JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - The Appellant, who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2000 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence u/s 302 I.P.C, has preferred this Jail Criminal Appeal from jail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.6.99 at about 3:00 PM, while the informant (P.W.1) was returning to his village along with his eIder brother he saw his daughter-Naji Soren (P.W.2) standing in front of the house of the Appellant. She was crying stating that somebody killed her grand mother (deceased). At that time the Appellant was moving there by holding the Axe. Seeing the informant, the by throwing the Axe near his house. The informant, after from P.W.2 that the Appellant had killed mother; asked the Appellant about the reason to which he did not reply and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR at Kullana Police Station and the Police registered the case and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the Appellant u/s 302 IPC. 3. The plea of the Appellant is one of complete denial of the allegations. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 8 witness the doctor and I.O. and exhibited 14 documents the defence examined none. 5. The learned Sessions Judge who tried the case, has passed the order of conviction u/s 302 IPC mainly basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 the ocular witnesses coupled with the medical evidence of P.W. 8. 6. Mr. Das learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the judgment and order of conviction the following grounds: (i) P.W. 2 the so called eye witnesses had not seen the occurrence and moreover she was an interested child witness. (ii) P.W.3 is an independent witness and immediate neighbour of the Appellant who did not depose before the Court that at the relevant time P.W.2, was present. Therefore, P.W.2 cannot be accepted as an ocular witness and believable .witness and (iii) Non-examination of independent witnesses and the scribe of .the FIR is fatal to the prosecution. 7. Mr. Nayak, Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contended that P.Ws.2 and 3 are ocular witnesses. There is no material to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 5 who are post-occurrence witnesses. 7. Mr. Nayak, Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contended that P.Ws.2 and 3 are ocular witnesses. There is no material to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 5 who are post-occurrence witnesses. When P.W. 1 returned to his village, he heard about the incident from P.W 2. At that time, the Appellant was standing in front of his house and seeing him, he fled away from the spot. The evidence of the other eye witness (P.W.3) is coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 would lead to the conclusion that the Appellant is the author of the crime. Therefore, there is no justification to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Session's Judge. 8. Perused the LCR P.W.1 is the informant and brother of the deceased who resided separately laong with his daughter, sister and deceased mother. He has stated that at about 3:00 PM on a Friday one and half years pack, he came near his house, his daughter (P.W.2) told him that the Appellant cut the deceased. At that time the Appellant was present near the house. There was bleeding injury on the neck of the deceased. Seeing him the Appellant fled away. Police wrote the FIR as per his instruction. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he and Appellant were not pulling on well. P.W.2 is the grand daughter of the deceased, niece of the Appellant and daughter of P.W.1. She is a child witness and at the time of recording of her statement, her age was 14 years. She deposed that the Appellant came to their house and called her grand mother to come to his house. She and her grand mother both went to the house of the Appellant where the Appellant told her grand mother to salute him (NAMASKAR, JUHAR KAR) to which she refused and went from the house. At that time the Appellant who was holding an Axe followed her. Near the Asan tree, he dealt an Axe blow on her neck for which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury on her neck and fell down near the said tree and died. She told about the incident to her father. Thereafter, the Appellant fled away throwing the Axe near his house. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the Appellant obstructed the passage of her grand mother and dealt Axe blows. She told about the incident to her father. Thereafter, the Appellant fled away throwing the Axe near his house. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the Appellant obstructed the passage of her grand mother and dealt Axe blows. No body except her was present at the time of assault. She specifically stated that the Appellant dealt three Axe blows on the neck of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited from her cross-examination to dis-credit her testimony. P.W.3 is an independent eye witness whose house was adjacent to the house of the Appellant. When he, his wife, Shayama Budha and Thakura were sitting near the Kusuma tree, he saw the deceased coming out of the house of the Appellant and when the deceased came out, the Appellant dealt three Axe blows on her neck as a result of which she fell down on the ground near the Asan tree and died. When P.W.1 came to the spot, the Appellant fled away throwing the Axe. In his cross-examination; he admitted that the place of assault is 20 cubits away from the place where they sat. He further admitted that the first Axe blow was on the left side of the neck of the deceased and that after the death of the deceased, he went away from the spot. P.W.4 is the ASI who registered the case and intimated about the occurrence to the C.I. of Police, Baripada, who took charge of the investigation from him. P.W.5 is a post-occurrence witness who heard about the incident from his wife. P.W.1 came to him and told that the Appellant had killed his mother by means of an Axe. They went and saw the decease was lying dead near the Asan tree. There was bleeding injury on her neck. He went to the PS along with P.W.1 who lodged the report at the Police Station. Police held inquest over the dead-body and prepared report (Ext.2) and seized the lungi and shirt of the Appellant under seizure list (Ext.3) and photo of a Deity under seizure list (Ext.4) in his presence. P.W.6 is a seizure witness of blood stained earth, some sample earth (Ext.5) and the Axe-M.O.I. (Ext.6). Police held inquest over the dead-body and prepared report (Ext.2) and seized the lungi and shirt of the Appellant under seizure list (Ext.3) and photo of a Deity under seizure list (Ext.4) in his presence. P.W.6 is a seizure witness of blood stained earth, some sample earth (Ext.5) and the Axe-M.O.I. (Ext.6). P.W.7 is the Circle Inspector, who investigated the matter, examined the witnesses and re-examined some witnesses, prepared the spot map, seized the wearing apparels of the Appellant in presence of seizure witness, held inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination and after completion of all the formalities, filed the charge-sheet against the Appellant u/s 302 IPC. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the dead body was lying at a distance of about 50 yards from the house of the Appellant. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found that the deceased was inflicted several injuries by a sharp cutting weapon on the right side of the neck. In the result, all the blood vessels, muscles and bones were cut. The head had been attached to the body by two linear strips of skin of 0.5 cm diameter. He has further opined that the cause of death was profuse haemorrhage and separation of body from the vital centres of the brain. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. To the query of the police, he has opined that all the injuries can be possible by the Axe (M.O.I). 9. On a careful scrutiny of the above evidences, it appears that P.Ws.2 and 3 have vividly described about the assault. P.W.2 is the grand daughter of the deceased who went to the house of the Appellant along with the deceased where the Appellant told his mother to salute the private Deity to which she refused and when she went away from his house, the Appellant dealt Axe blows. In her cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that she was outside the house of the Appellant. The Appellant obstructed the passage of her grand mother and thereafter assaulted her by means of the Axe. The house of P.W.3 is adjacent to the house of the Appellant. In her cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that she was outside the house of the Appellant. The Appellant obstructed the passage of her grand mother and thereafter assaulted her by means of the Axe. The house of P.W.3 is adjacent to the house of the Appellant. He stated that while he along with others were sitting near the Kusum tree, the deceased came out from the house of the Appellant when the Appellant dealt Axe blow on her neck. There is no reason as to why P.W.2 would falsely implicate the Appellant in the present case. Nothing has been brought out from her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.3, who is an old man of 70 years and immediate neighbour of the Appellant. P.W.3, in his chief, has stated that P.W.2 was present with the deceased at the time of assault. P.W.3, his wife and others saw the occurrence. P.W.3 specifically stated that the Appellant fled away from the spot by throwing the Axe as P.W.1 came to the spot. The doctor (P.W.8) specifically stated that all the injuries on the person of the deceased could be possible by M.O.I. As it appears form chemical report, human-blood was found from the seized Axe. In accused statement, the present Appellant did not explain how the Axe was stained with blood. Non-examination of the wife of P.W.3 is not fatal to the prosecution since two of the ocular witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, who vividly described about the assault made by the Appellant. In view of the above, there is no doubt that the Appellant is the author of the crime. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed accordingly. B.K. Nayak, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed