JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and Order Dated 28.06.2002 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 324 of 2001 convicting the Appellant u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.05.1995 at about noon at village-Gadasitha on the field near his house, the present Appellant along with-other accused persons assaulted the deceased-Gurubari. When Dhobei Das, cousin brother of deceased Gurubari @ Guru Charan Das came to latter's rescue he was assaulted to death at the spot by co-accused Ullash and other accused persons. Although witnesses came to rescue both the deceased they were assaulted by the accused persons including the present Appellant. The F.I.R. under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 294, 302/149 of the I.P.C. was registered in Gop Police Station against the present Appellant and 18 other accused persons. While Dhobei died on the spot, Gurubari was admitted in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where he succumbed to the injury on 08.05.1995. After investigation of the case charge-sheet has been submitted against the present Appellant and other 18 accused persons. 3. The defence plea is complete denial of the prosecution case. As many as 12 witnesses including the Las and three doctors have been examined and 23 number of exhibits have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. The Learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, vide its judgment dated 28.6.2002 convicted the Appellant u/s 302 of the I.P.C. basing on testimony of the ocular witnesses. 4. Mr. Biswal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenges the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the evidence of the ocular witnesses are contradictory to each other and the conviction is based on the evidence of the above witnesses. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the Appellant for the alleged commission of offence. Lastly it is submitted that suppressing the earlier F.I.R. the informant in order to make out a case lodged the present F.I.R. on the next day after the inquest was made. 5. Mr. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the Appellant for the alleged commission of offence. Lastly it is submitted that suppressing the earlier F.I.R. the informant in order to make out a case lodged the present F.I.R. on the next day after the inquest was made. 5. Mr. Rath, Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent has vehemently argued that there is sufficient material against the present Appellant including the oral and documentary evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the ocular witnesses and there is no material that they had developed the story to falsely implicate the present Appellant in the crime. 6. Perused the records P.W.1 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the cranial bone i.e., right temporal, right parietal, left parietal and the occipital bones were fractured. Membranes over the affected part of the skull and over the right ear were torn. Brain materials under the above bones were deeply damaged. There was bleeding from the right ear due to a punctured wound inside the ear. The brain matter under the above bone were damaged. The death is homicidal in nature. In cross-examination he admitted that he could not give the size of the fractures. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to discredit his testimony. P.W.2 is the informant, who specifically stated that on 5.5.1995 this occurrence took place. It was about noon then. Deceased Gurubari @ Guru Charan Das is his elder brother. Other deceased Dhobei Das is his cousin brother, son of younger brother of his father. At the time of occurrence at 12 noon accused Sana and his deceased brother Gurubari went towards Gop to catch eel (Tori fish). On the way there was quarrel between the two whereafter accused returned back home followed by deceased-Gurubari. A little while thereafter the Appellant assaulted on the head of Gurubari with a tada (lathi) in front of his house as a result of which, Gurubari sustained fracture injury on his head and fell down with bleeding injuries. Ghana, younger brother of Appellant assaulted deceased Gurubari with Tada (lathi). When Dhoba Das came to the rescue of the deceased, Ullas Bhoi poked the right ear of Dhoba with a spear (Kunta). Appellant-Sana and others, namely, Ghana and Kalandi assaulted Dhoba. Ghana, younger brother of Appellant assaulted deceased Gurubari with Tada (lathi). When Dhoba Das came to the rescue of the deceased, Ullas Bhoi poked the right ear of Dhoba with a spear (Kunta). Appellant-Sana and others, namely, Ghana and Kalandi assaulted Dhoba. Hearing about the incident he rushed to the spot and by then accused and other assailants had decamped and both the deceased were lying there with bleeding injuries. Deceased Dhobei died at the spot. Thereafter, he was shifted to Gop Hospital and deceased Gurubari was shifted to the Cuttack Hospital and succumbed to the injuries there. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen the assault. He got information while he was working in the field. Specifically he admitted that he received the information about the incident from Gandharba, Aparti and P.W.3- Jatadhari Das, who were present at the spot. P.W.3 who is an injured eyewitness has specifically stated that on 05.05.1995 at about 12 noon near the house of deceased-Dhoba this occurrence took place and his house is adjacent to the spot and he found the accused-Sana assaulting on the head of the deceased-Gurubari by Tada (thenga) and due to assault the deceased-Gurubari fell down and when the deceased-Dhoba came to the rescue of deceased Gurubari, he was also assaulted by Ullash who pierced a tenta. Due to assault deceased Dhoba fell down and when he (P.W.3) tried to intervene Pratap Bhoi assaulted him on his right side shoulder with crow-bar and Kalandi Bhoi assaulted on his left shoulder by Tada. Deceased Dhoba died at the spot and he was medically examined and also he accompanied the deceased-Gurubari to Cuttack Hospital. In cross-examination, he admitted that assault took place on both the deceased persons within 5 to 10 minutes. From his courtyard, he witnessed the assault on the deceased persons and his house was to the east of the spot and about 20 to 22 persons were at the spot who were armed with weapons. These persons assaulted the deceased-Gurubari by surrounding him. By the time he came to the spot both the deceased had already fallen down. Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of this witness to demolish the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, is another ocular witness. He rushed to the spot and found the present Appellant assaulting on the head of Gurubari with lathi resulting fracture of the head. By the time he came to the spot both the deceased had already fallen down. Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of this witness to demolish the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, is another ocular witness. He rushed to the spot and found the present Appellant assaulting on the head of Gurubari with lathi resulting fracture of the head. When Gurubari fell down on the ground after assault by accused-Sana, he was assaulted by Ghana, brother of accused-Sania by lathi. When deceased-Dhoba Das came to the rescue of Gurubari, Ullash pierced Kunta to his right ear and he died at the spot. When P.W.3 came to rescue of the assailees, Kailash assaulted on his right shoulder by crowbar. In cross-examination, he admitted that Gurubari and Dhoba were cousin brothers and that there was altercation between Gurubari and the group to which accused-Sana belonged. P.W.5 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. When he came to the rescue of deceased Gurubari, Kulamani Bhoi assaulted him on his head with lathi. In cross-examination he admits that the spot was about 100 feet from his house. 10 to 30 persons were at the spot when he arrived there. Those persons were assaulting his brother deceased Gurubari. P.W.6. is an eyewitness. He stated that four to five persons assaulted on the head of the deceased Gurubari causing fracture. On assault deceased Gurubari fell on the ground with bleeding injuries. When deceased Dhoba came to the rescue of Gurubari, Ullash pierced Kunta to his right ear and by pressing his neck with his leg took out the Kunta. Nothing has been elicited from this witness to disbelieve him. P.W.7. is the doctor, who examined the injured persons and the deceased. He examined Banambar Das (P.W.6) and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated injury of size about 2.5 cm. ? 1 cm. ? 5 cm. situated over left lateral surface of nose at 3 cm above the left nostril. (ii) Bruise of size 5 cm. ? 2 cm. over dorsal surface of right hand. He also examined the deceased-Gurubari and found the following injuries: (i) one incised wound of size 3 cm. ? 2 cm. ? 5 cm. over left parietal region of scalp located at about 2 cm. lateral to mid line and 16 cm. over the left eye brow with irregular margin. ? 2 cm. over dorsal surface of right hand. He also examined the deceased-Gurubari and found the following injuries: (i) one incised wound of size 3 cm. ? 2 cm. ? 5 cm. over left parietal region of scalp located at about 2 cm. lateral to mid line and 16 cm. over the left eye brow with irregular margin. (ii) Swelling with haematoma over left side of occipital region of size 4 cm. ? 3 cm. (iii) Contusion over right side of face over angle of mandible of size 4 cm. ? 3 cm. On the same day at 7.15 P.M. on police requisition he examined Bandhu Das and found the following injuries: (i) Bruise of size 5 cm. ? 2 cm. over posterior surface of right shoulder. (ii) Bruise of size 4 cm. ? 2 cm. over right lateral surface of abdomen situated just over the iliac crest. The Doctor on the same day examined P.W.5 on police requisition and found the following injuries: (i) One incised injury of size 7 cm. ? 1 cm. ? 1 cm. over scalp over right parietal region obliquely placed in front of right parietal eminence. (ii) Bruise of size 7 cm. ? 2 cm. obliquely placed over right side of back at about 4 cm. right lateral to midline and one cm. above the level of inferior angle of right scapula. (iii) Bruise obliquely placed of size 5 cm. ? 2 cm. at about 1 cm. left lateral to midline and. 1 cm. below inferior angle of left scapula. (iv) Bruise of size 6 cm. ? 7 cm. over posterior surface of right shoulder joint. P.W.8 is the A.S.I., who registered the U.D. Case after receipt of post mortem examination closing the inquiry and on receipt of intimation from O.I.C., Gap Police station conducted inquest over the dead body. P.W.9 is the seizure witness who proved seizure of weapons by the police from different accused persons. He had no knowledge about the incident regarding party fraction in their village. P.W.10 is the doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the deceased-Gurubari @ Guru Charan Das and found the following the injuries: (i) One penetrating cut wound of size 2 cm. ? 0.3 cm. situated over the left, lateral to midline 16 cm. above the left eye brow with regular margin into cranial cavity deep. P.W.10 is the doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the deceased-Gurubari @ Guru Charan Das and found the following the injuries: (i) One penetrating cut wound of size 2 cm. ? 0.3 cm. situated over the left, lateral to midline 16 cm. above the left eye brow with regular margin into cranial cavity deep. (ii) Swelling with contusion over right side face adjacent to right mandibular angle of size 4 cm. ? 3 cm. (iii) Swelling with haematoma over left side back of head. (iv) Abrasion of size 2.5 cm. ? 2 cm. situated on left side back 20 cm. below the angle of left scapula. He opined that the injuries are ante mortem in nature and death was caused due to coma as a result of the cranio-cerebral injury which was fatal in ordinary course of nature. In cross-examination he stated that the cut fracture was corresponding to injury no(i). P.W.11 is the witness to inquest and proved the report. Ext.11 is the inquest report. P.W.12 (I.O.) registered the case, investigated into the case, arrested the accused persons and also seized the articles, got conducted the post mortem examination and ultimately he filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination P.Ws.11 and 12. 7. On scrutiny of evidence P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6, who are the ocular witnesses, it is, clear that both the deceased were assaulted by the accused persons, particularly, the Appellant assaulted deceased-Gurubari. These witnesses sustained injuries on their person and on police requisition they were medically examined by P.W.7, the Medical Officer of the Gap P.H.C. There is no material to disbelieve their above evidence that present Appellant-Sana assaulted on the head of the deceased with lathi resulting fracture of the head as a result of which the deceased fell down. This evidence of the above witnesses stand corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased-Gurubari. There is no material to disbelieve the above evidence and presence of such eye witnesses. Moreover, these, witnesses sustained some injuries while they tried to rescue the deceased persons and they were examined by the doctor P.W.7. 8. There is no force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Biswal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant since all the eyewitnesses and other independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Moreover, these, witnesses sustained some injuries while they tried to rescue the deceased persons and they were examined by the doctor P.W.7. 8. There is no force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Biswal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant since all the eyewitnesses and other independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There is no material to hold that the family members of the deceased had never seen the occurrence and there is no material that the informant has developed the F.I.R story. Nothing material came put from the record to show that eyewitness were not present at the spot or falsely implicated the present Appellant in the alleged occurrence. This specifically indicates that the informant lodged the F.I.R., Ext.2 which is the only F.I.R. and this F.I.R. was lodged before the commencement of the investigation. From the above, it is crystal clear that the Appellant was the author of the crime. 9. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and this Court confirms the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. B.K. Nayak, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed