JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 144 of 1998 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal. Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the record is that the deceased is the daughter of P. Ws.1 and 10. P.W.1 is the mother and P.W.10 is the father. The deceased was of marriageable age. Her marriage had been settled with the son of the brother of P.W.1. The Appellant wanted to marry the deceased but neither P.W.1 nor P.W.10 agreed to such proposal. For the above reason, the Appellant had a grudge against P. Ws.1 and 10. Prior to the occurrence also the Appellant had threatened the deceased to kill her and kill himself unless she agrees to marry him. On 11.12.1998 when nobody was there in the house, it is alleged that the Appellant went to the house of the deceased and stabbed her by means of a knife. When P.W.1 was coming back to home after taking bath, she saw the Appellant coming out of the house with the knife. After entering into the house, P.W.1 found the deceased lying with a pool of blood having sustained injuries in her persons and she disclosed before her that she had been stabbed by the Appellant. P.W.1 thereafter raised alarm and many persons including P.W.11, the brother of P.W.1 and P.W.10, the husband of P.W.1 reached the house. After getting information from P.W.1, P.W.10 went to Katarbaga Police Station along with P.W.7 and lodged the information verbally which was reduced into writing by P.W.12 and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the charge examined 12 witnesses but none was examined on behalf of the Appellant. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased before whom a dying declaration was made. She had also seen the Appellant coming out of her house with a knife. P.W.2 is a friend of the deceased who stated about a threat given by the Appellant prior to the date of occurrence. P.W.3 is a witness before whom an extra judicial confession was made by the Appellant. She had also seen the Appellant coming out of her house with a knife. P.W.2 is a friend of the deceased who stated about a threat given by the Appellant prior to the date of occurrence. P.W.3 is a witness before whom an extra judicial confession was made by the Appellant. P.W.4 was declared hostile and P.W.5 is the Doctor who examined the Appellant about four weeks after the incident on police requisition. P.W.6 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.7 accompanied P.W.11 who lodged the F.I.R. and is also a post occurrence witness. He is also a witness to recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the Appellant while in police custody. P. W.8 is also a witness to the recovery of the weapon of offence. P.W.9 is the son of P.W.11 with whom the marriage of the deceased had been settled. P.W. 10 is the father of the deceased and P.W. 11 is the brother of P.W.10 who had lodged the F.I.R. P.W.12 is the I.O. The plea of defence is complete denial of the occurrence and further plea taken by the Appellant was that the son of P.W.11 is also called Babulu Khadia and he is the person who had killed the deceased. The trial court on the basis of dying declaration made before P.W.1, extra judicial confession made before P.W.3, evidence regarding discovery of weapon of offence at the instance of Appellant as deposed by P. Ws.7 and 8 and the previous threat given by the Appellant, found him guilty of charge and convicted him thereunder. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination shows that the deceased had sustained five penetrating injuries and therefore could not have been in a position to make a dying declaration before P.W.1. So far as extra judicial confession is concerned, it was contended by the learned Counsel that P.W.2 has not said about the exact confession made by the Appellant and therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 to that effect cannot be accepted. It was also contended that merely on the basis of the evidence regarding the previous threat, the Appellant could not have been found guilty of the charge. It was also contended that merely on the basis of the evidence regarding the previous threat, the Appellant could not have been found guilty of the charge. The learned Counsel for the State relied on the evidence relating to dying declaration, extra judicial confession, previous threat and the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.6 while defending the impugned judgment. 5. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. So far as dying declaration is concerned, the only evidence available on record is that of the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. She in her deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence she had gone to take bath and nobody except the deceased was in the house. When she returned to home, she saw the Appellant coming out of the house armed with a knife stained with blood. When the Appellant saw her, he ran away from the spot. Therefore, she went inside the house and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The deceased disclosed before her that the Appellant assaulted her by means of a knife. The deceased thereafter lost sense and died at the spot Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve her. Even no suggestion has been put to her to the effect that the deceased was in such a condition that she could not have made a disclosure. 6. So far as extra judicial confession is concerned, P.W.3 is the only witness. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that the father of the Appellant is his uncle as per village courtesy. After the incident and before the police came to the village, when he was busy in preparing dinner, the Appellant came and asked him a sum of Rs. 50/- to leave the village stating that he had killed the deceased. Out of fear this witness paid the amount to the Appellant. This witness has further stated that when the Appellant approached him for money, he was trembling and there were blood marks on his cloths. Though this witness has admitted not to have disclosed the fact before the villagers out of fear, nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve his claim that the Appellant made an extra judicial confession before him. Though this witness has admitted not to have disclosed the fact before the villagers out of fear, nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve his claim that the Appellant made an extra judicial confession before him. He has specifically stated that the Appellant disclosed before him to have killed the deceased. We, therefore, find the evidence of P.W.3 reliable and trustworthy. 7. So far as the previous threat is concerned, P.W.2 and P.W.10 are the relevant witnesses. P.W.2 is a friend of the deceased and she in her deposition has stated that a month prior to the incident she along with the deceased and one Kishori were returning at 4 P.M. after attending the call of nature. The Appellant appeared before them and told the deceased that unless she marries him, he would kill her, her friends and thereafter kill himself. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. P.W.10 who is the father of the deceased has also stated that prior to the incident the deceased and her friends had informed him that when they were returning after attending the call of nature, the Appellant had threatened the deceased stating that unless she agrees to marry him, he/would kill her first, then both her friends and himself. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.10, the prosecution has been able to establish that a month prior to the incident, the Appellant had given a threat to kill the deceased unless she agrees to marry him. 8. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the witnesses to leading to discovery of the weapon of offence. Both of them are consistent in their statement that the Appellant while in police custody admitted to have killed the deceased by means of a knife and led the police to a place where he had concealed the knife and gave recovery of the same. The evidence of these two witnesses also gets corroboration from the evidence of the I.O. and there is nothing in the cross-examination of theses two witnesses to discard their testimony. 9. The dying declaration of the deceased made before P.W.1 gets support from the evidence of P.W.6 who conducted the postmortem examination. The evidence of these two witnesses also gets corroboration from the evidence of the I.O. and there is nothing in the cross-examination of theses two witnesses to discard their testimony. 9. The dying declaration of the deceased made before P.W.1 gets support from the evidence of P.W.6 who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.6 found as many as five penetrating injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased and he was of the opinion that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and could be caused by a knife. He was also of the opinion that death was due to the penetrating injuries to head, leading to brain laceration. 10. In view of such clinching evidence available against the Appellant, we have no doubt in mind that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. We accordingly do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. Final Result : Dismissed