JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2005 and 17.06.2005 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla, in connection with S.T. No. 266/03, corresponding to G.R. No.479/03, arising out of Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 22/03, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The facts, reveal from the fardbeyan of Tethri Orain, PW6, recorded on 26.07.2003, at about 10.00 a.m., at Village-Serkabar Toli, P.S. Bisunpur, District Gumla, are that on 25.07.2003, at about 6.00 p.m., Doman Oraon (husband of the informant) returned home from his field. Doman Oraon (deceased) asked his elder brother Bhauwa Oraon (appellant) as to why he did not come to the field to work. Thereafter, some altercation took place between two brothers. It is alleged that Bhauwa Oraon brought out bow and arrow and shot arrow on his brother Doman. It is further alleged that the appellant again went back to his house, brought out an axe and gave repeated blow on the person of Doman causing injuries on his head and near chest below left axilla. Due to injuries so caused, Doman died at the spot. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan of Tethri Orain, Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 22/03, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against the appellant. The investigation was carried out and after collecting evidences and statements of the witnesses, charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 266/03. 4. Charge under Section 302, IPC against appellant Bhauwa Oraon was framed, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses, including Tethri Orain, informant ; Dr. Krishna Prasad, PW3 and Ramashish Singh, PW7 (I.O). Prosecution has also proved the documents like seizure list, fardbeyan, inquest report, post mortem report etc. Learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellant guilty for the offence of murder and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. 5. Krishna Prasad, PW3 and Ramashish Singh, PW7 (I.O). Prosecution has also proved the documents like seizure list, fardbeyan, inquest report, post mortem report etc. Learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellant guilty for the offence of murder and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Dukhu Oraon, PW1, who happens to be father of the deceased and Smt. Phul Kumari Devi, PW2, who happens to be wife of the appellant have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. Bhikhu Ram, PW4 and Mohan Ram, PW5 are hearsay witnesses. Dr. Krishna Prasad, PW3 has proved the post mortem report as Ext.3, whereas, Ramashish Singh, PW7 (I.O) has proved the fardbeyan as Ext.4, inquest report as Ext.5, seizure list as Ext.6 and formal FIR as Ext.7. Therefore, prosecution case is banking upon evidence of Tethri Orain, PW6, who is the wife of the deceased. It is submitted that informant has stated that deceased sustained injuries due to arrow shot by the appellant, but, the Doctor PW3 did not find any injury caused by means of arrow. Ocular version of the informant does not find support from the medical evidence. According to Tethri Orain, PW6, Smt. Phul Kumari Devi, PW2, had witnessed the occurrence, but, she has not supported the prosecution case. It would not be safe to uphold the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302, IPC on the solitary testimony of PW6, who is an interested witness. 6. Learned APP has opposed the argument and submitted that appellant is none else but elder brother of the deceased. Dukhu Oraon, PW1 is father. It is always expected that father, when lost his one son, would certainly try to save another one, who has been prosecuted in this case and that is the reason, he turned hostile. Smt. Phul Kumari Devi, PW2, is the wife of the appellant and it is not expected that she would speak truth before the Court for getting her husband convicted. Informant Tethri Orain has fully supported the prosecution case and corroborated her version given in the fardbeyan. Bow, arrow as well as axe used for committing murder have been seized and seizure list has well been proved. Seizure witness PW1 had admitted his signature appearing on the seizure list and inquest report. Informant Tethri Orain has fully supported the prosecution case and corroborated her version given in the fardbeyan. Bow, arrow as well as axe used for committing murder have been seized and seizure list has well been proved. Seizure witness PW1 had admitted his signature appearing on the seizure list and inquest report. Since the statement of Tethri Orain, PW6 is wholly reliable, learned trial judge has rightly held the appellant guilty. 7. We have examined case records, perused evidences and impugned judgment. Appellant, who is elder brother, has killed his younger brother on a petty cause. The occurrence took place in the house of informant and the quarrel took place between two brothers. Of course, reason behind the quarrel was petty one, when the deceased asked his elder brother as to why he had not come to the field to work, the elder brother became furious, brought out bow and arrow and shot at his younger brother. He was not satisfied with the injuries caused by means of an arrow and again brought an axe and inflicted severe blows on the head and chest of the deceased and killed him. Considering the conduct of the appellant, the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for causing injuries, and number of blows inflicted by means of tangi (heavy sharp cutting weapon), we do not agree with the submission that the offence would come within exception of Section 300, IPC. and, therefore, we reject such argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 8. Now, coming to the evidences on record, we find that Tethri Orain, PW6 (wife of the deceased) has fully supported the prosecution case as made out in the fardbeyan. Nothing material has been elicited from her mouth, during her cross-examination. Bow, arrow as well as axe used for causing injury to the deceased have been seized from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer, PW7. PW1 has also supported seizure of bow, arrow as well as axe from the place of occurrence. It is expected that PW2, who is the wife of the appellant, would not support the prosecution case and that is what she did. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the informant because the injuries, as explained by her, find support from the evidence of PW3 and post mortem report (Ext.3). Doctor had noticed injury No.1 on occipital area. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the informant because the injuries, as explained by her, find support from the evidence of PW3 and post mortem report (Ext.3). Doctor had noticed injury No.1 on occipital area. Second incised wound was found on left axilla vertically placed size 3-1/2 x 1/2" x 1/2". Therefore, ocular version finds support from the medical evidence. 9. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this criminal appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.