JUDGMENT : 1. Heard and the judgment is as follows : 2. Appellant faced trial in the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Rayagada for the offence u/s 302, IPC on the allegation of committing murder of his elder brother. As per the judgment delivered on 05.03.2005, learned Addl.Sessions Judge found him guilty u/s 304 Second Part, IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. 3. Prosecution case is that both the brothers picked up quarrel them at about 6.30 P.M. on 24.01.2004 and the accused brother dealt an axe blow which caused an incised wound of 5" x 1" x 1" on the left occipital part with cutting injury on left pinna and auricle. In the process of that tussle, the deceased also sustained abrasion on the lower part of his sternum. On 28.01.2004 he succumbed to the injuries. The incident was witnessed by an eye-witness, i.e., wife of the deceased. Since the Ward Member and Gram Rakhi of the village were absent, she waited for their arrival in the village. They arrived at the village on 27.01.2004 and on 28.01.2004 police was informed about the incident. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. was explained in that way. After registering the F.I.R., the Investing Officer undertook the investigation and on completion thereof, submitted charge-sheet. The doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, was examined as P.W.5, whereas the widow of the deceased as P.W.2. The rest of the witnesses are witness to the search, seizure and other circumstance and investigation. Ext. 3 is the post-mortem report and Ext.13 is the chemical examination report. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, besides, the evidence of P.W.3 a neighbour, held that the deceased suffered homicidal death and evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 proves that Appellant is the author of the crime. He took into consideration the factum of quarrel between the brothers relating to a broom-stick and held that Appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant argues that the evidence of P.W.2, who was the solitary eye-witness to the occurrence to the occurrence, is not acceptable because she is a highly interested witness being the wife of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant argues that the evidence of P.W.2, who was the solitary eye-witness to the occurrence to the occurrence, is not acceptable because she is a highly interested witness being the wife of the deceased. That argument raised by the Appellant in the Court below was repelled and rightly so. She being an interested witness would not try to rope innocent person like the Appellant in the absence of any motive or enmity with the accused. Therefore, when the factum of homicidal death is established and the evidence of P.W.2 is clear and clinching that Appellant is the assailant, there is nothing to interfere with the order of conviction. 5. Since the Appellant has already served the sentence by remaining inside the prison for five years and 9 months, therefore there is no necessity to consider the question of reduction of sentence. Accordingly, the JCRLA is dismissed.