Judgment By Court.-The sole appellant, Johan Murmu, has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.6.2002 and 3.6.2002 respectively passed by Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 134 of 1999 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, as per the fardbeyan of P.W. 1 is, that on 15.5.1999 at about 6 p.m. there was some quarrel between the appellant, who is elder brother and the deceased Parmeshwar Murmu in the courtyard of the house and in course thereof, the appellant took out a tangi (axe) from his room and hurled repeated blows on Parmeshwar causing in-juries on his head, cheek and mouth due to which he fell down and became unconscious. The, informant P.W. 1, his wife raised alarm whereupon P.W. 4-Mantu Marandi, P.W. 3-Rameshwar Hembram, Abhilash Rana and other villagers assembled. On seeing the villagers, the appellant fled away with tangi. The villagers took the deceased to the hospital for treatment, but in course of treatment Parmeshwar died. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Jama P.S. Case No. 0038 of 1999 dated 16.5.1999 under Section 302 of the IPC was instituted and police took up investigation. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The CJM, Dumka took cognizance of the offence and thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions by Sri S.K. Srivastava, J.M. 1st Class, Dumka vide order dated 9.9.1999. 4. The charge was framed and explained to the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses. Then statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence of accused/appellant was that the deceased had fallen from the palm tree and died. 6. After considering the evidence and material on record, the court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Challenging the impugned Judgment, the appellant submitted that the entire case of prosecution is based upon the evidence of P.W. 1 (wife of deceased) and P.W. 5 Muni Marandi (the mother of deceased). 6. After considering the evidence and material on record, the court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Challenging the impugned Judgment, the appellant submitted that the entire case of prosecution is based upon the evidence of P.W. 1 (wife of deceased) and P.W. 5 Muni Marandi (the mother of deceased). There are vital contradictions in the evidence of aforesaid two witnesses on the manner of occurrence as well as on the point of place of occurrence which give rise to serious doubt on the veracity of prosecution version. It is an admitted fact that there was dispute between the party. The aforesaid contradictions in the statements of two eye witnesses who are interested in the case of prosecution renders their testimony unworthy of evidence. It has been submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial court is not based on reliable and credible evidence and is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. submitted that P.W. 5 is mother of appellant as well as of the deceased. She had love & affection for both of them, she has no personal grudge against the appellant. It is not expected that she would falsely implicate the appellant. The statements of P.W. 1 and 5 found full corroboration from medical evidence as well as from the objective finding of I.O. Other witnesses who arrived at the place of occurrence, after hearing alarm also corroborated the statement of informant (P.W. 1). Accordingly, it has been submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the same does not require any interference. 9. Having heard the submissions, we carefully examined the evidence available on record. P.W. 8 Dr. Chandreshwar Prasad Sinha is the doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Parmeshwar Murmu. He had found following injuries on the dead body:- (i) Incised wound 2 ½" x ½" x bone deep on right side of forehead extending from middle to right eye brow to right temple to cheek. (ii) Incised wound 1"x ½" x bone deep in the upper part of right side of forehead. (iii) Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x muscle deep over right angle of mouth and right cheek. (iv) Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x muscle deep over middle of left side of forehead. (ii) Incised wound 1"x ½" x bone deep in the upper part of right side of forehead. (iii) Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x muscle deep over right angle of mouth and right cheek. (iv) Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x muscle deep over middle of left side of forehead. (v) Incised wound 1" x 14" x muscle deep over chin right side. 10. The doctor opined that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury no. i & ii and which were sufficient to cause death. According to the doctor, the aforesaid injuries were caused by heavy sharp weapon such as 'tangi'. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of P.W. 8, it is clear that the deceased had died a homicidal death. 11. Now, the question is as to whether the appellant has caused death of Parmeshwar? In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Shanti Lata Soren (informant and wife of deceased) and P.W. 5 Muni Marandi (mother of deceased). They have claimed themselves to be the eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 2 Budhan Hansda, P.W. 3 Rameshwar Hembrom, P.W. 4 Mantu Marandi, P.W. 6 Shivlal Tuddu are co villagers. They had arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the alarm of the informant. P.W.7 Sujit Rai is the Investigating Officer. 12. P.W. 1 Shanti Lata Soren deposed that on 15.5.1999 at about 6 p.m. there was quarrel between appellant and the deceased in her house. In course of the quarrel, Johan (appellant) took out axe from the house and assaulted her husband (deceased) on his head, mouth and neck. Her husband fell down profusely bleeding and became unconscious. She raised alarm, whereupon Mantu Marandi, Rameshwar Hembrom, Budhan Hansda and Abhilash Rana came and on seeing the villagers, appellant fled away carrying the axe. The villagers then took her husband to hospital but in course of treatment, he died at about 9 p.m. In her cross examination, this witness has stated that at the time of occurrence her mother-in-law was also present in the Angan. 13 P .W. 5 who is the mother of appellant as well as of deceased stated that the occurrence took place at the time of sun set. She was preparing food in her house. 13 P .W. 5 who is the mother of appellant as well as of deceased stated that the occurrence took place at the time of sun set. She was preparing food in her house. She saw that Johan Murmu came from the side of village armed with a tangi (axe) and assaulted Parmeshwar. She further deposed that villagers took Parmeshwar Murmu (deceased) to the hospital, where he died in course of treatment. In her cross examination she stated that she saw Parmeshwar lying injured in the 'Galli' (lane). She again stated that blood was spread in her Angan. 14. In the evidences of P.W. 1 and 5, we find no vital contradiction on the manner of occurrence as well as regarding the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W. 5 stated that appellant had come from the village side armed with tangi whereas PW. 1 said that he took out tangi from the house. The aforesaid contradiction, in our view, is trifling in nature having no bearing on the case of prosecution. Moreover, P.W. 5 in her cross examination at paragraph no. 3 has categorically stated that there was huge amount of blood in the Angan. Thus, there is no contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence. Except the aforesaid minor contradictions, we find nothing adverse in the evidences of P.W. 1 and 5 on which their evidence can be thrown over board. Moreover the evidences of P.W. 1 and 5 find full support from P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 who are co villagers and who had arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing alarm. The said witnesses have categorically stated that after hearing alarm they went to the P.O. and saw that the deceased was lying injured in the Angan in pool of blood. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 also stated that when they arrived at the place of. occurrence they saw that the appellant was fleeing away from P.O. holding an axe in his hand. P.W. 4 and 6 also stated that on the next date, the appellant was apprehended by the villagers while he was fleeing away. The aforesaid witnesses who arrived just after the occurrence have also supported the version of P.W. 1 and 5. 15. As noticed above, the doctor who held autopsy had found five incised wound on the person of deceased out of which injury no. The aforesaid witnesses who arrived just after the occurrence have also supported the version of P.W. 1 and 5. 15. As noticed above, the doctor who held autopsy had found five incised wound on the person of deceased out of which injury no. i, ii & iv are on the head of the deceased whereas injury no. iii & v are on cheek and chin of the deceased. Thus, the aforesaid finding of the doctor (P.W. 8) also supports the version of P.W. 1. The I.O., P.W. 7 has stated that he had found blood on the place of occurrence and from there he seized blood stained earth and prepared seizure list. He also stated that he had recovered blood stained axe and prepared seizure list. Thus, we find that the physical finding of the I.O. also supports the version of P.W. 1 and 5, that the occurrence had taken place inside the court yard (Angan). 16. We find that there is nothing in the evidences of P.W. 1 and 5, to disbelieve and discard. It is an admitted position that the appellant and deceased are sons of P.W. 5. In the absence of any material to the contrary, it can not be said that the mother has no love and affection for the appellant. There is nothing on record to suggest that P.W. 5 has any personal grudge to falsely implicate the appellant. Under the said circumstances, only because the P.W. 1 and 5 are relation of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. 17. In view of the above discussion, we find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. We find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of learned court below. We accordingly uphold the same. 18. This appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.