JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. Case No.343 of 2001/29 of 2001 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2.This is a case of triple murder wherein the accused-appellant has been convicted for having committed murder of his father-in-law (Rajan Pradhan), mother-in-law (Urmila Pradhan) and wife (Subha Pradhan). Informant Duryodhan Pradhan (P.W.1) is the uncle-in-law of the accused-appellant and younger brother of deceased Rajan Pradhan, brother-in-law of deceased Urmila Pradhan and uncle of deceased Subha Pradhan. As narrated by him in the FIR, on 27.10.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. while he was tending the buffalos the accused holding a ‘tangia’ appeared and requested him to take care of his children, as he had killed three persons and proceeding to the Court. To the query made by the informant as to who are they, the accused told the names of the deceased persons and went away towards the jungle. On his way to the spot Lata Pradhan (P.W.2) prohibited him not to proceed further by stating that the accused was moving with a ‘tangia’ after killing the deceased persons. He, however, reached at the spot and seeing the deceased persons lying dead went to the house of Sudam (P.W.3), son of deceased Rajan Pradhan and Urmila Pradhan and brother of deceased Subha Pradhan. As per instruction of Sudam (P.W.3), he went to Kiakata Outpost along with the Gramrakhi (P.W.3) of their village and lodged the FIR. Consequently, the police registered the case, proceeded with the investigation and on its completion laid charge-sheet under Sections 302/201, IPC against the accused-appellant. On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 3.During the trial the accused-appellant took the plea of complete denial and false implication. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses including the doctor and the I.Os. and exhibited 27 documents including the post-mortem report and chemical examination report. 3.During the trial the accused-appellant took the plea of complete denial and false implication. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses including the doctor and the I.Os. and exhibited 27 documents including the post-mortem report and chemical examination report. 4.The trial Court on conclusion of the trial convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life by holding that the circumstantial evidence, such as, extrajudicial confession, presence of blood in the wearing apparels of the accused-appellant and his unnatural conduct in taking kerosene coupled with the eye witness account of P.Ws.2 and 5 clearly prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. It, however, acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 201, IPC with the finding that there was no evidence to hold that the accused-appellant took any steps to destroy the evidence. 5.This Court carefully noted down the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and minutely gone through the LCR including the oral and documentary evidence available therein. As already stated, P.W.1 is the informant of this case and he is not only related to the deceased persons but also the accused. He stated that on the date of occurrence while he was watching cattle at a distance of one mile from his village, he saw the accused going with a ‘tangia’. The accused told him that he was going to surrender before the Court having killed the deceased persons. On his way to the spot he saw Lata (P.W.2), who told him that the accused was roaming with a ‘tangia’. Reaching at the spot he saw the dead bodies lying at the “Ata land” with cut injuries. Then, he proceeded to the house of Sudam (P.W.3) and on his advice went to Kiakata Outpost with the village Gramrakhi and lodged the FIR (Ext.1). Nothing has been elicited by way of cross-examination to discard his evidence. P.W.2 is Lata Pradhan. In her examination-in-chief she deposed that on the material date while taking bath in a tank she heard ‘hullah’ that the accused assaulted to his wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law at ‘Biri Hata’. Then, she along with Laxmi (P.W.5) and Radha went to the spot and found their daughter (Subha) lying alive with bleeding injury and other two were already dead. Being asked by deceased Subha, Laxmi gave her water. Then, she along with Laxmi (P.W.5) and Radha went to the spot and found their daughter (Subha) lying alive with bleeding injury and other two were already dead. Being asked by deceased Subha, Laxmi gave her water. At that time, the accused came with a blood stained tangia and seeing him she out of fear ran away to a distance of 30 to 40 feet. From that place, she saw the accused giving ‘tangia’ blow to the hand of his wife (deceased Subha) stating that it is that hand in which you were asking for water. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit her testimony. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased Rajan and Urmila, brother of the deceased Subha and brother-in-law of the accused. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 27.10.2000 the accused killed his parents and his sister. On that date at 10.00 A.M., Lata (P.W.2) told him that the accused after killing his parents coming towards their house and he should not go to school. Radha and Laxmi, who were coming with Lata, also told him that his parents had been dead and while they were giving water to deceased Subha, the accused came there and dealt ‘tangia’ blow to the hands of deceased Subha. Thereafter, on his request his elder father-Duryodhan (P.W.1) lodged the report at Kiakata Outpost. He further deposed that the accused and deceased Subha used to quarrel and their disputes were settled at the village. In cross-examination he deposed that P.W.1 came from the spot, told him about the incident and then went to the police station. Thereafter, he went to the spot at 1.00 PM with other villagers. He also deposed that three years prior to the incident there was a meeting of Chasa Samaj and they had settled the dispute between the accused and the deceased Subha and Subha lived with accused as per the decision of the meeting. P.W.4 is a witness to inquest. He deposed that in his presence police held inquest over the dead bodies and prepared inquest reports, i.e., Exts.2, 3 and 4 and Exts. 2/1, 3/1 and 4/1 are his signatures. In cross-examination he admitted that the hand of deceased Subha was cut and he noticed four injuries on deceased Subha. P.W.5 is related to both accused and the deceased persons. 2/1, 3/1 and 4/1 are his signatures. In cross-examination he admitted that the hand of deceased Subha was cut and he noticed four injuries on deceased Subha. P.W.5 is related to both accused and the deceased persons. In her examination-in-chief she stated that she heard ‘hullah’ that accused assaulted to his wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law and killed them. So, she along with Radha and Lata went to the spot and by that time her niece (deceased Subha) was alone alive and others were dead. She further deposed that being asked by deceased Subha she gave her water and at that time she saw the accused coming with a bloodstained ‘tangia’ and a cloth. Thereafter, she went to a distance and saw the accused assaulting to the hand of deceased-Subha with that ‘tangia’ by saying that it is that hand in which she was asking for water. In the cross-examination she deposed that no other persons were present when they went to the spot. P.W.6 is a co-villager who stated that while he was coming with his brother Surendra, he saw the accused coming with a ‘tangia’ and being asked by him the accused told that he killed three persons and intended to kill his son and others. P.Ws.7 and 8 are witness to the seizure of bloodstained dearth. P.W.9 is a co-villager and at the relevant time he was the Sarpanch. In his evidence he deposed that 2 to 3 days prior to the occurrence Chaitanya, the accused requested him to settle the dispute between him and his wife (deceased Subha) and he advised the accused to approach the President of the ‘Chasa Samaj’. On the next day, he heard that the accused killed his wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law. P.W.10 is a co-villager and head of the ‘Chasa Samaj’ who corroborates the statement of P.W.9. P.Ws.11 and 14 are witnesses to the seizure of wearing apparrels of the accused and the weapon of offence ‘tangia’ whereas P.Ws.12 and 13, the police personnel are the witnesses to the seizure of wearing apparrels of the deceased persons and the command certificate. P.W.14 specifically stated that the accused while in police custody brought out the ‘tangia’ from the bush and produced it before the I.O., who seized the same. P.W.14 specifically stated that the accused while in police custody brought out the ‘tangia’ from the bush and produced it before the I.O., who seized the same. P.W.15 is the doctor who examined the accused on police requisition and found the smell of kerosene coming out from his face and he was conscious. Ext.10 is his report and Ext.10/1 is his signature. P.W.16 is the R.I., who prepared the site map. P.W.17 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Saudamini (Subha) and found the following injuries :- “(i)A chopped wound at the middle 1/3rd of right forearm cutting almost full circumference of right forearm leaving aside 1/2” of the skin on post medial aspect. Both bones were cut obliquely with laceration of surrounding muscle. (ii)Incised wound anterior aspect of left thigh at about 9” above left knee of size 4” x 1” x muscle depth tailing towards lateral side. (iii)Incised wound on anterior aspect of left thigh at about 4” above left knee of size 3” x 1” x muscle depth tailing towards lateral side. (iv)Incised wound on medial aspect of left thigh at about 4” above left knee of size 3” x 1” x muscle depth. (v)Incised wound on medial aspect of right thigh at about 5” above right knee of size 3½” x 2” up to bone depth. (vi)Incised wound on posterior aspect of middle portion of right leg of size 2” x 2” x bone depth and tibia bone is cut. (vii)Incised wound on posterior aspect of right leg 3” below injury no.(vi) of size 3” x 2” x bone depth and tibia bone is cut. P.W.18 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Urmila Pradhan and found the following injuries :- “(i)Incised wound of size 2½” x ½” to the brain deep on the vertex saggital placed. Brain matters come out through the wound. (ii)Chopped wound of size 2½ x ½” x bone deep femur bone divided into two pieces at upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rd junction of lateral aspect of thigh. Muscle lateral aspect lacerated. (iii)Lacertaed wound 1” x ½” x ½” 6 cm above the first wound of thigh, muscle lacerated. (iv)Trailing incised wound medially 1” x ½” x ½” back of left chest 3 cm below the angle of scapula. Entire costal muscles partially cut. Muscle lateral aspect lacerated. (iii)Lacertaed wound 1” x ½” x ½” 6 cm above the first wound of thigh, muscle lacerated. (iv)Trailing incised wound medially 1” x ½” x ½” back of left chest 3 cm below the angle of scapula. Entire costal muscles partially cut. (v)Distal phalanx of middle finger is cut and detached from right hand. Both the doctors (P.Ws.17 and 18) have opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries to vital organs of the body. Both of them have also examined the weapon of offence, i.e., axe and opined that the injuries found by them could be possible by the same. P.W.19, who at the relevant point of time was the ASI of police attached to Kiakata Outpost, has deposed that on 27.10.2000 at 4.00 PM he received the written report (Ext.1), entered the fact in the Outpost Station Dairy, took up preliminary investigation and sent the report to Athamallik Police Station for registration. During investigation he examined the complainant and other witnesses, visited the spot and thereafter on the same day at 7.00 PM P.W.21 took up the charge of investigation from him. P.W.21 deposed that on receipt of charge of investigation he re-examined the complainant and other witnesses, registered the case under Section 302, IPC, visited the spot, seized the blood stained earth, sample earth from near the dead bodies of the deceased persons and sent the same for post-mortem, sent the accused for medical examination, as he had taken poison, seized the wearing apparels of accused so also the deceased persons and sent the same for chemical examination. On 12.01.2001, he made over the charge of investigation to the C.I. of Police, Athamallik (P.W.22) as per direction of the S.P., Angul. P.W.22 deposed that on 12.01.2001 he took up the charge of investigation from P.W.21 on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302/309/201, IPC. P.W.20 is the Executive Magistrate who deposed that on police requisition he recorded the confessional statement of the accused. Ext.21 is the said confessional statement and Ext.21/1 is he signature of the accused and Ext.21/2 is his signature. In his cross-examination he deposed that he recorded the statement in the hospital. P.W.20 is the Executive Magistrate who deposed that on police requisition he recorded the confessional statement of the accused. Ext.21 is the said confessional statement and Ext.21/1 is he signature of the accused and Ext.21/2 is his signature. In his cross-examination he deposed that he recorded the statement in the hospital. 6.On evaluation of the evidence on record this Court finds that P.Ws.2 and 5 are witnesses to a part of the occurrence inasmuch as both of them in their evidence have categorically deposed to have seen the accused giving ‘tangia’ blow to deceased Subha and at that time other two deceased persons were lying there dead. Both of them have successfully passed the test of cross-examination. Merely because they are related to the deceased persons, it cannot be presumed that they are interested for successful termination of the prosecution case, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. In this regard, it is apposite to indicate here that near relatives of the deceased are the best witnesses because it is not expected from them to leave the real assailant and implicate an innocent person in the crime. 7.Apart from the above, the accused himself has confessed his guilt, as is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 20. P.W.1 deposed that on the date of occurrence he was watching cattle at a distance of one mile from his village. At that time, the accused came by holding a ‘tangia’ and told him that he had killed all the deceased persons and going to surrender before the Court. The evidence of P.W.6 is that on the fateful date he saw the accused coming with a ‘tangia’ and being questioned by him the accused confessed before him that he had already killed three persons and intended to kill his son and others. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discard the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.20 is the Executive Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the accused (Ext.21) while he was being treated at the hospital. Merely because P.W.20 in his evidence has stated that the condition of the accused was serious while recording his statement, it cannot be said that his evidence is unreliable, in view of the evidence of P.W.15, the doctor who had examined the accused, that the accused was conscious. Merely because P.W.20 in his evidence has stated that the condition of the accused was serious while recording his statement, it cannot be said that his evidence is unreliable, in view of the evidence of P.W.15, the doctor who had examined the accused, that the accused was conscious. Furthermore, the tenor of Ext.21 would show that the accused narrated before P.W.20 the true state of affairs voluntarily without any coercion. In Ext.21 there is nothing to raise any suspicion. This apart, P.W.20 being the Executive Magistrate had no axe of grind against the accused. A cumulative reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 20 so also Ext.21 would go to show that the accused had confessed his guilt after committing the crime. From the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10, who are respectively the Sarpanch and Leader of ‘Chasa Samaj’, it reveals that there was ill-felling between the deceased persons and the accused prior to the occurrence and the accused had come to them for settlement. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.15, the doctor who had examined the accused on 28.10.2000, that although in his examination-in-chief he stated that the smell of kerosene was emanating from the face of the accused, in cross-examination he admitted that the accused had taken poison. This unnatural conduct of the accused and the ill-feeling between him and the deceased persons strengthens the complicity of the accused in the crime. Chemical Examination Report reveals that human blood was detected from the wearing apparels of the accused, but to that effect no explanation has been given by the accused. 8.For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, there is hardly any scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9.In the result therefore the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed by upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant. B.K. MISRA, J.I agree. Appeal dismissed.