JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - Both the criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenknal. By the said order he convicted Appellant Buli @ Basanti Sahu u/s 302/114 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default further R.I. for one year and also convicted her u/s 120-B I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further R.I. for 6 months. He also convicted Appellant Pravakar Das u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default R.I. for two years and u/s 120-B of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default R.I. for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution case is that the deceased was in love with one Puni Sahu, the sister of Appellant Buli @ Basanti Sahu. Both of them had eloped but the father of the girl had brought them back to the village. Such relationship was not tolerated by Appellant Basanti (elder sister of Puni). Accused Lingaraj and Bimbadhar (since acquitted) are the brothers of Puni and Appellant Basanti. Appellant-Pravakar, who is the 'dharam bhai' of Appellant Basanti, used to visit her house frequently. Threats were given by the accused persons to the deceased for such love affairs. On an earlier occasion, Appellant Pravakar had also assaulted the deceased. All the accused persons conspired in the night of occurrence to do away with the deceased. While the deceased was sleeping on the verandah of one Trinath Sahu, he was assaulted by means of an, axe on his neck and he succumbed to injury. A report was lodged by P.W.1, the brother of the deceased before police and investigation was taken up. Ultimately, charge sheet was filed against all the four accused persons who faced trial. 3. The plea of the accused persons is complete denial of the allegation. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses including the I.O. and doctor. Defence has examined two witnesses on its behalf. 5. P.W.1, who is the informant and brother of the deceased is a post-occurrence witness. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses including the I.O. and doctor. Defence has examined two witnesses on its behalf. 5. P.W.1, who is the informant and brother of the deceased is a post-occurrence witness. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. She stated about the love affairs of Puni with the deceased and both of them wanted to marry. Appellant Basanti has been deserted by her husband and living in the house of Puni. The family of Puni did not agree to give her marriage with the deceased. On the day of occurrence, she saw Appellant-Pravakar going to the house of Appellant Basanti and also saw that the throat of the deceased was cut. P.W.3 is another post-occurrence witness. He along with some co-villagers went to the spot on hearing some sound and found the deceased lying with a cut injury on the front part of his neck on the verandah of Trinath sahu. He is also a witness to the recovery of the weapon of offence. P.W.4, the mother of the deceased, who is an eye witness to the occurrence, stated that when she went to call the deceased, she found Appellant Buli @ Basanti coming from the side of the verandah of Trinath and Appellant Pravakar dealing a blow on the deceased. After giving the blow he ran away towards the river side. She raised shout and became senseless. It was a moonlit night. P.W.5 is another brother of the deceased who stated about the love affairs of the deceased with Puni. He stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons and they had given a threat to the deceased. P.W.6 is a witness to the seizure of the weapon of offence. P.W.7, a co-villager, stated about the presence of Appellant Pravakar along with Appellant Buli in front of the latter's house. At that time Appellant Pravakar was holding an object in his armpit. Both of them moved to east. Thereafter, he heard the shout, went to the spot and found deceased Bata lying dead in front of the rice huller. He identified Appellant-Pravakar, the God brother of Appellant-Buli. P.W.8 is a co-villager who stated that Appellant-Pravakar is the God brother of Appellant-Buli. The younger sister of Appellant-Buli had an affair with the deceased Bata for which she tortured her younger sister. He identified Appellant-Pravakar, the God brother of Appellant-Buli. P.W.8 is a co-villager who stated that Appellant-Pravakar is the God brother of Appellant-Buli. The younger sister of Appellant-Buli had an affair with the deceased Bata for which she tortured her younger sister. He further stated that he had heard Appellants Pravakar and Buli discussing as to how they would control the deceased and that if necessary, he would be killed. P.W.9 is the A.S.I. of Police and the I.O. P.W.10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the deceased and found the following two incised injuries (i) one incised wound of six 6 cm x 10 cm up to cervical vertibra, obliquely placed on left side of lower vertibra. The injury extended from the upper part of scapula to the medial end of right clavicle. (ii) an incised wound of size 7 cm x 4 cm x the medial end of right clavicle, obliquely placed on upper part of right chest, extending from clavicle to lateral chest wall. He opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock. The injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. P.W.12 is the Scientific Officer who collected bloodstained earth and P.W.13 is a Police Officer. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal who tried the case by his judgment dated 31.08.2005 convicted and sentenced the Appellants as already stated earlier. He, however, acquitted accused Lingaraj Sahu and Bimbadhar Sahu of the above charges labelled against them. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants assails the judgment on the ground that P.W.4 is not an eye-witness but a chance witness. She had not seen the occurrence. She was examined fifteen days after the occurrence and her name was not mentioned by the informant in the FIR. Therefore, her presence at the spot is doubtful. There is no material to convict the Appellants u/s 120-B I.P.C. since no evidence has been led by the prosecution with regard to the meeting of mind and the Appellants committing the act consequent upon the same. The trial Court has considered the inimical relationship of the Appellants with the witnesses. 8. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government advocate vehemently contended that P.W.4 had seen the occurrence as it a was moonlit night. After seeing the occurrence, she was shocked and lost her senses. The trial Court has considered the inimical relationship of the Appellants with the witnesses. 8. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government advocate vehemently contended that P.W.4 had seen the occurrence as it a was moonlit night. After seeing the occurrence, she was shocked and lost her senses. She remained speechless for about 15 days and also became bedridden. The testimony of P.W.4 receives corroboration from other circumstances as well as the medical evidence. She is a reliable witness and her evidence receives corroboration from the post occurrence witnesses including P.W.8. He further stated that P.Ws.3 and 6 are independent witnesses to the recovery of the weapon of offence. The axe was recovered by the I.O. in presence of these witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. Perused the L.C.R. P.W.1 the brother of the deceased is a post occurrence witness. He heard a shout coming from the place where the deceased was sleeping. He ran to the spot and found a cut injury on the throat of the deceased. He has stated about the relationship of the deceased with Puni, the sister of Appellant Basanti. He has also stated that Appellant-Pravakar is the God brother of Appellant Basanti. He lodged the F.I.R. under Ext.1. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. In her deposition, she stated that Puni wanted to marry the deceased. Puni was staying with Appellant-Basanati and the family of Puni did not agree to give her in marriage with the deceased. On the day of occurrence at about 5 P.M., while she was going towards the river, she saw Appellant Pravakar going to the house of Basanti. P.W.3, another post-occurrence witness has stated that on hearing the shout of the deceased, he along with other villagers ran to the spot and found the deceased lying on the verandah of Trinath Sahu with a cut injury on his throat. He also stated about the recovery of the weapon of offence (Tangia) at the instance of Appellant-Pravakar from a bamboo clump, which was seized by the police and he put his signature in the seizure list. Nothing has been elicited from these witnesses in their cross-examination by the defence. P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased and an ocular witness. She stated that when she went to call her deceased son, she found Appellant-Basanti coming from the side of the verandah of Trinath Sahu. Nothing has been elicited from these witnesses in their cross-examination by the defence. P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased and an ocular witness. She stated that when she went to call her deceased son, she found Appellant-Basanti coming from the side of the verandah of Trinath Sahu. She also saw that Appellant Pravakar dealt a cut blow on the deceased. After dealing the blow, Pravakar fled away towards the river side. She specifically stated that it was a full-moon night and so she could see the occurrence in the moonlight. After seeing the occurrence she was highly shocked and became speechless for about fifteen days. In cross-examination she admitted that she could not tell anything to his son and daughter as she was dumb founded. There is no material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.4 and nothing has been elicited from her cross-examination by the defence to disbelieve her testimony. P.W.5 is another brother of the deceased. He only stated about the relationship between Puni with the deceased 7 to 8 days prior to the occurrence, accused Pravakar, Lingaraj, Bimbadhar and Basanti had a quarrel with the deceased and they had threatened to kill him. P.W.6 is a witness to the leading to discovery as well as seizure of the weapon offence. He, however, turned hostile to the prosecution. He only stated that he went to the river Sapua along with Police and Pravakar, but he did not go inside the bamboo clump. He also admitted his signature Ext.5/2. P.W.7, a co-villager and a front door neighbour of Appellant-Basanti stated that at about 11.30 P.M. he saw Basanti along with another male person standing in front of their house and whispering. That male person was holding an object in his armpit. They moved towards east. Thereafter, he heard a shout, went to 'the spot and found the deceased lying dead in front of the rice huller. Nothing contrary has been elicited from P.Ws.5 to 7 during cross-examination by the defence. P.W.8 is a co-villager who stated that the younger sister of Basanti had an affair with the deceased for which Basanti tortured her younger sister. Pravakar was visiting the house of Basanti almost daily. He stated that he had heard Pravakar and Basanti discussing as to how they would control the deceased and that if necessary, he would be killed. P.W.8 is a co-villager who stated that the younger sister of Basanti had an affair with the deceased for which Basanti tortured her younger sister. Pravakar was visiting the house of Basanti almost daily. He stated that he had heard Pravakar and Basanti discussing as to how they would control the deceased and that if necessary, he would be killed. He stated that he did not report the police about this discussion since he did not give importance to the same. There is no material to disbelieve him. P.W.9 one of the I.Os. who investigated into the case, seized some letters of Puni addressed to the deceased and prepared seizure list. In cross examination, he stated that he was not able to examine all the family members of the deceased since they were in sorrowful state and were not able to speak properly. P.W.10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy. He found-two incised wounds on the dead body and opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In cross examination, he stated that both the injuries could be caused by an independent single stroke. P.W.11 is the I.O. who investigated into the matter after taking charge from P.W.9. He stated that in presence of the witnesses, namely, Bipin Bihari Mohanty and Sankarsan Sahu, Appellant-Pravakar made a disclosure before him to the effect that he had concealed the Tabli inside the bamboo clump situated on the other side of the river, led them to the spot and gave recovery of the weapon of offence, which was sent for chemical examination. P.W.12 is the Scientific Officer and P.W.13 is the Inspector of Police who stated about the misplacement of the Tangia seized. Defence has examined two witnesses. D.W.1 is the doctor who examined Appellant-Pravakar who found one scratch injury on his person. D.W.2 is the Court Sub-Inspector of Dhenkanal Sadar Court. On scanning of the evidence, it is crystal clear that Appellant-Pravakar dealt a blow to the deceased with an axe. P.W.4 had seen the occurrence in a moonlit night. After giving blow, he ran away towards the river side. P.W.7 corroborated the statement of P.W.4 to the extent that both Buli and that the male person were whispering that they moved towards east and that the male person was holding an object in his armpit. P.W.4 had seen the occurrence in a moonlit night. After giving blow, he ran away towards the river side. P.W.7 corroborated the statement of P.W.4 to the extent that both Buli and that the male person were whispering that they moved towards east and that the male person was holding an object in his armpit. Thereafter, he heard the shout, went to the spot and found the deceased lying in front of the huller. P.W.8 also stated about the discussion between Pravakar and Basanti as to how they would control the deceased and that if necessary, he would be killed. P.W.6 is a witness to the seizure of the weapon of offence. P.W.3 is a witness to leading to discovery of the Tangia. He specifically stated that Appellant-Pravakar led the police to the place beyond the river and brought out a Tangia kept in a bamboo clump and police seized the same. From the above evidence, it is crystal clear that after the assault, Appellant-Pravakar went to the river side and concealed the weapon of offence in the bamboo clump. So, it was Appellant-Pravakar who committed the crime. 10. Coming to the complicity of Appellant-Buli @ Basanti, the prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of P.W.8 who stated that he heard the discussion between Appellant-Pravakar and Basanti as to how they would control the deceased and if necessary they would kill him. P.W.7 also stated that both Buli and a male person were whispering in front of their house. But, there is no direct material against Buli with regard to criminal conspiracy with Pravakar to commit the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has not been able to prove that there was an agreement between Buli and Pravakar to achieve the unlawful object. Therefore, Buli cannot be connected with the commission of the crime. 11. In view of the above, this Court sets aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence u/s 120-B I.P.C. against Appellant-Pravakar. His conviction and sentence for the commission of the offence u/s 302 I.P.C., as awarded by the trial Court are, however, confirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2005 is accordingly disposed of. So far as Appellant-Buli is concerned, there being no material to connect her with the crime, she is acquitted. Accordingly, CRLA No. 400 of 2005 is allowed. L. Mohapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Allowed