JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - The Appellant has been convicted u/s 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.C. No. 1 of 2001/S.C. No. 369 of 2000-GDC by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam. 2. Prosecution case is that on 14.09.1999 at about 5.30 A.M. deceased was proceeding from his village to Kanchana junction to open his shop. The informant Kunja Bihari Sahu, father in-law of the deceased, who was cutting grass in a nearby field heard the cry of his son-in-law and when he turned his attention, he found the accused-Appellant assaulting the deceased by means of a spade. The informant rushed to the spot and saw his son-in-law lying dead and accused running away from the spot through the paddy field. According to the informant, on the previous day, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased concerning non-payment of Rs. 700/- by the accused to the deceased and out of grudge he committed the murder. 3. The plea of the defence was complete denial of the allegation. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. and exhibited 12 documents. The defence examined none. 5. The learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, who tried the case, by his judgment dated 28.06.2002 convicted the Appellant u/s 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 6 as well as the evidence of the doctor (P.W.9). 6. Mr. Mandal, learned Counsel for the Appellant, assails the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the following grounds: (i) The conviction cannot be based upon the evidence of the ocular witnesses since there are major contradictions in their deposition and they have tried to develop the prosecution story from stage to stage. (ii) There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous day and that is why the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. (ii) There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous day and that is why the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. (iii) All the eye witnesses are inconsistent in their statement and in view of the admission of P.W.6 in his cross examination that he took bath in a tank near Kanchana Chhak, that the distance between his house and the tank would be around one and half kilometers and that there are 2 to 3 other tanks situated close to his house, his statement that he saw the accused running by holding a spade stained with blood while he was returning home after taking bath in a village tank cannot be believed. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the State, supports the trial Court judgment and contends that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, which is corroborated by the medical evidence. There is no ground to interfere with the said judgment of conviction. 8. Perused the L.C.R. P.W.1 is the medical officer who collected nail clippings of the accused-Appellant. He also examined the accused-Appellant and found no injury on his body. P.W.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased and a witness to the occurrence. He lodged FIR before the Beguniapada police station. He in his deposition stated that when (the occurrence took-place he was cutting grass in his paddy field situated by the side of the road. Suddenly he heard the cry of his son-in-law as 'Marigali'. 'When he diverted his attention, he found the accused assaulting his son-in-law by a spade. He specifically stated that the incident took place on the main road in front of the house of Raghu Behera. (P.W.3). When he reached the spot, he found that the deceased had already died and the present Appellant was fleeing away from the spot holding a spade. In cross-examination he admitted that the Appellant had married the sister of the deceased. He saw the occurrence from a distance of 30 cubits. He was examined by the police immediately after the occurrence. Nothing has been elicited through cross-examination to discard the testimony of this witness. P.W.3 is another ocular witness in front of whose house the occurrence took place. He has stated that he saw the occurrence from a distance of 60 feet. The deceased was coming on a bi-cycle. He was examined by the police immediately after the occurrence. Nothing has been elicited through cross-examination to discard the testimony of this witness. P.W.3 is another ocular witness in front of whose house the occurrence took place. He has stated that he saw the occurrence from a distance of 60 feet. The deceased was coming on a bi-cycle. Suddenly, the accused appeared on the road and dealt a spade blow on the deceased from behind. The deceased, leaving the bi-cycle, ran towards P.W.3 and fell down near his house. The accused came running and, when the deceased was lying on the road, dealt 4 to 5 spade blows on the left side of his body and fled away from the spot with the spade. The other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 and 4 rushed to the spot. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not try to catch hold of the accused and that on the same day at about 9.00 A.M. he was examined by the police. He further stated in his cross-examination that he saw the deceased from a distance of 60 feet while he was coming on a bi-cycle and that the accused had concealed himself somewhere before attacking the deceased. He specifically stated that after the first spade blow, the deceased leaving the cycle, ran towards him and fell down near his house. Nothing has been elicited through cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. P.W.4 is another ocular witness. He corroborated the statement of P.W.3 with regard to the assault on the deceased by the accused. He also admitted presence of P.W.2, the father-in-law of the deceased, and other witnesses at the place of occurrence. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. P.W.5 is a co villager. He is a witness to the discovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. But he turned hostile. P.W.6 is a post occurrence witness who stated that after the assault he saw the accused running away by holding, a spade stained with blood. Nothing has also been elicited by way of cross-examination from this witness to disbelieve his testimony. P.W.7 is a constable and a witness to the inquest. But he turned hostile. P.W.6 is a post occurrence witness who stated that after the assault he saw the accused running away by holding, a spade stained with blood. Nothing has also been elicited by way of cross-examination from this witness to disbelieve his testimony. P.W.7 is a constable and a witness to the inquest. P.W.8 is the I.O. who registered the case, investigated into the matter, prepared the spot map and ultimately filed charge-sheet u/s 302, IPC. He has stated that the accused led him and other witnesses to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the spade (M.0.1). He also proved the place of occurrence by referring to the spot map. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy and noticed the following injuries: (i) Once incised wound below the left ear on the posterior surface of the scalp 1" away from the left ear breaking the skull. (ii) One incised wound of size 6" x 1" x 5" situated 2" away from the left ear over the posterior-left lateral side of neck. (iii) One incised wound of size 1" x 1/2" over the left ear dissecting it into two. (iv) One incised injury of size 4'" x 11/2" (depot negligible) below the left arm pit. (v) One incised wound of size 1" x 11/2" (depth negligible) over the left shoulder joint and shoulder joint broken. (vi) One incised wound of size 1/2" x 1/2" situated over the left elbow joint, elbow joint broken. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhagic shock due to severe bleeding. He further opined that all the injuries can be possible by the spade (M.O.I). 9. On analysis of the entire evidence, it is crystal clear that while the deceased was proceeding on his bi-cycle, the accused suddenly appeared and dealt spade blows, as a result of which the deceased died at the spot. Evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 is clear to that effect. According to P.W.2, the accused fled away from the spot through the paddy field. This part of his evidence has been corroborated by P.W.6. P.W.9, the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, also noticed one incised wound below the left ear and one incised wound 2" away from the left ear over the posterior left lateral side of neck. According to P.W.2, the accused fled away from the spot through the paddy field. This part of his evidence has been corroborated by P.W.6. P.W.9, the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, also noticed one incised wound below the left ear and one incised wound 2" away from the left ear over the posterior left lateral side of neck. He specifically opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the death was due to haemorrhagic shock. Of course, there are some minor contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4. But there is clinching evidence with regard to the assault by the Appellant to the deceased. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 had seen the occurrence and no exaggeration has been made by these witnesses. They are all truthful witnesses. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the accused-Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has rightly passed an order of conviction and sentence against him, which requires no interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. L. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed