JUDGMENT Inder Singh Uboweja, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6-4-2013 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 160/2007, whereby and where under, after holding the appellants guilty for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of Damrudhar in sharing common intention, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of ` 100/- each, in default, additional RI for six months. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 2. As per case of prosecution, deceased-Damrudhar and the appellants are residents of same Village, Baniyagaon. Appellant-Santram and the deceased had inimical terms since long regarding witchcraft being practiced by the deceased. On 16-7-2007 at about 4.30 a.m., in front of house of the deceased, the appellants quarreled with him alleging that he practices witchcraft and threatened to kill him. Deceased-Damrudhar did not come out of his house, thereafter, when he went out to attend nature call and on his return, the appellants, who were laid in waiting near the pond, assaulted the deceased by axe on head, shoulders and back and fled from the spot. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. Rambharose (P.W.5) lodged Merg Intimation No. 50/07, vide Exh. P-12 and FIR vide Exh. P-11. Crime was registered at Crime No. 66/2007. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Exh. P-13, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Exh. P-15. Spot map was prepared vide Exh. P-14. On 16-7-2007, bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Exh. P-18. Bloodstained cloths of deceased were seized vide Exh. P-17. 3. Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to the Civil Hospital Bhanpuri where Dr. A. Kachhap (P.W. 2), conducted autopsy vide Exh. P-2 and found following injuries and symptoms:-- "(i) Incised wound of 4" x 2" x 3 cm extending just above the left eye to the middle side of head. Frontal and left parietal bone was cut. Brain material come out. (ii) Incised wound of 6 cm x 1 cm x 2-1/2" cm just rear side of first injury. Left parietal bone was cut. Frontal and left parietal bone was cut. Brain material come out. (ii) Incised wound of 6 cm x 1 cm x 2-1/2" cm just rear side of first injury. Left parietal bone was cut. (iii) Incised wound of 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm over port part of head. Occipital bone was cut. (iv) Incised wound of 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left shoulder joint. (v) Incised wound of 4 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm over upper part of left scapula. (vi) Incised wound of 6 cm x 2-1/2 cm x 3 cm over right upper part of scapula and upper part of scapular bone was cut." Mode of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage as a result of grievous injury and death was homicidal in nature. 4. During the course of investigation, appellant-Sant Kumar was taken into custody. He made disclosure statement of axe and the same was recovered at his instance vide Exh. P-8. Bloodstained clothes of Sant Ram were also seized vide Exh. P-17. Accused persons were arrested and sealed articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL vide Exh. P-24. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Defence has exhibited prosecution documents vide Exh. P-29, Exh. D-1 and Exh. D-2 in their defence. 7. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the Trial Court. 9. Mr. Defence has exhibited prosecution documents vide Exh. P-29, Exh. D-1 and Exh. D-2 in their defence. 7. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the Trial Court. 9. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued that although conviction of the appellants is based on Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10) and Vivek Kumar Pande (P.W. 7), who have witnessed the incident and considered as eye witnesses, but, they are interested and relative witnesses, therefore, their evidence does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. In merg intimation and FIR only one accused, i.e., Santram was named and other co-accused person's name was not mentioned. On this count, appellant-Santram is entitled acquittal. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for placing reliance upon the conviction of the appellants, that too, conviction under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Therefore, conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in law. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the appeal while submitting that evidence of both eye witnesses, namely, Vivek Kumar Pande (P.W. 7) and Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10) is sufficient for proving the guilt of the appellants, who are the authors and perpetrators of the crime and have caused homicidal death amounting to murder of the deceased. Therefore, by convicting the appellants, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injuries found over the body of the deceased-Damrudhar Pande has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants, on the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10) and Vivek Pande (P.W. 7), Rambharose (P.W. 5), Jagannath (P.W. 6), Madiyaram (P.W. 3), Merg Intimation (Exh. P-12) and FIR (Exh. P-11), Dr. A. Kachhap (P.W. 2) as well as autopsy report (Exh. P-2). 13. As regards the complicity of appellants in crime in question, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10) and Vivek Kumar Pande (P.W. 7). P-12) and FIR (Exh. P-11), Dr. A. Kachhap (P.W. 2) as well as autopsy report (Exh. P-2). 13. As regards the complicity of appellants in crime in question, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10) and Vivek Kumar Pande (P.W. 7). Rest of the eye witnesses Piluram (P.W. 4) and Bhagat Ram (P.W. 12) have been declared hostile witnesses since they have not supported the incident. As per evidence of Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10), on 16-7-2007 at 3.00 a.m. in the night, quarrel was going on between the deceased-Damrudhar and Santram and on hearing this quarrel, he thought it to be routine quarrel of their life and returned to his home and took rest. On the next day morning, when he was coming after attending nature call, he saw his elder father-Damrudhar (deceased) coming after making ease, at that time accused Santram and Mohan holding axe assaulted Damrudhar by axe over his head and back whereupon deceased Damrudhar cried for help and he walked for some distance and fell down. After the incident both accused persons threw the axe and fled from the spot. 14. Other eye witness Vivek Kumar Pandey (P.W. 7) has also substantially corroborated the statement of Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10). Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony to the extent that they were present near the incident place and they saw the appellants assaulting deceased by axe due to which deceased-Damrudhar fell down and they fled from the spot. Although in the merg intimation (Exh. P-12) and FIR (Exh. P-11) name of the accused Mohan alias Chhota was not mentioned but those documents were written on the basis of information given by Ram Bharose Pande (P.W. 5). It is pertinent to mention here that although Ram Bharose Pande was not an eye-witness but he heard about the incident and on that basis he informed the Police. A perusal of inquest (Exh. P-5) and post-mortem request application (Exh. P-15) clearly reveal that both accused persons' names were mentioned in those documents emerging the fact that before incident both the accused persons laid in wait and when the deceased Damrudhar was coming after making ease, they assaulted him. 15. A perusal of inquest (Exh. P-5) and post-mortem request application (Exh. P-15) clearly reveal that both accused persons' names were mentioned in those documents emerging the fact that before incident both the accused persons laid in wait and when the deceased Damrudhar was coming after making ease, they assaulted him. 15. Evidence of Venudhar Pande (P.W. 10) and other eye witnesses to the incident, in particular, the evidence of Vivek Kumar Pande (P.W. 7) is unambiguous and inspires confidence and trustworthy and is sufficient for proving the fact that the appellants have caused homicidal death of deceased. 16. As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive loses its importance. Even otherwise, motive is only an aid in criminality and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other similar circumstances. Motive is a state of mind of person at the time of commission of offence and only the person concerned would be in a position to explain that what was his intention or motive behind commission of any act. 17. In the present case, the appellants were laid in waiting near the spot and suddenly appeared before the deceased and by using axe have caused injuries to Damrudhar, resulting into his instantaneous death. Aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the appellants were having grave intention to kill deceased-Damrudhar in furtherance of their motive. They had traced out the deceased and hidden their identity and have killed Damrudhar, which is homicidal in nature with intent to commit murder of the deceased. 18. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant as aforementioned. 19. On close scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.