the cause of the injury found on her head. But fall with force on hard surface or with body upside down from a height with head dashing against hard substance can lead to such injury. He has proved his opinion (Ext 14/1). He has further opined that the head injury found on the victim could be possible by the lathi (M.O. IX). We are in full agreement with the learned trial Judge in respect of his finding that the injury sustained by her is ante mortem and she died a homicidal death. 13. In view of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, we have scrutinised the evidence of P.W. 1. He is an eye witness to the occurrence. His testimony is very clear, cogent, consistent and trustworthy. He has reiterated to say that he saw the occurrence of assault committed on the deceased by the Appellant by means of a lathi, as a result of which, she fell down near the well. For better appreciation, his evidence is quoted thus: The occurrence took place last year in the month of Srabana on a Wednesday at about 5 P.M. Myself, Ranga Mirdha and Subal Mirdha were transplanting seedlings in the land of Bishnu Mirdha, while Dulari Kerketta was taking bath near a well situated near that land. At that time this accused arrived near Dulari and assaulted on her head by means of a lathi as a result of which she fell down near that well. Then the accused threw the body of Dulari into that well. At that time this accused arrived near Dulari and assaulted on her head by means of a lathi as a result of which she fell down near that well. Then the accused threw the body of Dulari into that well. He stood the test of cross-examination he has been subjected to, by the defence. No part of his evidence has been assailed in any manner. 14. We have also examined the evidence of P.W. 5. She is the daughter of the deceased. Her testimony is very clear and convincing. She saw the Appellant assaulting her mother with a lathi. He also dealt her some kicks. As a result, she fell down inside the well. Her testimony lends support to the version of P.W. 1. The only discrepancy we found in her statement is that as per her version because of kicks the deceased fell down into the well while P.W. 1 stated that accused threw her into the well. This being a case of murder which is heinous in nature, a minor discrepancy as stated above can be ignored. In our opinion, the learned trial Judge has correctly appreciated their evidence in convicting the Appellant. 15. The husband of the deceased (P.W. 2) set the criminal law into motion by lodging F.I.R. (Ext. 1) in the Police Station. The I.O. (P.W. 9) recovered a bamboo lathi (M.O. IX), the weapon of offence on the information of the Appellant in presence of P.W. 4 under seizure list (Ext. 9) P.W. 4 fully supported I.O.'s version in this regard. 16. On the whole, on scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, we are convinced that the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record in conviction the Appellant. In our opinion, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by him in convicting the Appellant relying on the aforesaid evidence. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned before us. We uphold it. In the result, the appeal does not merit any consideration. So it is dismissed accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed