JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.247 of 2000 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2.The prosecution case is that on 13.06.2000 at about 4 O’ clock in the afternoon deceased Bisu Hembram was standing in front of his house. At that time, accused Sada @ Rental Hembram rushed towards him and picking up a piece of wood used for making charpoy assaulted deceased on his head successively. Suddenly, deceased fell down on the ground. His wife and mother brought him inside the house. In the mid-night, he succumbed to the injury. On the basis of the oral report lodged by Nrusingha Soren (P.W.3), Indramani Si (P.W.7), the then O.I.C. of Harichandanpur P.S. took up investigation. During investigation, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, challaned the dead body for post-mortem, made relevant seizures, arrested the accused, sent the seized articles for chemical examination through Court and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet U/s. 302 I.P.C. against the accused. 3.On receipt of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed for trial. During trial the prosecution besides examining seven witnesses exhibited twelve documents in order to substantiate the charge. The defence did not choose to adduce either any oral or documentary evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, convicted the accused for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, the medical evidence of P.W.6 and other incriminating circumstances available on record. 4.Mr. Mallik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the judgment on the following grounds : (i)P.W.2, the solitary eye-witness, being the widow of the deceased is an interested witness and in absence of any corroboration from independent source no reliance can be placed on her evidence. (ii)For non-examination of Jabuna Hembram, the mother-in-law of P.W.2, adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution, as according to P.W.2 the said Jabuna Hembram was present at the time of occurrence. (iii)Extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W.4 in presence of the Grama Rakhi is not admissible being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (iii)Extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W.4 in presence of the Grama Rakhi is not admissible being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (iv)In the alternative, for the act committed the accused cannot be liable for punishment under Section 302, IPC and at the worst he may be liable for punishment under Section 304, IPC. 5.Mr. Zafuralla, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand contends that the evidence of P.W.2 is very clear and cogent. She is a witness to the occurrence. Her evidence coupled with the medical evidence clearly proves the guilt of the accused. The accused also confessed before P.W.4 about the occurrence. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction does not warrant interference by this Court. 6.Perused the LCR and gone through the oral and documentary evidence available therein. P.W.1 is the police Havildar who took the dead body for post-mortem and produced the wearing apparels of the deceased the command certificate before the Investigating Officer, who seized the same under Ext.1. P.W.2 is the widow of the deceased and an ocular witness. She specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence, her husband was standing in front of their house. The accused rushed in, picked up a piece of wood (used to prepare charpoy) lying in front of their house and assaulted on the head of her husband successively. As a result, her husband fell down. She rushed to the rescue of her husband and administered water to him. She brought her husband to the house and he succumbed to the injury around midnight. P.W.3, the informant, is a co-villager of both accused and deceased. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on the date of occurrence at about 5 to 6 P.M., P.W.2 came and informed him that the accused assaulted her husband on his head by a piece of wood used for making charpoy and also requested him to report the matter in the police station. On the next day morning, he went to the police station and orally reported the matter. His report was reduced to writing in Ext.2. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had no direct knowledge about the incident. P.W.4 is a co-villager of both accused and deceased. He has stated that the village Chawkia called him to show the house of the accused. His report was reduced to writing in Ext.2. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had no direct knowledge about the incident. P.W.4 is a co-villager of both accused and deceased. He has stated that the village Chawkia called him to show the house of the accused. Thereafter, he along with Maheswar Patra accompanied the village Chawkia (Grama Rakhi) to the house of the accused. Then, the accused was sleeping on a charpoy in front of his house. On being asked by the village Chawkia, accused confessed before them that consistently the deceased was quarrelling and assaulting him on the allegation that he stolen his paddy. Out of anger, he assaulted the deceased. He also told that when deceased assaulted him, he counter assaulted the deceased. In cross-examination, he admitted that Bisu (deceased) used to assault the accused during quarrel or altercation between them and the accused was also assaulting Bisu in course of their quarrels preceding the occurrence. P.W.5 is a co-villager and a seizure witness. P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries : “(1) Lacerated injury on mid-forehead of size 3” x 1” x 1”. (2) Lacerated injury on right temporal region of size 3” x 1” ½” x ½.” (3)Lacerated injury on chin of size 2" x 1" x ½.” He opined that all the injuries were antemortem in nature and might have been caused by blunt and hard object. External Injury Nos. 1 & 2 with their corresponding internal injury were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Cause of death was injury to vital organ like brain causing haemorrhage and shock. He also opined that the injuries described in the post-mortem report could be caused by M.O.I., which was produced before him for examination. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries detailed in the post-mortem report could be possible if a person falls on a heap of stones/boulders with sufficient force. P.W.7 is Officer-in-Charge of Harichandanpur Police Station, who registered the case, examined the witnesses, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, seized the weapon of offence M.O.I. as well as the Bloodstained “Patia” (mat) of the accused and on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused. 7.On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence this Court noticed that P.W.2 is a witness to the occurrence. 7.On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence this Court noticed that P.W.2 is a witness to the occurrence. In her evidence she has narrated the incident in a very clear and transparent manner. She has testified that the accused by means of M.O.I. assaulted on the head of her husband successively. A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as interested. ‘Interested’ refers to a witness who has some direct interest in having the accused convicted somehow or the other. Evidence of P.W.2 has stood judicial scrutiny and inspires confidence. The relationship of P.W.2 by itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence as unworthy of credit in absence of other circumstances to detract from the evidentiary value of her testimony. P.W.2 is a rustic ‘Adibasi’ woman and the ‘Adibasis’ are known for their simple life and dealings. So, it is unexpected on her part to implicate an innocent person at the cost of the real culprit. Furthermore, testimony of a solitary witness, if found to be clear and cogent and an unimpeachable character, is sufficient to establish a criminal charge. The evidence of P.W.2 gets ample corroboration from the evidence of the post-mortem doctor P.W.6. P.W.3 has supported the evidence of P.W.2 by stating that P.W.2 informed him about the occurrence at about 5.00 PM and requested him to lodge a report at the P.S. The so-called confession of the accused before P.W.4 having been made present of the ‘Grama Rakhi’, no reliance can be placed on such evidence. But, however, relying upon the clear, cogent and unimpeachable ocular testimony of P.W.2, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence, conviction can be sustained, even if the evidence of extrajudicial confession is disbelieved. The appellant having failed to examine Jabuna Hembram under Section 311, Cr.P.C. he cannot expect from the Court to draw adverse inference against the prosecution for her non-examination. 8.The next question that arises for consideration is whether accused-appellant is liable for punishment under Section 302, IPC or Section 304, IPC. From the evidence of P.W.2 it is found that the accused came in front of their house, picked up M.O.I. and dealt successive blows on the head of the deceased. 8.The next question that arises for consideration is whether accused-appellant is liable for punishment under Section 302, IPC or Section 304, IPC. From the evidence of P.W.2 it is found that the accused came in front of their house, picked up M.O.I. and dealt successive blows on the head of the deceased. The severance of assault is manifested from the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased by the post-mortem doctor P.W.6, who has specifically opined that the successive blows on the head of the deceased have resulted in fracture of both temporal and parietal bone of the deceased. Having regard to the size and weight of M.O.I., the place of assault, i.e., head, which is a vital part of the body, and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, it can be safely inferred that the accused-appellant had intention to kill the deceased and, therefore, he is liable for punishment under Section 302, IPC. 9.For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed being bereft of merits. B.K. MISRA, J.I agree. Appeal dismissed.