JUDGMENT B.K. Patel, J.-- By the impugned judgment and order dated 26.3.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No.239 of 1998, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) for having committed murder of deceased Karma Kerketta. 2. Informant P.W.1 is deceased’s wife. P.W.2 is P.W.1’s mother. Occurrence took place on 22.7.1998. 3. Prosecution case is that appellant was in love with deceased’s sister-in-law and as the deceased did not approve of the same, there was dispute between the appellant and the deceased on earlier occasion. On the date of occurrence at about 2 P.M. while the deceased was returning home along with P.W.1, their children and P.W.2 from P.W.2’s house, in the ghat road in between Jamdihi and Sayamba near Dhipatola, appellant all in a sudden dealt several blows by means of axe M.O.I on the deceased causing fatal injuries. Deceased died at the spot. Thereafter the appellant left the spot with the weapon of offence. Informant P.W.1 orally reported regarding the occurrence at K.Balanga Police Station before P.W.14, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who reduced the same into First Information Report Ext.1, registered the case and took of investigation. It is alleged that in course of investigation blood stained axe M.O.I. was recovered at the instance of the appellant and seized under seizure list Ext.2. Also appellant’s blood stained wearing apparels were seized. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302 of the I.P.C. 4. Appellant took the plea of denial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Deceased’s wife informant P.W.1 and mother-in-law P.W.2 were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 and 9 were examined as witness to recovery and seizure of weapon of offence axe M.O.I. Of them P.W. 9 was declared hostile. P.Ws. 4, 7,8 and 10 were examined as seizure witnesses. However, P.Ws.7,8 and 10 did not support the prosecution. P.W.5 was an inquest witness. P.W.6 was a post-occurrence witness who simply stated that he saw dead body lying on the road. P.W.11 is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who assisted in investigation. P.Ws. 4, 7,8 and 10 were examined as seizure witnesses. However, P.Ws.7,8 and 10 did not support the prosecution. P.W.5 was an inquest witness. P.W.6 was a post-occurrence witness who simply stated that he saw dead body lying on the road. P.W.11 is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who assisted in investigation. P.W.13 is a doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws, 12 and 14 were the Investigating Officers. Prosecution also relied upon documents marked Exts. 1 to 16 and material object M.O.I. No defence evidence was adduced. Placing reliance on evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 stated to have been corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.13 and other incriminating circumstances trial court held the prosecution to have proved the charge against the appellant. 6. In assailing the impugned judgment it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 being closely related to the deceased, learned Sessions Judge should not have relied solely upon their evidence to sustain the charge against the appellant. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the State placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and medical evidence of P.W.13 as well as circumstance of recovery and seizure of axe M.O.I in order to support the impugned judgment. 8. Homicidal death of the deceased is neither disputed nor is disputable. P.W.13 while conducting post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased found as many as eight incised injuries. There were corresponding fractures of occipital and parietal bones and also laceration of the brain. P.W.13 opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to severe internal bleeding and damage to brain causing shock and death. On a query made by the Investigating Officer, P.W.13 examined axe M.O.I and opined that injuries on the deceased could be possible by it. Evidence of P.W.13 remained unassailed as he was declined to be cross-examined by the defence. 9. Informant P.W.1 stated in evidence that at the time of occurrence she along with the deceased, her mother P.W.2, sister and two children were returning from P.W.2’s house to her father-in-law’s house. On the way appellant appeared suddenly and dealt blows with a Budia (axe) to her husband as a result which deceased died at the spot. Evidence of P.W.1 has not been discredited in any manner in course of cross-examination. On the way appellant appeared suddenly and dealt blows with a Budia (axe) to her husband as a result which deceased died at the spot. Evidence of P.W.1 has not been discredited in any manner in course of cross-examination. P.W.1 further stated to have orally reported regarding the occurrence at the police station and the F.I.R. Ext.1 to have been prepared on the basis of her oral report. Contents of the F.I.R. Ext.1 corroborated evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 testified that P.W.1 had gone to her house prior to the occurrence. On the date of occurrence, she along with P.W.1, deceased and others were going to P.W.1’s father-in-law’s house. Appellant had concealed himself in the jungle. On the way appellant appeared suddenly and killed the deceased by means of a Budia. Being assaulted the deceased died at the spot. Evidence of this witness also has not been discredited in any manner in course of cross-examination. Her evidence as an eyewitness is, therefore, unimpeachable. Evidence of P.W.2 corroborated evidence of P.W.1 and was also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. Evidence of these witnesses cannot be discredited solely on the ground that they happen to be wife and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased. There is no material on record to indicate that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had any motive to implicate the appellant on false accusation. They being close relations of the deceased would normally be the last persons to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate someone. 10. Be that as it may, evidence of the two eyewitnesses was corroborated not only by medical evidence of P.W.13 but also by circumstance of recovery of blood stained axe M.O.I at the instance of the appellant. P.W.14, Investigating Officer, stated in his evidence that while in police custody the appellant revealed that he had concealed the axe M.O.I inside the sand of a stream at a distance of one kilometer from the spot. P.W.14 deposed to have recorded appellant’s disclosure statement Ext.15. He further testified that appellant led him and others to the place of concealment of M.O.I. On appellant’s indication axe M.O.I was recovered from the sand and seized under seizure list Ext.2. P.W.3 corroborated P.W.14 and stated that appellant revealed that he had concealed the weapon of offence axe M.O.I in the sand of the river Samij. Police recorded statement of the appellant. P.W.3 corroborated P.W.14 and stated that appellant revealed that he had concealed the weapon of offence axe M.O.I in the sand of the river Samij. Police recorded statement of the appellant. Thereafter, appellant led them and the Investigating Officer to the exact spot where the axe M.O.I was buried and brought out the axe by removing sand. P.W.14 further deposed to have seized the appellant’s wearing apparels under seizure list Ext.6. It appears from chemical examination report Ext.11 that seized axe M.O.I was found to be stained with human blood of ‘A’ group which was found on deceased’s wearing apparels. Thus, not only evidence of each of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 is found to be free from any infirmity but their ocular testimonies find support from medical evidence as well as other incriminating circumstances. Therefore, the impugned judgment is found to be immune from interference. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The appellant was granted bail by this Court in Misc. Case No.32 of 2006 on 11.1.2007. Trial court is directed to take immediate steps for apprehending the appellant to serve the rest of the sentence. Appeal dismissed.