JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dtd. 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Gunupur in C.T. No. 40 of 2002 convicting the appellant u/s 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.4.2002 the informant-P.W.5 who is the son of the deceased-Purushottam Patra of Village-Bissam Cuttack made a written report before the S. 1 of Police, Bissam Cuttack Police Station stating therein that on that day at about 6.00 P.M. when he was at Bissam Cuttack Bazar his mother called him by shouting that some persons are assaulting his father. Thereafter P.W.5 rushed to the house from the bazaar side to know the incident, followed by his friends P.W.8 and some others. They entered into the house and found that one 'Dibiri' was burning and two unknown persons were assaulting the father of the informant with crow bar and chapel, as a result of which informant's father fell down and succumbed to the injuries. There was profuse bleeding from the head of the deceased and a plastic rope has been tied around the neck. Seeing the informant and others one of the accused namely Man bhanjan Mishra fled away and the present appellant was caught red-handed. On the basis of the F.I.R., lodged by the informant-P.W.5, Bissam Cuttack P.S. Case No. 38 of 2002 was registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Sections 302 /34 of I.P.C. against the appellant and the absconding accused. 2. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited several documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 17. The materials seized were marked as M.O. I to M.O. XVII. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.5 was the informant. P.W.8 was the eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.6 is the mother of the informant. P.W.7 was a witness to the inquest. P.W.1 was the then Constable attached to Bissam Cuttack Police Station and was a witness to the seizure some articles. P.W.2 was a witness to the seizure. P.W.4 was the Constable, who carried the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.5 was the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination. P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer. P.W.7 was a witness to the inquest. P.W.1 was the then Constable attached to Bissam Cuttack Police Station and was a witness to the seizure some articles. P.W.2 was a witness to the seizure. P.W.4 was the Constable, who carried the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.5 was the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination. P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer. The plea of the appellant was complete denial of the prosecution case. The appellant neither has examined any witness nor has he exhibited any document. 3. The trial court analyzing the evidence of the witnesses found the appellant and the absconding accused guilty under Sections 302 /34 of I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though P.Ws. 5, 6 and 8 were the eyewitness to the occurrence but they have not stated before the Investigating Officer that the present appellant assaulted the deceased by means of a crowbar. He further submits that P.W. 6 has specifically stated in her evidence that after hearing the shout of the deceased she came to the spot, therefore, the accused persons assaulted the deceased after a sudden quarrel between the deceased and them. He also submits that the appellant has assaulted the deceased without any motive or intention and the incident took place at the spur of the moment, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for the offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. and at best can be held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 304, Part-I of I.P.C. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the trial court on analyzing the material available on record accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6, and 8 who were eyewitnesses to the occurrence, as their evidence corroborated to each other and accordingly by the impugned judgment rightly found the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 302 /34 of I.P.C. Therefore, the same may not be interfered with. 6. After going through the materials available on record, it appears that P.W.4, the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination has found the following injuries on the deceased: i) Deep laceration (anti mortem 1/2 inch X 1/2" X 1/2" with fracture of the first phalanex of left index finger. ii) Laceration (ante mortem) of size 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/2" over the scalp with hamotoma adhered 2 1/2" back of the right ear. ii) Laceration (ante mortem) of size 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/2" over the scalp with hamotoma adhered 2 1/2" back of the right ear. iii) Laceration (ante mortem) of size 2" X 1/2" X 1/2" over scalp on the middle part blood cloths adhered. iv) Laceration (ante mortem) over scalp of size 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/2" over the scalp 2" below the third injury. v) Laceration (ante mortem) over scalp 1/3" X 1/2" X 1/2" over the occipital region. vi) Bruise (ante mortem) 1/2" X 1/4" over right shoulder. vii) Bruise (ante mortem) over forehead size 1" X 1/4" horizontal situated. viii) Abrasion ante mortem 2" X 1/2" just below to behind the left shoulder. ix) Abrasion ante mortem on back 1" X 1" irregular. x) External injuries of ligature mark (ante mortem) deep seated in the neck over the thyroled cartilage in two nos. parallel to each other. No mark of the knot seen. The ligature mark is found round in shape. P.W.4 has also stated that he found internal cerebral hemorrhage over the right parietal region of the brain 2" X 2" in size. The large vessels of neck pressed due to the ligature mark. There was blood stained mucoid discharge from mouth right angle and from the right nostril. P.W.4 has further stated that the death is homicidal and the injuries are ante mortem in nature. The cause of death is due to head injury causing shock the ante mortem ligature mark leading to cardio resperating arrest. In view of the evidence of P.W.4 that the death is homicidal, this Court is to examine the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 8, who were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It appears from the evidence of P.W.5 that he was at Bissam Cuttack Bazar and his mother-P.W.6 came running and told him that his father was assaulted by some person. Hearing that immediately he came to the spot and found the present appellant along with another (since absconded) assaulting his father by means of a crowbar and a plastic rope which was tied to the neck of the deceased. Seeing P.W.5 and his friends, the accused persons tried to escape from the spot and the absconded accused succeeded. However, the appellant was caught red-handed. Thereafter, they informed the police and the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant. This submission of P.W.5 has been corroborated by P.Ws. 7 and 8. Seeing P.W.5 and his friends, the accused persons tried to escape from the spot and the absconded accused succeeded. However, the appellant was caught red-handed. Thereafter, they informed the police and the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant. This submission of P.W.5 has been corroborated by P.Ws. 7 and 8. P.W.8 is the friend of P.W.5, who has caught hold the present appellant. On cross-examination of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 8 the defence was not able to succeed to discard their evidence, therefore, the prosecution has proved the guilty of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dtd. 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Gunupur in C.T. No. 40 of 2002 convicting the appellant u/s 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The CRLA is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed