JUDGMENT S. PUJAHARI, J. - By the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.32 of 2003, the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution placed before the trial Court a case that the deceased, Laichan Bhumia and the appellant are the residents of village Umuri (Nisani Munda) under the Jeypore Sadar P.S. in the district of Koraput. The deceased and the appellant used to quarrel in the village frequently. Owing to the same, on 27.08.2002 at about 3.00 P.M. when the deceased had been to the bore well located near the Anganwadi Centre of the village along with his wife, to take bath, the appellant came there with an axe and dealt successive axe blows on the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on her person and succumbed to the injuries. The informant (P.W.1), who was working as Grama Rakhi under Jeypore Sadar P.S., thereafter, arrived at the spot and found the dead body of the deceased was lying near the bore well and his wife ( P.W.3) was crying, sitting by the side of dead body of the deceased. On being enquired by the Grama Rakhi, the widow of the deceased disclosed that the appellant assaulted her husband with an axe and did him to death. The informant also saw lthe appellant who was present there, running towards the main road with an axe. The Grama Rakhi (P.W.1) then reported the matter in writing (Ext.1) to police at Jeypore Sadar P.S., pursuant to which, Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.124 of ;22002 was registered and investigation was carried on. During the course of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.9) basing on the materials collected, found the F.I.R. allegation to have substance and as such placed the charge sheet against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore. Learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore placing reliance on such materials committed the case to the Court of Sessions and as such the appellant be proceeded with the charge. 3. Learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore placing reliance on such materials committed the case to the Court of Sessions and as such the appellant be proceeded with the charge. 3. Basing on such case of the prosecution, charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was framed against the appellant by the trial Court to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and as such the prosecution examined ten witnesses besides exhibiting certain documents as well as the material objects, to bring home the charge. The appellant who had taken the plea of denial simplicitor, did not adduce any independent evidence in his defence. 4. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of witness to the occurrence, especially the evidence of the widow of the deceased ( P.W.3) so also the evidence of the Grama Rakhi informant ( P.W.1) as well as a co-villager (P.W.6) of the deceased and the other evidence corroborating the eyewitness version, accepted the prosecution case to have been proved and returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated earlier. 5. It is submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae appointed on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence are indefensible for the reason that the eyewitness version being an interested version, the Court could not have placed reliance on the same to record the conviction. Alternatively, it is submitted that even if the version of the eyewitness to the occurrence is accepted as truthful, but from the evidence on record when it emerges that the appellant without premeditation in a state of grave and sudden provocation had done the deceased to death during the course of quarrel, conviction of the appellant under Section 301 I.P.C. was misconceived. In such view of the matter, the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. be set aside or in alternative the same be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of the I.P.C. and a lenient view with regard to sentence imposed be taken, as the appellant happens to be a person belonging to tribal community, member of which used to get infuriated easily over silly matter, submits the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. However, controverting to the submissions made, the learned Counsel for the State defends the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. However, controverting to the submissions made, the learned Counsel for the State defends the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. According to him, as P.W. 3 is the widow of the deceased, her version cannot be treated as the version of an interested witness, in the absence of any material on record indicating the fact that she had any direct or indirect interest in seeing the appellant punished. Even if for the sake of argument, she being a relative of the deceased is an interested witness, still her version requires no outright rejection, but detailed scrutiny with care and caution and on such scrutiny, if such version is found to be acceptable, there is no impediment to record a conviction on such evidence. As it appears, the version of this witness which suffers from no infirmity and corroborated by the evidence of another eyewitness to the occurrence, so also the version of the post-occurrence witness, the informant (P.W.1) who appeared in the spot immediately after the occurrence and the medical evidence on record, the contention advanced challenging the credibility of the version of the eyewitness is without any substance. Materials being there indicating the fact that the appellant being prepared, came with a deadly weapon i.e. an axe and did the deceased to death, his such overt act is squarely covered under Section 300 of the I.P.C. and as such punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The punishment imposed is the minimum. Therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed. Hence, this JCRLA filed is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, submits the learned Counsel for the State. 7. The widow of the deceased (P.W.3) in her testimony has categorically stated that while she along with her husband had been to the bore well, the appellant with whom her husband had previous animosity, appeared there and gave successive axe blows on his head, back of neck, elbow joint and face etc., as a result of which, her husband sustained bleeding injuries on his person, fell down on the ground. Immediately thereafter, when the Grama Rakhi (P.W.1) arrived there, she disclosed before him that her husband was murdered by the appellant. The appellant then was standing there and then left with the axe. Immediately thereafter, when the Grama Rakhi (P.W.1) arrived there, she disclosed before him that her husband was murdered by the appellant. The appellant then was standing there and then left with the axe. Her evidence further discloses that her husband and the appellant used to quarrel frequently in the village. Hence, there was ill feeling between them. This witness being the widow is the close relation of the deceased. The version of this witness has been made the foundation to accept the prosecution case against the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant criticizes such version to be truthful, as according to him, the aforesaid is the version of an interested witness. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that such interested version requires outright rejection as false implication was not ruled out, particularly when her such evidence also does not agree with the medical evidence on the situs of injury. The same has been controverted by the learned Counsel for the State on the ground stated earlier, to be misconceived. 8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant appears to have no substance, in view of the settled position of law in this regard. The law in this regard is that relationship with the victim of the crime does not make a witness to the occurrence an interested one, in the absence of his/her any direct or indirect interest in seeking that the appellant is somehow or other convicted on account of previous animosity or oblique motive. The requirement of law in this regard is to scrutinize the evidence of such witness who happens to be a close relation with greater care and caution and on such scrutiny if the same is found to be worthy of credence, there is no impediment in law to accept the version of such witness to record the conviction. The Apex Court also held that if the presence of a relation of the victim in the scene of crime witnessing the occurrence is acceptable, the same would add value to his/her version inasmuch as he/she would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Otherwise also, the evidence of an interested witness also does not require outright rejection, but judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence taking into consideration the other evidence on record. Otherwise also, the evidence of an interested witness also does not require outright rejection, but judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence taking into consideration the other evidence on record. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the following cases: 9. In the case of Rameshwar S/o. Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 54, the Apex Court have held as follows “30. Xx xx xx xx xx xx It may be that all mothers may not be sufficiently independent to fulfil the requirements of the corroboration rule but there is no legal bar or exclude them from its operation merely on the ground of their relationship. Independent means independent of sources which are likely to be tainted. In the absence of enmity against the accused, there is no reason why she would implicate him falsely. It is true the accused suggested that they were on bad terms but that has not been believed by anyone.” In the case of Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 364, the Apex Court have held as follows : “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must bne limited to and be governed by its own facts.” In the case of Waman and others vrs. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must bne limited to and be governed by its own facts.” In the case of Waman and others vrs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 295 , the Apex Court have held as follows “20. It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot be itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care. So also, in the case of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Others vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 173 , the Apex Court placing reliance on a number of earlier case laws in this regard, have held as follows : “8. Insofar as the question of creditworthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well-settled that though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution, but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an “interested witness”. It is trite that the term “interested” postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused on for some other oblique motive.” In the case of Angnoo and others vrs. State of Utttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 S.C. 296 , the Apex Court have held as follows “xx xx xx xx It, however, appears to us that at least the other three witnesses are quite reliable. State of Utttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 S.C. 296 , the Apex Court have held as follows “xx xx xx xx It, however, appears to us that at least the other three witnesses are quite reliable. Puttu Lal is, no doubt, the brother lof the deceased Mahadeo, but this very circumstance would, in our opinion, add to the value of his evidence, because he would be interested in ensuring that the real culprits responsible for the murder of Mahadeo are punished and not innocent persons. Shri Krishna and Raja Ram are both totally independent. No relationship between them and any other interested person has been established. They have no motive to give wrong evidence against the appellants.” In the case of Masalti and others vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1965 SC 202, the Apex Court have held as follows : “14. Xx xx xx xx . There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence, whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine, whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be cautious in dealing with such evidence, but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” 10. So, the requirement of law is to scrutinize the version of P.W. 3 which has been made foundation for the conviction with greater care and caution. So, the requirement of law is to scrutinize the version of P.W. 3 which has been made foundation for the conviction with greater care and caution. As it appears, the aforesaid version of P.W. 3 gets corroborated and complemented by the version of another eyewitness (P.W.6) who had also been the assault on the deceased by the appellant on that day being present in his verandah of his house near the spot. However, the version of these two witnesses is also criticized on the ground that they did not agree with the number of blows given to the deceased, so also the evidence of P.W.3 that a blow was given on the head found to be not corroborated by the medical evidence. To appreciate the contention raised, it would be appropriate to have a look into the evidence of the doctor in this regard. 11. The evidence of the doctor (P.W. 10) would go to show that he had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “External Injuries: 1. One lacerated injury over the left arm 3" above elbow of size 6" x 4" depth with fracture of numbers; 2. Lacerated injury over the left forearm 2: below elbow of size 8" x 6" x 4" depth with fracture of both radius and ulna; 3. Deep lacerated injury over right side of neck having size 10" x 8" x 6"splitting open the trachiea carotid attery and veins; 4. Lacerated injury on the right shoulder of size 4" x 3" x 3" with fracture of right clevic; 5. Lacerated wound over right cheek of size 6" x 3" x 2".” Evidence of the doctor (P.W.10) would also go to show that the deceased died due to severe blood loss land poly trauma owing to the aforesaid injuries. The doctor in this regard stands corroborated by post-mortem examination report (Ext.9) prepared by him. The injury No.3 which was on the neck was independently capable of causing death of a person. Besides that all the aforesaid injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course of nature, as revealed from the testimony of the doctor. A query being made by the I.O., the doctor ( P.W.10) after examining the tangi (M.O.I) opined that such a tangi can cause the aforesaid injuries. Besides that all the aforesaid injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course of nature, as revealed from the testimony of the doctor. A query being made by the I.O., the doctor ( P.W.10) after examining the tangi (M.O.I) opined that such a tangi can cause the aforesaid injuries. No doubt it has been elicited from the same that all the injuries except injury No.3 are possible by falling from a height, but nothing is there to substantiate that the deceased fell from a height. 12. However, as there is some discrepancy with regard to the medical evidence with the version of the prosecution witnesses, the eyewitnesses version has been criticized to be truthful. The medical evidence is of two types, one is direct and the other is opinion. The situs of injury is a direct evidence. As it appears in this case, P.W. 3 though deposed about the injury on the head, but the doctor did not find the same though found the other injuries. So far as P.W. 6 is concerned, he spokes two numbers of blows to have been given by the appellant to the deceased, but the doctor found many more injuries. But, contradictions between the direct evidence of the doctor and the eyewitness version not necessarily lead always to the conclusion that the eyewitness version is untruthful. In this regard, a reliance can be placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thaman Kumar vrs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 2003 SC 3975 , wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-16 have held as follows : “The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eye-witnesses. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eye-witnesses. The same kind of inference can be drawn in three categories of apparent condition in oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second category and third category no such inference can straightaway be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of the ocular testimony. Further, in the case of Ramanand Yadav vrs. Prabhu Nath Jha, AIR 2004 SC 1053, the Apex Court in paragraph-17 have held as follows : “17...... It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as is claimed to be inflicted as per oral testimony, then only in a given case the Court has to draw adverse inference.” Further, in the case of Shivji Sahebrao Bobade and another vrs. State of Maharashatra, AIR 1973 S.C. 2622 , the Apex Court in paragraph-18 have held as follows : “18. Some attempt was made to show that the many injuries found on the person of the deceased and the manner of their infliction as deposed to by the eye-witnesses do not tally. There is no doubt that substantially the wounds and the weapons and the manner of causation run congruous. Photographic picturisation of blows and kinds and hits and strikes in an attack cannot be excepted from witnesses who are not fabricated and little turns on indifferent incompatibilities. Efforts to harmonise humdrum details betray police tutoring, not rugged truthfulness.” 13. Keeping in the mind of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, the aforesaid contradiction required to be addressed. The evidence on record reveals that P.Ws. 3 and 6 are the rustic villagers. They are deposing about the occurrence more than one year after the occurrence. Faculty of observation and also memorization of event differs from witnesses to witnesses. The evidence on record reveals that P.Ws. 3 and 6 are the rustic villagers. They are deposing about the occurrence more than one year after the occurrence. Faculty of observation and also memorization of event differs from witnesses to witnesses. As it appears from their evidence, the witnesses have remained consistent in substratum of the prosecution case. They have no axe to grind against the appellant. The medical evidence is not totally inconsistent with the evidence of these two witnesses. Hence, the version of these witnesses does not require rejection on the said ground. The medical evidence is rather lending corroboration to the eyewitness version. 14. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W. 1, who is the informant in this case, disclosed that he arrived there immediately after the occurrence and saw the deceased lying dead in the spot in bleeding condition and his (deceased) wife (P.W.3) was crying there and on his enquiry, she pointed the appellant to have murdered her husband. The appellant was also then there and seeing him the appellant fled away from the spot with the axe. This witness also stands corroborated in this regard by written report (Ext.1) lodged by him immediately thereafter indicating the aforesaid fact. P.W. 1 has no axe to grind against the appellant. He is clear and cogent in his version. Therefore, the version of P.W. 1 lends corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 3, the witness to the occurrence inasmuch as she had spoken about the occurrence before the P.W. 1 immediately after the occurrence and also P.W. 1 had also seen the appellant present there with the axe (M.O.I.) and fleeing away from the spot with the axe (M.O.I.), after his arrival, It also transpires from the I.O. (P.W.2) that he immediately came to the spot and found the deceased to be lying there wsherefrom, he collected the sample earth as well as the blood stained earth seized vide seizure list Ext.2.While conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, he found the injuries on the portion of the deceased as revealed from the inquest report. Ext. 8. He also sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination vide dead body challan (Ext.5). Ext. 8. He also sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination vide dead body challan (Ext.5). So also it appears from the evidence of P.W. 9 that he seized the axe from the possession of the appellant vide seizure list (Ext.3) which also gets corroboration from the evidence of the witness to the seizure P.W. 5.Evidence of this witness also indicates that he had seized the wearing apparels of the deceased after the post-mortem examination vide Ext. 6 and sent the physical clue of the seized articles such as the sample earth, blood stained earth, wearing apparels (M.Os.II and III) of the deceased and the axe (M.O.I) vide forwarding report (Ext.11). The evidence of the I.O. (P.W.9) in this regard has not been disputed by the defence during the course of trial or here in this appeal. No material has been produced indicating the fact that the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.9) is unworthy of credence. The chemical examination report (Ext.12) reveals human blood of group ‘B’ origin was found in the sample earth, Tangi ( M.O.I.) seized from the appellant and also the M.O.II, the red print ‘Lungi’ of the deceased. The appellant has no explanation how human blood was found in the Tangi (M.O.I.) seized from him. All these aforesaid facts established, lend sample corroboration to the version of the eyewitness ( P.W.3) with regard to the occurrence in the place mentioned and also the assault on her husband by the appellant with an axe (M.O.I).There is no evidence of any immediate quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. Nothing is also disclosed that the appellant in any manner was provoked there, rather it discloses an premeditated act of the appellant owing to previous animosity. 15. On reappraisal of the evidence on record, therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the appellant had come to the spot being armed with deadly weapon, i.e., an axe (M.O.I) and dealt blow to the vital part of the body, i.e, neck and other parts of the deceased with the said axe with an intention to cause his death and on account of such assault, the deceased died. Absolutely there is no material to indicate that the aforesaid act occurred due to grave and sudden provocation. Absolutely there is no material to indicate that the aforesaid act occurred due to grave and sudden provocation. The prior quarrel between the deceased and the appellant cannot justify the contention that it was a case of grave and sudden provocation, rather the same speaks that the same was the motive to commit the crime. The said overt act of the appellant is squarely covered by Clause Firstly of Section 300 of I.P.C. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. recorded by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. Since the punishment imposed is also the minimum, re-look to the same is also not permissible under law. 16. Hence, this JCRLA filed, is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. S. PANDA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.