JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - The Appellant having been convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month by the learned Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 272/6/9/2000-02, has preferred this appeal from jail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2000 early morning the deceased was carrying compost to his land along with his nine years old son. The Appellant came to the land and assaulted the deceased by a Kodal for which the latter fell down on the ridge. The Appellant also gave successive blows to the deceased by the said kodala, as a result of which he died at the spot. The matter was reported to the police, who investigated into the case and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused-Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. 3. The plea of the Appellant is complete denial of the prosecution case. His specific plea is that he was absent from his village on the alleged date of incident. On that day, he was there in the house of his sister at Rourkela. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the doctor and I.O. and exhibited eleven documents. Defence examined two witnesses on its behalf. 5. Learned Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela who tried the case by his judgment dated 23.12.2002 convicted and sentenced the Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. as stated hereinbefore. 6. Miss Sonita Biswal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant assails the judgment on the ground that P.W.2 the so-called eye witness is a child witness and there is no independent corroboration to his evidence. The wife of the deceased before whom P.W.2 had allegedly disclosed the incident immediately after the occurrence has not been examined by the prosecution. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the order of conviction has no leg to stand. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by P.W.5 the doctor. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the order of conviction has no leg to stand. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by P.W.5 the doctor. The evidence of P.W.2, who is a child witness, is very clear and cogent to the effect that the Appellant gave three successive blows by means of a Kodi (spade) on the neck of his deceased father. When he raised hullah the Appellant ran away. P.W.5, the doctor specifically stated that he found incised wounds on the person of the deceased. Therefore, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. 8. Perused the L.C.R. P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased and elder sister of P.W.2. When she heard hullah of her brother (P.W.2), she immediately rushed to the spot and saw her father lying dead with bleeding injury on his neck. She saw the Appellant running away from the spot. She learnt from her brother (P.W.2) that Appellant assaulted her father by means of Kodi (Spade). She reported the matter to the police. She also stated that there was land dispute between her father and the Appellant regarding cutting of tree. In cross examination she also admitted that there was a litigation pending relating to the land dispute. Nothing has been elicited from her cross-examination by defence. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased and brother of P.W.1 and is a child witness. He stated in his evidence that the Appellant dealt three blows by means of Kodi (spade) on the neck of his father while he was carrying compost. When he raised hullah, the Appellant ran away from the spot. Hearing hullah, his mother and sister (P.W.1) came to the spot. Thereafter, his sister went to the police station to report the matter. In cross-examination he stated that when his father fell down on the ground the Appellant also dealt blows. He also stated that the Appellant did not quarrel with the deceased before assault. He immediately disclosed this fact to his mother and sister. He specifically stated in his cross-examination that the Appellant dealt three blows. P.W.3 is a witness to the seizure and also stated that there was a litigation between the Appellant and the deceased. Police seized Jhudi (basket) in his presence. He immediately disclosed this fact to his mother and sister. He specifically stated in his cross-examination that the Appellant dealt three blows. P.W.3 is a witness to the seizure and also stated that there was a litigation between the Appellant and the deceased. Police seized Jhudi (basket) in his presence. This witness however turned hostile. P.W.4 is a co-villager, who also turned hostile. P.W.5 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries: (a) incised wound over the middle of sclap 1.1/2 x 1/2" x sclap deep. (b) incised wound 2" above the occipital protruberance 1" x 1'2" x scalp deep. (c) incised clopped over the back of neck starting 4" below the angle of mandible. Left side encircle around back of neck up to mastoid process of right side in curve manner size 11" x 4" x 5". (d) incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" over the middle of scapula left side. He opined that the injures were homicidal in nature and the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury No. (c). All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. P.W.6 is the police constable and a seizure witness, who proved the seizure list Exts.5 and 7. P.W.7 is the I.O., who investigated into the matter and submitted the charge-sheet. 9. This Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution, more particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the occurrence. He has elaborately stated about the blows given by the Appellant seeing which he raised hullah. Immediately his sister (P.W.1) and mother came to the spot. His evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence (P.W.5.) There is no dispute that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. P.W.1 came to the spot after hearing hullah of P.W.2 and saw the Appellant fleeing away from the spot. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. According to P.W.5, he found four incised wounds on the person of the deceased. He specifically stated that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury No. (c) which had completely severed the spinal cord and vital vessels of the neck. The injuries were homicidal in nature. Nothing has been elicited from him during cross-examination by the defence. 10. He specifically stated that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury No. (c) which had completely severed the spinal cord and vital vessels of the neck. The injuries were homicidal in nature. Nothing has been elicited from him during cross-examination by the defence. 10. Considering the evidence of P.W.2, corroborated by P.Ws.1 and 5, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In view of the above, the criminal appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. L. Mohapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed