JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in Sessions Trial Case No. 28/2 of 2000 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Case of the prosecution, as revealed from the F.I.R., is that P.W. 9, the informant, received information on 10.07.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. from one Janma Ranbida of village Naxapalli that his brother-in-law Judhistir Bag has been killed. After receipt of such information, he along with one Ganesh Gardia proceeded to village Naxapalli and found the deceased lying dead in front of the house of Appellant Bipin Bag. They also found profuse bleeding from the head and both the legs had been severed from body. After ascertaining about the incident from P.W. l, wife of the deceased, P.W. 2, the sister-in-law of the deceased, P.W. 3, the brother of the deceased lodged F.I.R. at Laikera Police Station. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that P. Ws.1 and 3 disclosed before the informant that on the date of incident, deceased along with P.W. 3 was returning from field. P.W. l was sitting on the verandah of their house. At that time Appellant Rupananda Bag dealt a 'Barshi' blow on the head of the deceased and thereafter Appellants Bipin Bag and Bhimsen Ranbida cut the legs of the deceased by means of axe and 'Farsa', as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. On the basis of such report, investigation was taken up by P. W Section 8 and 10 and charge-sheet was filed for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The plea of the Appellants Rupananda Bag and Bhimsen Ranbida is that they were absent at the time of occurrence, since they had been to cultivate the land, and when they returned they were requested by Appellant Bipin Bag to flee from the spot, since a murder had taken place. The plea of Appellant Bipin Bag in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure is that the father of the deceased had mortgaged land at Kharimal with Appellant Bipin for Rs. 120/-, which had been redeemed back by the family of the deceased about nine to ten years back on paying back the money to Appellant Bipin Bag. The plea of Appellant Bipin Bag in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure is that the father of the deceased had mortgaged land at Kharimal with Appellant Bipin for Rs. 120/-, which had been redeemed back by the family of the deceased about nine to ten years back on paying back the money to Appellant Bipin Bag. It is the plea of said Bipin Bag that on the date of occurrence when he was cultivating his 'Bhag' land, deceased Judhistir Bag and P.W. 3 came and abused him in obscene language. When he protested, P.W. 3 raised a 'Palasia' to assault him, but accidentally the said 'Palasia' hit the head of the deceased Judhistir, for which he fell down. It is also the plea of the Appellant Bipin Bag that he and the deceased were engaged in a tussle, for which the deceased fell down and the 'Parsa' came to his hand, and to save him when he leaned down, the blow of Padmalochan again fell on his head and thereafter out of fear of being assaulted by the deceased, he dealt 'Parsa' blow to the legs of the deceased, and after throwing the 'Parsa' at the spot he fled away. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove the charges, examined ten witnesses, whereas the defence examined three witnesses. The Trial Court on analysis of the evidence led before the Court, came to a finding that the deceased died a homicidal death and that all the Appellants participated in assaulting the deceased and that the right of private defence taken by the Appellant Bipin has not been proved so also the plea of alibi of the other accused. On the above finding the Trial Court convicted all the three Appellants for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Impugned judgment is assailed on the ground that the evidence of three eye-witnesses, i.e., P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are full of contradictions and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on their evidence. It was also contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that delay in examining the witnesses having not been explained by the I.O., the said witnesses could not be relied upon by the Trial Court. 1, 2 and 3 are full of contradictions and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on their evidence. It was also contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that delay in examining the witnesses having not been explained by the I.O., the said witnesses could not be relied upon by the Trial Court. Assailing the impugned Judgment, it was also contended that so far as Appellant Bipin Bag is concerned, there was no reason on the part of the Trial Court to disbelieve his plea of right of private defence. 6. Learned Counsel for the State, in support of the impugned Judgment, submitted that all the three eye-witnesses are consistent in their evidence with regard to the role played by each of the Appellants and the Appellant Bipin Bag having failed to discharge his onus of proving the right of private defence and the other two accused on plea of alibi, all the three Appellants were rightly convicted by the Trial Court for commission of the aforesaid offence. 7. P.W. 7 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Judhistir Bag. In course of examination he found one cut injury over the frontal region, one cut injury just below the body of left mandible and both legs cut at the level of lower part of calf muscles. He was of the view that all the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and death was homicidal. On police requisition also he found that M.O.-III might have been used for causing the injury and has specifically opined that injury No. 3 might have been caused by 'Barshi', M.O.-I. Having gone through the evidence of P.W. 7, we do not find anything to disbelieve the said witness. Therefore, we concur with the findings of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased Judhistir Bag was homicidal. 8. The next question that comes up for consideration is, as to who committed the murder of the deceased. The prosecution examined P. Ws.1, 2 and 3 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 is the wife of deceased and sister of the informant, P.W. 9. She, in her deposition, has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 12 noon she was sitting on the front verandah of her house. The prosecution examined P. Ws.1, 2 and 3 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 is the wife of deceased and sister of the informant, P.W. 9. She, in her deposition, has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 12 noon she was sitting on the front verandah of her house. Her deceased husband and P.W. 3 had gone to plough the lands at Kharimal in the morning at 7 a.m. Around noon time P.W. 3 and his wife P.W. 2 and the deceased returned from the field, and while they were returning, she found Appellant Rupananda pruning a tree with his 'Barishi'. When all the three of them crossed the Appellant Rupananda, suddenly the said Appellant dealt a blow with the said 'Barishi on the head of the deceased from his back. Because of such assault, the deceased fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Appellant Bhimsen dealt a 'Falsia' blow on the leg of the deceased. The other Appellant also came with a 'Budia' and dealt blows to another leg of the deceased. On seeing the assault she cried for help and found P.WA running to the spot. When the Appellants saw P.W. 4, they left the place of occurrence and entered into their houses with weapons of offence. The deceased was lying unconscious on the spot and subsequently also died at the spot. She has further stated in her deposition that her father-in-law had mortgaged the land at Kharimal with the Appellant Bipin Bag for a sum of Rs. 120/- . Nine to ten years prior to the occurrence, their family redeemed the land by paying back the money to Appellant Bipin Bag. On the previous year of the occurrence the Appellant forcibly tried to cultivate the said land, which was objected to and, therefore, there was enmity between them. In cross-examination, she has stated that without telling anything, the Appellants assaulted her husband with different weapons. She has also described the wearing apparels of the Appellants at the time of commission of offence. From cross-examination Learned Counsel for the Appellants could not place anything to discredit the said witness. 9. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, who had examined P.W. 1. In the cross-examination, P.W. 8 has only stated that P.W. 1 had never stated before him that they had redeemed the land by repaying the amount to Appellant Bipin Bag. From cross-examination Learned Counsel for the Appellants could not place anything to discredit the said witness. 9. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, who had examined P.W. 1. In the cross-examination, P.W. 8 has only stated that P.W. 1 had never stated before him that they had redeemed the land by repaying the amount to Appellant Bipin Bag. So far as assault part is concerned, it appears from the evidence of P.W. 8 that P.W. 1 had not stated before him that Appellant Bipin Bag dealt 'Budia' blow to the leg of her husband. She also did not state, the specific part of the body where the Appellant Bipin assaulted. Much reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants on this part of the evidence of this witness to say that the assault by Appellant Bipin Bag had not been seen by P.W. 1. Such submission has no force considering the fact that the Appellant Bipin himself in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure admitted to have assaulted the deceased on his leg by means of an axe. P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 3 and is the sister-in-law of the deceased. She being an eye-witness to the occurrence, has stated in her deposition that when she along with deceased and P.W. 3 came back from the field at about noon, Appellant Rupananda suddenly dealt a blow by means of a 'Barishi' on the head of the deceased from backside, as a result of which the deceased fell down, whereafter the other two Appellants assaulted the deceased on his legs. We have carefully gone through the cross-examination of this witness and nothing appears to be there to disbelieve her testimony. P.W. 8, who had examined P.W. 2 in course of the investigation, has also stated that P.W. 2 stated before him that because of the assault by Appellant Rupananda, the deceased fell down facing downwards, but she did not state before P.W. 8 that the Appellant Bipin dealt an axe blow on the legs of the deceased. P.W. 8, who had examined P.W. 2 in course of the investigation, has also stated that P.W. 2 stated before him that because of the assault by Appellant Rupananda, the deceased fell down facing downwards, but she did not state before P.W. 8 that the Appellant Bipin dealt an axe blow on the legs of the deceased. Again though reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants on the statement of P.W. 8 to substantiate the submission that P.W. 2 is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence, having not stated about the assault on the deceased by Appellant Bipin, in view of the admission of Appellant Bipin as stated earlier, such submission has no force. P.W. 3 is the brother of the deceased, who had accompanied him from the field on the date of occurrence. He has also fully supported the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2. In cross-examination also he has stated that the wife of the deceased had seen the occurrence. Learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the evidence of this witness in the cross-examination to substantiate his submission that no reliance can be placed on this witness, he having been examined much after the date of occurrence and there being no explanation for delay in examining this witness. In cross-examination this witness has stated that 20 to 22 days after the incident he was examined by the police in the case at the Police Station. He has further stated that on the date of occurrence he was not examined by the police and thereafter he was suffering from fever for ten to fifteen days and, therefore, there is delay in his examination. P.W. 10 is another Investigating Officer who had examined this witness on 06.11.1999. In course of his examination, the I.O. has stated that after taking over investigation from P.W. 8 he went to P.W. 3 for his examination, but did not find him, and when he enquired from the family members of P.W. 3, they could not say anything about the whereabouts of P.W. 3. When the said witness was examined by the Police on 06.11.1999, he stated that out of fear he left the place and fell sick and thereafter he suffered from fever. Therefore, the delay in examination of this witness has been explained. When the said witness was examined by the Police on 06.11.1999, he stated that out of fear he left the place and fell sick and thereafter he suffered from fever. Therefore, the delay in examination of this witness has been explained. Learned Counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. In the said case, one of the witnesses namely, P.W. 9 was examined on 25.11.1972 though the occurrence took place on 16th October, 1972; The explanation offered by the said witness is that he could not be examined because of his state of health. What he stated before the Court regarding delay has not been stated before the I.O. Therefore, on facts the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. Reliance was also placed in another decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Shri Krishan, (2005) 30 OCR (SC) 531. In the said case there was delay of 13 days in examining P.W. 1 and no satisfactory explanation has been given for such delay. But the present case is completely different on facts. 10. P.W. 3 not only in cross-examination stated that on the date of occurrence he suffered from fever for ten to fifteen days, but also made the statement before the I.O. when he was examined by him. We are, therefore, of the view that the delay in examination of P.W. 3 by P.W. 10 having been satisfactorily explained, there is no reason to disbelieve the said witness. On analysis of the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges from the mouth of the three witnesses, namely P. Ws. l, 2 and 3 coupled with the evidence of the doctor P.W. 7, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. 11. So far as plea of the Appellants is concerned, Appellant Bipin Bag had taken the plea of right of private defence whereas the other two Appellants have taken the plea of alibi. D.W.l has stated in his deposition that in the month of' Ashadha', i.e., two years prior to his examination in Court, Appellant Rupananda and Bhimsen had gone to him for preparation of a 'Langal' (plough) at about 8 a.m. and it took four to five hours to prepare the same. D.W.l has stated in his deposition that in the month of' Ashadha', i.e., two years prior to his examination in Court, Appellant Rupananda and Bhimsen had gone to him for preparation of a 'Langal' (plough) at about 8 a.m. and it took four to five hours to prepare the same. At about 1.00 p.m. both the Appellants left the house in a motorcycle. Evidence of this witness does not help the defence considering the fact that the incident took place around 12 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. D.W.2 is the nephew of the deceased. He has stated that there was fence around the 'Bari' of the deceased and the height of the 'Bari' was six feet. He has further stated that if one stands in the 'Bari' of the deceased, the same would not be visible to his house. This witness appears to have been examined to prove that P.W. l could not have seen the occurrence from her house. Having already held that P.W. l had seen the occurrence from the 'Pindah' (verandah), we are of the view that the evidence of D.W.2 does not help the defence. D.W.3 is the doctor, who examined the Appellant Bipin on police requisition. His evidence only proves that Bipin had received injuries in course of incident. From the evidence of the I.O., we find that there was a tussle between the deceased and the Appellant, and in course of such tussle the Appellant had received the injuries. On consideration of the evidence led by the defence, we do not find anything, which supports the plea of the defence. The injury which was found on the body of the accused Bipin was an incised wound of the size 7 c.m. x 1/5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on the medial aspect of lower end of right arm. D.W.3 opined that the injury was simple in nature. In the cross-examination he stated that - If a blow will be given with sufficient force, then there would have been much more serious injury than the injury which I detected on the person of Bipin Bihari Bag. Thus, it appears that though it was not a superficial injury, but it could be self-created one, if not self-inflicted as per the opinion of the doctor. Non-explanation by the prosecution as to how the Appellant sustained that injury is not fatal to the prosecution case or credibility of the eye-witnesses. Thus, it appears that though it was not a superficial injury, but it could be self-created one, if not self-inflicted as per the opinion of the doctor. Non-explanation by the prosecution as to how the Appellant sustained that injury is not fatal to the prosecution case or credibility of the eye-witnesses. Therefore, in this case it is not required to take adverse view against the prosecution. (See the cases of Mohinder Sing and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 2006 (5) Sup 62 and Shriram v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (8) Sup 401). 12. In view of the discussions made above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and, accordingly having found no merit in the appeal, we dismiss the same. N. Prusty, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed