JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - Heard argument from both the parties and the judgment is as follows. 2. Accused was charged for the murder of his wife Minjai Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and attempt to murder of his mother-in-law Kamala Majhi (P.W.9). He was found guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Similarly, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore found the Appellant guilty of the offence u/s 324, I.P.C. in as much as offence u/s 307, I.P.C. for inflicting injury to P.W.8. For the said conviction, Appellant was sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently. Appellant has challenged that judgment and order of conviction in this Jail Crl. Appeal. 3. Prosecution case is that the accused had married the deceased about a year before the date of occurrence, the date of occurrence being 9.3.1994. At about 8 p.m. when the accused returned to the house, he found the deceased absent from the house being present in the neighbouring house. Accused was annoyed, went to that house, assaulted his wife and in that process dragged her and brought her into the house of Tabadi Majhi (PW.2). There he continued to assault by utilizing his first and leg and also by a grinding stone ('Sila Pua')-M.O.I, with its pointed head. Out of fear, P.W.2 came out of the house, accused bolted the door from inside and went on assaulting the deceased. After some time the cry of the deceased was not heard and everything became silent. In the meantime P.W.2 could face presence of P.W. 8, who came to the spot and then the accused opened the door and assaulted P.W.11 by the blunt side of an axe (M.O. II). Thereafter, P.W.8 with others could enter into the place of occurrence from the backside. After seeing the deceased lying dead with severe bleeding injuries, P.W. 11, (father of the deceased) was intimated. He also came and saw the dead body of the deceased, ascertained from the owner of the house in the manner in which the occurrence took place and went to Kasipur Police Station and lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 14). The investigation was taken up by the O.I.C., Kasipur P.S. and completed in a routine manner. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant. 14). The investigation was taken up by the O.I.C., Kasipur P.S. and completed in a routine manner. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and came up for trial before Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1994 (S.C. No. 201 of 1994 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Jeypore). Charge was framed against the Appellant u/s 302/307/34, I.P.C. Appellant denied to the charges and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 12 witnesses, proved the documents marked Exts. 1 to 19 and the material objects marked M. Os. I to IV. 4. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge considered the post-mortem report (Ext. 1), the opinion report of the doctor (Ext. 2) and the Evidence of the doctor (P.W.3). It appears from such evidence that deceased sustained lacerated injuries on the face and mouth, as a result of which the maxilla and mandible were completely damaged and teeth had come out. Those injuries were as many as eight external and two corresponding internal injuries. Opinion of P.W.3 was that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Such injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature and that deceased suffered homicidal death. For reasons best known to the accused, a whimsical defence suggestion was given that such injuries were possible due to collapse of the house, but as Learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly rejected such a possibility due to lack of evidence, we find no reason to re-examine that aspect. In course of argument before us as well Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not challenge to the factual finding recorded by the Trial Court on the homicidal death of the deceased. Therefore, we concur with the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the deceased suffered homicidal death. 5. So far as allegation of murder against the Appellant is concerned, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4, 7, 9 and 10 as the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, and the evidence of P. Ws.2, 8 and 11 as the corroborating evidence besides the report from the State Forensic Science & Laboratory and the other attended circumstances. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4, 7, 9 and 10 as the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, and the evidence of P. Ws.2, 8 and 11 as the corroborating evidence besides the report from the State Forensic Science & Laboratory and the other attended circumstances. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4, 7, 9 and 10 are contradictory in nature in proving the allegation of murder against the Appellant and, therefore, such evidence should have been discarded by the Trial Court. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, we do not find any contradictions. Though Learned Addl. Sessions Judge was verbose but has meticulously examined the credibility aspect of each of the witnesses and the corroborating aspect of the sequence of events from each of the witnesses. In other words, we find that the evidence of P. Ws. 1,4,7,9 and 10 as the eye-witnesses is reliable to prove the charge of murder against the Appellant. Thus, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced by the Appellant to redeem him from the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. 7. So far as the offence u/s 324, I.P.C. is concerned, Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues to acquit the accused from the said charge. On the face of evidence of P. Ws. 2, 8 and 11 and the medical evidence, we find no reason to entertain such an argument. Be that as it may, the order of conviction or acquittal from the charge u/s 324, I.P.C. is not consequential when the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and the major sentence is imprisonment for life for committing offence u/s 302, I.P.C. 8. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Jail Criminal Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. PRADIP MOHANTY, J. 9. I agree. Appeal dismissed Final Result : Dismissed