JUDGMENT : VINOD PRASAD, J. Challenge in this appeal by the sole appellant-Mangala Gouda, who is the husband of the deceased, is to the impugned judgment of his conviction dated 30.09.2005 for offence under Sec. 302 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to serve six months additional rigorous imprisonment recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, in Crl. Trl. NO.1 0 of 2005. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the charge against the appellant is that on 9.9.2004 at 2 P.M. he has committed uxoricide by murdering his wife Bimala Gauda, in their house by slicing her neck with a knife for the motive that appellant had extra marital relationship with another woman for which deceased had declined to prepare meals for him. This murder was reported to Balram Gauda/P.W.6, elder son of the appellant and the deceased, in the cashew nut field by his younger brother Purna Gauda/P.W.2 and in turn P.W.6 reported the incident to Ward Member Smt. Sombari Polai/P.W.4, who got the FIR, slated through her husband Gopinath Polai/P.W.5 an"d then she lodged it same day at 4 P.M. at. Koraput Town Police Station after tramping a distance of 5 Kms. Officer-in-charge Koraput P.S. Hemant Kumar Pandhi/P.W.7, who is the I.O. of the crime, immediately commenced investigation into the incident, during course of which he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest memo, Ext. 3, slated down the interrogative statements under /Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. of the informant and the witnesses, collected blood stained and sample plain earths from the spot vide seizure memo Ext. 4, seized weapon of assault, i.e. knife lying at the spot and prepared it's seizure memo, Ext. 8 and sketched spot map, Ext. 7. Cadaver of the deceased was dispatched for autopsy through constable Bhagaban Bhotra with command certificate Ext. 1. Dead body chalan is Ext. 9. Subsequently the 1.0. got information from Gopinath Polai on 10.9.2004 that the present appellant-accused had also attempted to commit suicide by jumping from the roof of a railway cabin and had sustained fracture of his right leg and was admitted in the hospital and there he was arrested by the I.O. Autopsy on the deceased corpse was performed by Dr. Kedarnath Choudhury/P.W.8 on 10.9.2004 at 10 A.M. Rigor mortis present over the dead body. Kedarnath Choudhury/P.W.8 on 10.9.2004 at 10 A.M. Rigor mortis present over the dead body. From doctor's deposition it is evident that the deceased had sustained one deep stab wound on the left side of the beck about 10 C.M. away from the root of the neck. The wound was 25 C.M. deep and 5 C.M. in length with 2 C.M. width extending from the root of the neck down to the shoulder and media stinum. It had cut the muscles of the root of the neck and also the internal carotid artery of the left side. The wound had pierced through the apex portion of upper lobe of left lung cutting the left lung. There was huge collection of bl009 in the left mediastival cavity. The cut had also fractured the first and second ribs of the left side. According to doctor the injury was possible by a sharp cutting weapon and was ante-mortem in nature and cause of deceased death was haemorrage and shock as there was cut of the internal cartoid artery and upper part of left lung with huge collection of blood. The 'injury was on the vital part of the body, which was grave in nature and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Having found sufficient evidence and prima facie case for prosecuting the appellant, 1.0./P.W.7 Charge Sheeted the appellant under Section 302, IPC. 3. In usual course, observing the criminal trial procedure, case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial, where it was registered as Criminal Trial No.10 of 2005. Appellant was charged with the offence under Sec. 302, IPC and since he abjured that charge, to establish his guilt, his prosecution for that offence commenced. 4. During course of trial, prosecution, in an endeavour to establish the charge against the accused appellant, examined .in all eight witnesses, out of •whom Purna Gouda/P.W.2 and Mahima Gouda/P.W.3, son and daughter-in-law of the deceased as well as of the appellant, appeared as eye witnesses to the incident. Elder son of the appellant and the deceased Balram Gauda/P.W.6, who is the husband of P.W.4, also testified against the appellant father. Dr. Kedarnath Choudhury/P.W.8 had performed autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased. Hemanta Kumar Padhi/P.W. 7 is the I.O. Samari Paleil P.W.4, Ward Member is the informant and her husband Gopinath Palei/P.W.5 is the scriber of the FIR. Elder son of the appellant and the deceased Balram Gauda/P.W.6, who is the husband of P.W.4, also testified against the appellant father. Dr. Kedarnath Choudhury/P.W.8 had performed autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased. Hemanta Kumar Padhi/P.W. 7 is the I.O. Samari Paleil P.W.4, Ward Member is the informant and her husband Gopinath Palei/P.W.5 is the scriber of the FIR. 5. Learned trial Judge after scanning through the evidences, both oral and documentary and after getting through facts and circumstances, concluded through the impugned judgment and order that prosecution had successfully anointed appellants guilt convincingly and therefore, convicted him for the framed charge of murder under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) and in default to undergo additional six months R.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the aforesaid conviction and sentence. 6. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, that we have heard Sri J.K.Panda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sk. Zafarulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State for and against this appeal. 7. Assailing and castigating impugned trial Court's order, appellant's counsel incisively urged that prosecution version is full of discrepancies galore and do not inspire confidence and consequently appellant's conviction is unsustainable and in any view the offence established will not traverse purview of Section 304, Part-IIPC. Articulating the submissions and elaborating it, learned counsel harangued that the incident was preceded by an altercation and all of a sudden in the heat of moment loosing self control that the appellant had inflicted a single blow and therefore, guilt of the appellant will not be covered Within the purview of Section 302 IPC and in support of the said submission, learned counsel relied upon decisions in Birbara Kandi v. State of Orissa, (2014) 57 OCR 249 : 2013 (Supp.-I/) OLR 885 and Madkami v. State of Orissa, 1995 Cri.L.J. 1484. 8. Subhlitting to the contrary, learned Additional Standing Counsel refuted appellant's contentions and argued that close relatives and family members of the appellant, who had no reason to fqlsely implicate him are the eye witnesses of the incident and have nailed in the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime and hence there is total absence of any reason to absolve the appellant of the crime. Motive to commit the murder existed because of illegal infatuated relationship of the appellant and was enough for the appellant to satiate his grouse. Examined from any angle, the guilt is well established and resultantly the appeal lacks merit and be dismissed and impugned decision be concurred. 9. We have weighed the arguments of both the sides and have summated facts and evidences on record critically. Prosecution version as it emerges from the evidences is that the appellant had extra marital relationship with another lady and ranked with that deceased who was his legally wedded wife had refused to cook for him and this had infuriated appellant so much that he had knifed her neck in broad day light inside her house. This incident was witnessed by younger son of the appellant namely Purno Gouda/PW 2and his elder daughter-in-law/wife of his elder son Balram Gauda/PW 6 namely Mahima Gauda/P.W.3. Younger son informed his elder brother P.W.6 at his cashew nut field regarding murder of their mother by the appellant and after seeing the corpse of his mother that P.W.6 narrated the murder to the Ward Member/P.W.4 who got the FIR slated down by her husband and then lodged it at the police station same day at 10 A.M. after covering a distance of 5 KMs. It is thus evinced that slicing of the neck of his wife by the appellant was witnessed by younger son Puma Gouda (P.W.2) and daughter-in-law Mahima Gouda (elder son's wife)/P.W.3, who both had testified against the appellant. Perusal of evidence of P.W.2 revealed that he was an infant at the time of the incident as at the time of giving evidence he was six years of age. To understand his mental faculty, learned trial Judge had taken precautionary steps of examining him by putting certain questions to him to understand his mental faculty and P. W.2 withstood the test of such an examination with clarity and unambiguous understanding. The aforesaid witness in no uncertain terms categorically replied to those questions with lucidity and, therefore, he was found to be fit to give statement in the Court. The aforesaid witness in no uncertain terms categorically replied to those questions with lucidity and, therefore, he was found to be fit to give statement in the Court. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.2 had graphically described the incident and had deposed that on the date and time of the occurrence, i.e on Thursday, at 2 P.M., when he was sitting with his mother and elder brother's wife inside their house, appellant arrived there threatening his mother and suddenly stabbed his mother on the left side of her neck with a knife. The mother sustained bleeding injury and died at the spot and therefore the appellant ran away from the spot throwing away the knife. Prior to the incident, his mother had taken her lunch. This witness was subjected to searching cross examination but defence had failed to dislodge his testimonies. Very significantly regarding his presence and actual incident this witness was not challenged at all. No questions have been put to this witness (P.W.2) to discredit his otherwise trustworthy and confidence inspiring testimonies. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve him as an eye witness to the incident. He' is the son of both the deceased and the appellant and there was total absence of any reason to falsely implicate his father in the murder incident of his mother. Appellant counsel also could not indicate any sustainable reason for us to discard his evidence and ultimately reconciled that P.W. 2 is a trustworthy and reliable witness. In view of aforesaid, since we find that evidence of P.W.2 cannot be discredited, therefore, no reason emerges to absolve the appellant of the crime committed by him. Out view further is authenticated by the fact that another eye witness Mahima Gauqa/P.W.3, daughter-in-law of the appellant and the deceased, has corroborated the son in all material aspects of the incident without spelling out any damaging evidence. Her presence inside the house at the time of the incident is very natural and defence had miserably failed to castigate her evidence. Critical analysis of her evidence also does not indicate any material on the basis of which it can be said that she is not an eye witness to the incident. She had narrated that her husband was on cordial terms with her father-in-law and so she had no motive to fabricate falsehood against the appellant. Critical analysis of her evidence also does not indicate any material on the basis of which it can be said that she is not an eye witness to the incident. She had narrated that her husband was on cordial terms with her father-in-law and so she had no motive to fabricate falsehood against the appellant. Regarding motive there seems to be some contradiction in her statement and, but for that, her evidence is fully corroborative consistent and trustworthy and we are unable to discard her evidence as well. 10. The doctor P.W.8 has specifically stated that the injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death which is glaringly evident from the description of the injury sustained by the deceased. There is little or no doubt that the same was sufficient on ordinary course of nature to cause death, and was on the most vital part of the body. It cannot be argued or assumed even for a moment that the deceased had not died a homicidal death which is a forgone conclusion. In the cross examination of the doctor, not even one question has been put to him regarding such an injury described as above and therefore, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the deceased had died an homicidal' death because of the aforesaid injury inflicted by the appellant. 11. At this juncture, we would like to advert to another contention by the appellant that the crime will not be one of murder under Section 302 IPC, but will be within the ambit of Section 304, Part-I, IPC. We are unable to subscribe to the said view as in our opinion the said contention must be repelled out right. There was no reason for the appellant to come to the house, where the deceased was lying after having lunch and slice her neck without any rhyme or reason and inflict on her such an injury as has been described above. The motive for committing the crime was also spelt out by the witnesses, wherein it is said that the appellant was having an extra marital relationship with another lady and because of that the wife was not providing food to him and for that reason she had to give her life because of the most despicable act of the appellant. 12. 12. Turning to both the judgments, we do not find that the facts and circumstances in both the decisions were akin to the present case and therefore, we do not consider it necessary to delve deep into the above cited judgments. In none of the two judgments the sons and daughter-in-law were witnesses against their father and father-in-law in the murder incident of their mother and mother-in-law. That apart, every case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances in the light of the evidences adduced in the trial against the accused. In the present case since we find that there was no reason for the sons to tell tale a story against their own father, we find the present appeal to be devoid of merit. 13. The appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed and conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment and order is hereby confirmed. The appellant is in jail, he shall remain in jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Trial Judge for intimation. Appeal dismissed.