JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No.63-D of 1996 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2.The prosecution case is that the deceased was giving 'Ayurvedic' medicines to the accused. As the ailment of the accused could not be cured, he suspected that the deceased was practising witchcraft on him and for that bore grudge on him. It is alleged that on account of such grudge while on 02.02.1996 the deceased was working in his agricultural field, the accused dealt successive blows by a Tabla (Tangia) on his neck, as a result of which the deceased died. It is also alleged that about one month prior to the occurrence the accused had threatened to kill the deceased. On the basis of the written report lodged by P.W.1, the son of the deceased, a case was registered and investigation taken up. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. 3.On receipt of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The trial Court framed charge under Section 302, IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. and exhibited 12 documents in evidence in order to substantiate the charge. The appellant examined one witness in support of his plea. The trial Court on conclusion of trial convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life coming to hold that ocular testimony of P.W.2 coupled with the post occurrence evidence of P.W.3 and the medical evidence available on record establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 4.Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence inter alia on the grounds that P.W.2 being agnatic brother of the deceased is an interested witness. He had not seen the occurrence and as would be evident from his evidence he is trying to project himself as an eyewitness for successful termination of the prosecution. Prusty, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence inter alia on the grounds that P.W.2 being agnatic brother of the deceased is an interested witness. He had not seen the occurrence and as would be evident from his evidence he is trying to project himself as an eyewitness for successful termination of the prosecution. P.W.3 is a chance witness and therefore no credence can be attached to his post occurrence evidence. Furthermore, there was delay in examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 by the police and to that effect no explanation has been put forth, for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. Moreover, P.Ws.2 and 3 had not disclosed before anybody about the occurrence till they were examined by police, for which their evidence is to be viewed with suspicion. He also submits that evidence of a defence witness deserves equal consideration as that of a prosecution witness, but in the instant case the learned trial judge without giving due weightage to the evidence of D.W.1 has convicted the appellant. Therefore, it is a fit case where this Court should interfere and set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the trial Court. 5.Mr. Sk. Zafuralla, learned Addl.Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the evidence of P.W.2, the ocular witness, does not suffer from any infirmity and has remained unshaken despite thorough cross-examination. On the ground of relationship his evidence cannot be thrown out of consideration. In his evidence he has clearly narrated that while he was returning from his field found the accused dealing successive blows by means of a Tabala (Tangia) on the deceased from behind his (deceased's) back. P.W.3 corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 by stating that while taking bath in a tank he heard the shout of P.W.2 and having rushed to the spot saw the accused running away with an axe and the deceased lying with cut injuries. The doctor P.W.4 also supported the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the assault by Tabala (Tangia). Chemical examination report also reveals that human blood was detected from the weapon of offence, i.e., Tabla (Tangia) but no explanation has been offered by the appellant. Therefore, this is not a fit case to interfere. 6.Perused the L.C.R. and minutely gone through the oral and documentary evidence. Chemical examination report also reveals that human blood was detected from the weapon of offence, i.e., Tabla (Tangia) but no explanation has been offered by the appellant. Therefore, this is not a fit case to interfere. 6.Perused the L.C.R. and minutely gone through the oral and documentary evidence. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and a post occurrence witness. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on the date of occurrence his father (deceased) had gone to harvest 'Chana' in their field and at about 9.30 A.M. one Majhi Pradhan came and told him that somebody had killed his father and his dead body was lying in the 'Chana' field. He along with his mother Balabati, brother Bibeka and one Sampatia immediately went to the spot and found his father lying dead sustaining 5 to 6 cut injuries on his body. He brought his deceased father to their house, went to Parjang police station and lodged the FIR (Ext.1). He also deposed that the police conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ext.2) in his presence. In cross-examination he stated that P.W.2 is his father's elder brother and after the death of his father not looking after their family affairs and they are not pulling on well with P.W.2 since long. P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the deceased and a witness to the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief he stated that his brother (deceased) died on 02.02.1996. On that date he and the deceased had been to their respective 'Chana' fields for uprooting 'Chana' plants. At about 9.00 A.M. when he was returning from his 'Chana' field he saw the accused dealing successive blows by means of a 'Tabla' (Tangia) to the deceased standing at his (deceased's) back when he was uprooting 'Chana' plants sitting in the field facing towards the eastern direction. After dealing four blows by that 'Tangia', the accused ran away from the spot with that 'Tangia'. He raised shout hearing which P.W.3 arrived at the spot. In cross-examination he admitted that his 'Chana' land situates nearby the 'Chana' land of the deceased. He also admitted that seeing the dead body of his brother he went to his house and lost his sense. He regained his sense on the next day. P.W.3 is a post occurrence witness and co-villager of the accused and the deceased. In cross-examination he admitted that his 'Chana' land situates nearby the 'Chana' land of the deceased. He also admitted that seeing the dead body of his brother he went to his house and lost his sense. He regained his sense on the next day. P.W.3 is a post occurrence witness and co-villager of the accused and the deceased. His evidence is that on the date of occurrence at about 9.00 A.M. he was taking bath in the tank. At that time, P.W.2 shouted and hearing his shout he went to the spot and saw the accused Bairagi running away with the Tabala (Tangia) and the deceased lying with severe cut injuries. In cross-examination he admitted that the 'Chana' land where the deceased was uprooting 'Chana' would be about one Mile from his house and the distance between the said 'Chana' land where he was taking bath would be about 50 meters. He also admitted that seeing the deceased he went back to his house and on the way he did not narrate the incident to anybody. P.W.5 is a witness to the seizure. He deposed that in his presence police seized the weapon of offence, i.e., Tabla (Tangia) and prepared seizure list (Ex.6). He proved the seizure list (Ext.6) and identified the said weapon of offence in Court marked M.O.I. He further stated that in his presence police also seized sample earth, blood stained earth and one red napkin under seizure list (Ext.7). In cross-examination he admitted that at the time of occurrence he was the Sarpanch of the Panchayat and his house situated at a distance of half a kilometre from the house of the deceased. P.W.4 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries :- ''(1)The neck was cut in both sides and back including muscles, vessels and bones. The anterior portion of the neck was preserved only. The neck was cut by sharp cutting weapon. The neck was almost chapped off except the anterior portion. (2) There was incised injury of size 4 1/2'' x 2'' x 2'' just above the right scapula region caused by sharp cutting weapon. The anterior portion of the neck was preserved only. The neck was cut by sharp cutting weapon. The neck was almost chapped off except the anterior portion. (2) There was incised injury of size 4 1/2'' x 2'' x 2'' just above the right scapula region caused by sharp cutting weapon. (3) Incised injury of size 3'' x 1 1/2 x 2'' on left shoulder joint caused by sharp cutting weapon.'' He opined that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock and as a result of the above described injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The injuries he found are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also opined that the Tangia (M.O.I.) was produced before him and on examination he found that the injuries on the body of the deceased were possibly caused with that M.O.I. P.W.6 is the O.I.C. of Parjang police station, who registered the case, conducted inquest over the dead body, sent the same for post-mortem examination, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused, seized the weapon of offence in presence of the witnesses and also seized the wearing apparels of the accused and sent the same for chemical examination to Forensic Laboratory and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 302, I.P.C. 9.Defence examined one Niranjan Sahu, a co-villager, as D.W.1. In his examination-in-chief he stated that P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. On the relevant day, he had been to his land with sheep. He returned home at about 9.30 to 10.00 AM and on his way he saw P.W.2 was armed with a Tabla (Tangia) stained with blood. When he asked P.W.2, the latter did not listen to him and went away. He further deposed that the Mundabondha Chhak land, where the deceased was murdered, belonged to both the deceased and P.W.2 but was in possession of the deceased. For that land, both P.W.2 and the deceased used to quarrel with each other and also indulged in assault and counter assault. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not made any statement before police in connection with murder of the deceased and that the above fact he had not disclosed to anybody and for the first time he was disclosing before the Court. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not made any statement before police in connection with murder of the deceased and that the above fact he had not disclosed to anybody and for the first time he was disclosing before the Court. He also admitted that the accused was pulling on well with him and when he heard that the accused would be convicted in this case he immediately came to the Court and disclosed the real fact what he knew. 10.On scrutinizing the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the death of the deceased was homicidal. Now, it is to be seen whether appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. P.W.1, the son of the deceased, deposed that the appellant had been taking 'Ayurvedic' medicines from his father (deceased). As his ailment was not cured, prior to the occurrence the appellant had threatened to kill the deceased. P.W.2 testified that on the date of occurrence both he and the deceased had been to their respective patches of land for uprooting 'Chana' (peanuts) plants. While returning from his land at about 9.00 AM, P.W.2 saw accused-appellant dealing successive blows by means of a 'Tabala' on the deceased from his (deceased's) behind. His specific evidence is that accused by means of a 'Tabala' dealt four blows on the deceased and thereafter ran away from the spot. This part of his evidence is fully corroborated by P.W.2, who stated that while taking bath in a tank he heard the shout of P.W.2, rushed to the land of the deceased and saw the accused going away with an axe whereas the deceased was lying with cut injuries. The doctor (P.W.4), who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found multiple injuries, which supported the evidence of P.W.2. He also opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be possible by M.O.I., i.e., 'Tabala' (Tangia). The seizure of M.O.I. by the I.O. from the accused has been proved by P.W.5. The said M.O.I. was found containing human blood, as is evident from the chemical examination report, but no explanation has been offered by the accused as to how human blood came to M.O.I. which was seized from his possession. The seizure of M.O.I. by the I.O. from the accused has been proved by P.W.5. The said M.O.I. was found containing human blood, as is evident from the chemical examination report, but no explanation has been offered by the accused as to how human blood came to M.O.I. which was seized from his possession. Although D.W.1 in his evidence stated to have found P.W.2 moving with a 'Tabala' (tangia) stained with blood, in view of his admission that he had not made any statement before police, even though he had seen them coming to their village for investigation in connection with murder of the deceased, and that the above fact he had not disclosed to anybody and for the first time he was disclosing before the Court and that the accused was pulling on well with him and when he heard that the accused would be convicted in this case he immediately came to the Court and disclosed the real fact what he knew, it is difficult to place reliance on his evidence. Furthermore, no such plea having been taken by the accused nor any such suggestion having been put to any of the witnesses, the plea led through D.W.1 that P.W.2 committed murder of the deceased is not acceptable being afterthought. 11.Taking into consideration the aforesaid direct and circumstantial evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Merely because P.W.2, the ocular witness, is the brother of the deceased his evidence cannot be discarded, as his evidence has stood judicial scrutiny and inspires confidence. P.W.3, the immediate post occurrence witness, cannot be termed as a chance witness. Even if it is accepted that P.W.3 is a chance witness, his evidence cannot be rejected, as satisfactory explanation has been given to account for his arrival at the place of occurrence at the time while the appellant was fleeing away after committing the murder. P.Ws.2 and 3 having been examined by the police on the next day of the occurrence, in fact there was no unreasonable delay in recording their statement. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have no force. 12.For the foregoing discussions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal S.T. Case No.63-D of 1996. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have no force. 12.For the foregoing discussions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal S.T. Case No.63-D of 1996. Hence, the JCRLA is dismissed being devoid of merits. B.K. MISRA, J.I agree. JCRLA dismissed.