JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bolangir in Sessions Case No.68/44 of 2007 convicting the appellant under Section-302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for two years more. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.1.2007 P.W.4-informant had gone to Mandal village for cutting tree. While cutting tree at around 4 to 5 P.M. it was intimated to him that his son deceased Sabara Gahira aged about 11 years, who had taken the bullock for grazing had not returned home. Hearing this, P.W.4 immediately returned home and heard from his wife and daughter (P.W.7) that though the bullock had returned, their son had not returned. During search, he found the dead body of his son near Badadunguritala nala. While the dead body was covered under the sand, the legs were visible. P.W.4 brought the dead body to the thrashing floor of Pramod Thakur and there he saw mark of injuries on the neck, head, back and left ear of his son on account of assault by axe. The background facts according to P.W.4 as indicated in the F.I.R. are that the appellant was married to the sister of the informant (P.W.4). They were staying together in a house in front of the house of the informant. In the last Chaitra month, P.W.4 became ill and on account of such illness the wife of the informant blamed the appellant for having committed sorcery on her husband. As a result, quarrel ensued between the family of the informant with the appellant. In such background, the appellant left the village of informant and went away to village Sargiguda. It is alleged that on account of sorcery practised by the appellant, the informant was not able to walk properly. Later on he was cured after taking medicine. Few days prior to the occurrence, the appellant (who is the brother-in-law of the informant) had come to the village of the informant. Seeing him, the wife of P.W.4 (informant) started blaming the appellant as the informant was not able to walk properly on account of sorcery practiced by him. Later on he was cured after taking medicine. Few days prior to the occurrence, the appellant (who is the brother-in-law of the informant) had come to the village of the informant. Seeing him, the wife of P.W.4 (informant) started blaming the appellant as the informant was not able to walk properly on account of sorcery practiced by him. This resulted in another quarrel and the appellant threatened the informant to the effect that earlier he had a narrow escape and next time either P.W.4 or his son would be murdered. On the last Wednesday prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant visited the house of the informant (P.W.4) and abused him as the P.W.4 had stacked the cotton bundles in front of his house. P.W.4 admitted to have stacked the cotton bundles and assured to remove the same. On 25.1.2007 while the informant was going to the village Mandal, he saw the appellant near the school with vermillion on his head and axe on his hand. When he saw him, the appellant concealed himself. In such background, P.W.4 lodged a written report on 25.1.2007 at 9 P.M. as he was of the firm opinion that in order to settle scores, the appellant had killed his son with repeated assault with an axe. Upon receipt of such report, P.S. Case No.8 of 2007 was registered by P.W.11 and he took up the investigation. Exhibit-11 is that F.I.R. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and accordingly the appellant stood trial. 3. The plea of the appellant was that of a complete denial and false implication. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 14 witnesses. P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.Ws. 2 and 12 are the seizure witnesses. P.W.4 (who happens to be brother-in-law of the appellant) is the informant. P.W.6 is a witness, who has stated about having heard the shouting of the deceased near the place of occurrence. P.W.7 is the daughter of P.W.4 and sister of the deceased. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the witnesses to the disclosure statement and recovery of weapon of offence. P.W.10 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.13 is the photographer and P.W.14 is a witness before whom it was claimed that the appellant had made extra judicial confession. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the witnesses to the disclosure statement and recovery of weapon of offence. P.W.10 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.13 is the photographer and P.W.14 is a witness before whom it was claimed that the appellant had made extra judicial confession. The prosecution also proved Exhibits 1 to 18 and M.O.I to M.O.VII. The appellant had not adduced any evidence. 5. Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this being a case of circumstantial evidence where the chain of circumstance is not complete, the learned court below has gone wrong in convicting the appellant. According to him, the learned court below committed a mistake by relying on the motive of the appellant though the evidence relating to such motive is highly deficient. He further submitted that the learned court below has gone wrong in putting reliance on the disclosure statement under Exhibit-6 though one of the witnesses to such disclosure statement, namely, P.W.9 has turned hostile and the evidence of other witness P.W.8 has been demolished in the cross-examination. On this subject, Mr. Sahu relied on a decision of this Court in Baichandra Majhi –v- State of Orissa as reported in 2012 (Suppl.II) OLR 120. He mainly relied on Para-10 of the said judgment. He further submitted that the learned court below ought not to have believed in the evidence of P.W.6, who is not an independent witness, but is an interested witness. Further, P. W.6, who claims to have heard the shout of the deceased has not seen as to who was shouting. Lastly, he submitted that M.O.I, i.e., Tangia is of little help as P.W.4 and P.W.6. have stated nothing specifically about Tangia, which has been marked as M.O.I. Mr. Sahu did not dispute that the present case is a case of homicide. 6. Mr. Samantaray, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the order of conviction and contended that such order should not be interfered with as the learned trial court on elaborate discussion of the evidence and circumstances on record has arrived at a correct conclusion. 7. Before we scan the evidence in order to assess the strength of rival submissions made by the parties, we would like to point out that present is a case of circumstantial evidence. 7. Before we scan the evidence in order to assess the strength of rival submissions made by the parties, we would like to point out that present is a case of circumstantial evidence. Law relating to circumstantial evidence has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda –v- State of Maharashtra as reported in (1984) 4 S.C.C. 116 . There the Supreme Court has made it clear that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against the appellant can be said to be fully established. “(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established, It may be noted here that this Court intimated that the circumstances concern ‘must be or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobude –vrs- State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made (SCC Para 19, P.807: SCC (Cri) P.1047). Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilt before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused his guilt, (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused”. Keeping in mind the above noted five golden principles, let us proceed to scan the evidence on record. 8. Here there is no dispute that this is a case of culpable homicide. P.W.4, who happens to be the informant has stated in examinationin- chief that the appellant was his brother-in-law (sister’s husband) and the deceased Sabar Gahir was his son. Keeping in mind the above noted five golden principles, let us proceed to scan the evidence on record. 8. Here there is no dispute that this is a case of culpable homicide. P.W.4, who happens to be the informant has stated in examinationin- chief that the appellant was his brother-in-law (sister’s husband) and the deceased Sabar Gahir was his son. The deceased was about 11 years old at the time of occurrence, which took place on a Thursday. At about 2 P.M. on the date of occurrence, after taking lunch he was going to Mandal to cut trees for Murali Khamari. On his way, he found the appellant with an axe with vermillion mark on his head. On seeing P.W.4, he fled away. While cutting trees, his wife informed him through Sudam Khamari with regard to non-return of the deceased son although the bullocks have returned to the house. Hearing this he rushed to the house where his wife and daughter disclosed that in spite of their search in nearby area they were not able to locate the deceased. As his bullocks ordinarily graze at Badadunguritala nala side, he went there. While searching, he came in contact with a leg of a dead body and identified the same to be his son’s. The dead body was covered with sand from head to waist. After removing the same from the sand, he found injuries on his head, back and neck and carried the dead body to the thrashing floor of Pramod Thakur. Thereafter, he informed the matter to his family members and suspected the appellant as he was moving with Tangia. Again they came back to the thrashing floor to guard the dead body. At that point of time his brother (P.W.5) and other villagers had arrived there. Thereafter, P.W.4 went to the police station to report the incident. As he was an illiterate person, he narrated the incident to the nearby betel shop owner Anil Kumar Naik, who scribed the F.I.R. on his dictation and instruction. After writing, he read over and explained the contents of the same to him and finding the same to be true he put his L.T.I. thereon. As per the direction of the Thanababu, Belpada P.S. he returned to the thrashing floor to guard the dead body. After conducting inquest over the dead body, the police sent the same for postmortem examination. As per the direction of the Thanababu, Belpada P.S. he returned to the thrashing floor to guard the dead body. After conducting inquest over the dead body, the police sent the same for postmortem examination. He further testified that the appellant was married to his sister and after her death, the appellant married another lady. The house of appellant was in front of his house. The appellant was a practitioner of sorcery and had applied the same on him. As a result, he was unable to move without the help of the stick. Concerning that, there was a quarrel between his wife and the appellant last year, wherein the appellant had threatened to kill his deceased son or him. Eight days prior to the occurrence, the appellant had come to his village and abused him and again threatened to kill either him or his son. The deceased was his only son. On the date of occurrence the appellant had come to his house in the morning and asked as to who had stacked cotton bundles in front of his house. Though P.W.4 (informant) admitted to have kept the same and assured to shift the said materials, but the appellant being enraged threatened to kill them. In the cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that the thrashing floor lay between his house and Badadunguritala nala. While he kept the dead body on the thrashing floor, non-else was present. When he found the dead body it was already evening and he saw the shirt of the deceased lying nearby. He did not inform anybody about the missing child. Satrughana Gahir accompanied him to the police station. He had only informed about the incident to his family members and none else, but the villagers had assembled at the thrashing floor. The scribe was not known to him earlier. At 9 P.M. he handed over the written report to the Thanababu. After lodging F.I.R., the O.I.C. directed him to go back to village to guard the dead body. He did not take his statement at the time of lodging of F.I.R. He did not know the name of the person through whom the wife informed him about non-return of his son, but Sudam had informed him knowing from that person through whom the information was given by the wife. The appellant has constructed his house which is located in front of his house. The appellant has constructed his house which is located in front of his house. From the date of marriage of his sister with the appellant, he was aware that the appellant was habituated to the sorcery works. He was also practising sorcery in other villages. For that purpose, he was getting goats and hens. However, he admitted that he had not heard of any of the villagers quarreling with the appellant for application of sorcery. After taking medicine from Saroj Thakur, who is both a Kabiraj and a sorcerer, he was cured. He denied a suggestion that the appellant had not applied any sorcery on him and that he had never threatened to kill him and his son. He had intimated co-villagers about such threat. Some villagers including P.W.8 came to pacify the matter in the month of Chaitra of that year. Prior to 7 to 8 days of the occurrence, the incident that had happened was not intimated to any villagers for conciliation. However, the covillagers were present on 24.1.2007 morning when the appellant quarreled with them. On 25.1.2007 he saw the appellant at 2 P.M. He testified that he was mentally fit after seeing the dead body of his son. He saw the injuries near ear, head and back of his son and the dead body was covered with dry sand. He denied a suggestion that the appellant had not committed the murder of his son and that on account of his enmity he has foisted the case against the case against the appellant. P.W.5 happens to be the brother of P.W.4. In his examinationin- chief he has stated that on 25.1.2007 he came to know about the murder of Sabar and shifting of him by P.W.4 to the thrashing floor of Pramod Thakur. He went to the thrashing floor where P.W.4 was present. On enquiry, P.W.4 told him that the appellant had committed the murder of his son at Badadunguritala nala and that he has brought the dead body from the Nala to the thrashing floor. He saw mark of injuries on the deceased. He and the family members of P.W.4 guarded the dead body and P.W.4 and Satrughana Gahir went to the police station. On the next day morning the police came to the village and asked them about the incident and took them to the Badadunguritala nala. He saw mark of injuries on the deceased. He and the family members of P.W.4 guarded the dead body and P.W.4 and Satrughana Gahir went to the police station. On the next day morning the police came to the village and asked them about the incident and took them to the Badadunguritala nala. The place of occurrence was underneath the nala and they found a stone marked with vermillion and a broken coconut with an invitation card. The police seized the same in their presence. The police also seized the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place where murder was committed. The police prepared the seizure list vide Exhibit-3. The police seized the Chappal of Sabar and the blood stained shirt of Sabar vide Exhibit-4. Thereafter, they came to the thrashing floor with the police. The police after verification of the dead body prepared inquest report under Exhibit-1 and he signed such inquest report. He further stated that the appellant had married his own sister Lilamani 15 to 16 years back. After birth of Sabar, she died, whereafter the appellant kept another lady. One year prior to the occurrence, the appellant had made P.W.4 unfit for work by applying sorcery for which there was a quarrel, in his presence. The appellant threatened to murder Sabar and P.W.4. Seven or eight days prior to murder, the appellant had again come to his village and quarreled with P.W.4 concerning the application of sorcery and threatened to murder P.W.4 as well as his son. On the previous day of occurrence i.e., on Wednesday the appellant had come to his village and there was a quarrel between the appellant and P.W.4 on storing of cotton bundles. In spite of assurance of P.W.4 to shift the cotton bundles kept by him, the appellant threatened to do away with the life of P.W.4 and his son. On the next day, the nephew Sabar was murdered. Further, in his examination-in-chief, P.W.5 stated that the appellant is a practicing sorcerer and he strongly suspected that the deceased was murdered by the appellant. In his cross-examination, he stated that the police seized coconut shell, chappal, shirt and blood stained earth at Badadunguritala nala. He found injuries on the left ear, head, neck and back of the deceased. The police examined him on 26.1.2007. He has heard of the appellant threatening to murder P.W.4 and his son thrice. In his cross-examination, he stated that the police seized coconut shell, chappal, shirt and blood stained earth at Badadunguritala nala. He found injuries on the left ear, head, neck and back of the deceased. The police examined him on 26.1.2007. He has heard of the appellant threatening to murder P.W.4 and his son thrice. He further stated that they had invited 3 persons to pacify the dispute, which included P.W.8. They were invited for the occurrence that happened 7 to 8 days prior to murder. He further stated that he did not know on whom the appellant had applied sorcery, but at several times, he had disclosed about such application in different villages. He denied a suggestion that the appellant had never applied sorcery on P.W.4 and that he is deposing falsely. He further stated that 4 days prior to 26.1.2007, the appellant had come to Bhatapada and on seeing him, the wife of P.W.4 asked him as to why he applied sorcery on P.W.4 and hearing this appellant got enraged and threatened to kill P.W.4 and his son. He denied a suggestion that he has not stated before the police that the appellant had come to his village on 24.1.2007 and there was a quarrel about the stacking of cotton bundles. On further re-examination on recall he stated that he can identify the slippers, shirt and the stick, which the deceased was using during his life time. Accordingly, he identified the slippers as M.O.V, shirt as M.O.VI and stick as M.O.VII. He also stated that the mother of the deceased became mad after the death of her son. In further cross-examination he has admitted that there was no identifying mark in the chappals of the deceased, but the deceased was using the chappals. During life time of the deceased the slipper was stitched by P.W.4. At the time of seizure of M.O.VI, he had given his signature on the seizure list, but not signed on the paper pasted on it. Sticks like M.O.VII are commonly used at the time of grazing cattle. He further stated that the M.O.VII i.e. the stick was not stained with blood. One month after the murder of Sabar, his mother became mad though she has not been taken to any of the hospital for her treatment. P.W.7 is the sister of the deceased and daughter of P.W.4. He further stated that the M.O.VII i.e. the stick was not stained with blood. One month after the murder of Sabar, his mother became mad though she has not been taken to any of the hospital for her treatment. P.W.7 is the sister of the deceased and daughter of P.W.4. In her examination-in-chief she stated that the occurrence took place in 2007 on a Thursday. On that day while bullocks’ returned to house, the deceased did not. So she herself along with her mother searched for him in nearby place but could not find him. Accordingly, information was sent to P.W.4, who had gone to cut trees at Khamarighar of the village Mandal. On hearing the news, the P.W.4 came to the house and knowing about non-arrival of the deceased, he went towards Badadunguritala nala and returned with dead body of her brother. After keeping the dead body in the thrashing floor, he returned to the house tearfully and disclosed that the appellant had killed his son at Badadunguritala nala. Accordingly, they rushed to the thrashing floor with uncle P.W.5 and found mark of axe blows on the head, neck and back of the deceased brother. P.W.4 went to the police station while they guarded the dead body and on the next day at 8 A.M. police came to the village. She further testified that prior to the occurrence, the appellant was threatening his father to kill him and his deceased brother. In the previous year, there was a quarrel between P.W.4 and the appellant as the appellant had applied sorcery to her father (P.W.4) for which he was unable to work. The appellant had then gone to his village Sargiguda. Four to five days prior to the occurrence, they had stacked cotton bundles on the door of the appellant. After the appellant arrived, he started abusing them in spite of their assurances to remove the bundles. There the appellant threatened to do away with the life of P.W.4 and the deceased. P.W.7 in her cross-examination has stated that she herself and her mother both searched for the deceased brother, but they did not search near Badadunguritala nala or it nearby areas. At 5 P.M., P.W.4 rushed towards Badadungurigala nala after his arrival in the house. He returned to the house leaving the dead body at the thrashing floor. P.W.7 in her cross-examination has stated that she herself and her mother both searched for the deceased brother, but they did not search near Badadunguritala nala or it nearby areas. At 5 P.M., P.W.4 rushed towards Badadungurigala nala after his arrival in the house. He returned to the house leaving the dead body at the thrashing floor. They used to go towards Badadunguritala nala for labour work and to collect fire wood. The land of P.W.6 is lying near the Badadunguritala nala. On the occurrence year, P.W.6 had grown Chhana in his field and was guarding his Channa grain. They had not asked anything to P.W.6 about missing of the deceased. The appellant had quarreled with her parents last year on three occasions. Concerning the quarrel between P.W.4 and the appellant, three persons were called to their house, but the appellant did not attend. P.W.4 did not inform the matter to police as it was a family matter and as he was under an impression that the appellant would not harm his family. The appellant was practicing sorcery and was bringing goats and hens from other villagers. Saroj Thakur, who treated her father (P.W.4) had also disclosed about the application of sorcery on P.W.4 and was enquiring about the presence of the appellant. However, she stated that the appellant had no ill-feeling towards the deceased brother, but had such feelings against P.W.4 and her mother. She denied a suggestion that she was deposing falsely. P.W.6 happens to be a co-villager, who in his examination-in-chief has stated that he knows the appellant as well as P.W.4 and the deceased and the occurrence took place in 2007 in the month of Magha on a Thursday. On that day at about 2 P.M. he had been to his ‘Khudia Gram Field’. While he was there, he heard the sound of a boy at 4 P.M., who was shouting “DHAN GO BUA MOTE KUTU CHHE” (father come, assault going on me), coming from the side of Badadunguritala nala. The sound was coming from a distance of about 200 cubits. Hearing sound, he proceeded in that direction and found the appellant holding a Tangia with mark of vermillion on his forehead and his wearing Dhoti was stained with blood. Seeing that out of fear P.W.6 fled away from the spot and came to his house and did not divulge the incident before anybody. Hearing sound, he proceeded in that direction and found the appellant holding a Tangia with mark of vermillion on his forehead and his wearing Dhoti was stained with blood. Seeing that out of fear P.W.6 fled away from the spot and came to his house and did not divulge the incident before anybody. At about 7 P.M. on the same night hearing cry when he asked his wife, his wife told him about the murder of Sabar at Badadunguritala nala. On the next day the police came to his village and inspected the dead body lying at the thrashing floor. He also saw mark of injuries on the body of the deceased. He disclosed the incident which he had heard and seen on the previous day before the police. He also testified that the appellant was residing in his village and was practicing sorcery. In the cross-examination, he stated that his Channa land is nearer to the Badadunguritala nala and he alone had raised Channa at that place. On Thursday no other cultivators were present at the time when he heard the sound. At 4 P.M. he heard the sound of a boy and stated that the deceased Sabar was our village boy. He denied the suggestion that the parents of the deceased had sold the deceased to him and he had kept him as his son and that he is deposing falsehood and that he had not heard any sound on that day and not seen the appellant with Tangia with mark of vermillion on his forehead and his wearing Dhoti stained with blood. He further stated that he has stated before the police that at 4 P.M. he heard the sound of a man. However, he admitted that he has not stated before the police that he heard the sound of a boy saying “Dhan go bua mote kutu chhe”. Out of fear, he did not divulge the incident before his wife. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.8. P.W.8 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he knew the appellant, the informant-P.W.4 and the deceased son. On 29.1.2007 he was going to Belpada along with P.W.9. On being called by the Thanababu both he and P.W.9 went to the police station and found the appellant sitting there. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.8. P.W.8 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he knew the appellant, the informant-P.W.4 and the deceased son. On 29.1.2007 he was going to Belpada along with P.W.9. On being called by the Thanababu both he and P.W.9 went to the police station and found the appellant sitting there. Thanababu interrogated the appellant, who confessed his guilt of killing the deceased by means of a Tangia and further disclosed that after taking bath in the tank of Mandal, he proceeded towards the village Sergiguda after washing his cloths and Tangia and concealed the axe on the hut of Budu Tandi and stated that he would show the place of concealment and give recovery of the Tangia. Policebabu recorded his statement in their presence and read over and explained the statement whereafter they signed it. According to him, the appellant had also signed the statement under Exhibit-6. P.W.9 also signed it. Saying so the appellant led to the hut of Budu Tandi and brought out the Tangia from that hut and handed over the same to the Policebabu. The Policebabu prepared a seizure list in respect of that Tangia under Exhibit-7 which was signed by he himself and P.W.9. Thereafter, they went to the house of the appellant at village Sergiguda where the appellant handed over Dhoti stained with blood with other materials. The Policebabu prepared the seizure list under Exhibit-8. In the cross-examination he stated that he was aware of the incident of the murder, but he did not visit the place where the dead body was lying and that he was not aware about dispute between the appellant and P.W.4 prior to the occurrence. Thanababu asked the appellant as to how he committed the murder but he did not terrorize him. The contents of Ext.6 were not read over by the Thanababu. They put their signatures in the village Sergiguda near the hut of Budu Tandi and did not sign on any paper at the police station. But he stated that he can identify the articles seized. At the place of recovery, Thanababu measured the axe. The length of the handle portion of the axe was within three feet. The handle was made of ‘Dhaunra’ wood. He denied a suggestion that the appellant did not confess anything and did not give recovery of the axe in their presence. At the place of recovery, Thanababu measured the axe. The length of the handle portion of the axe was within three feet. The handle was made of ‘Dhaunra’ wood. He denied a suggestion that the appellant did not confess anything and did not give recovery of the axe in their presence. He further stated that there were number of patches of blood on the dhoti. The contents of the seizure list were not read over and explained to them. On re-examination on recall he stated that M.O.I is the axe recovered from the hut of Budu Tandi which was seized vide Exhibit-7. M.O.III is the Dhoti. In his cross-examination, he stated that M.O.I (Tangia) was not stained with blood when the appellant gave recovery of the same. He only signed the seizure list not on the M.O.I. He also stated that the mother of the deceased was mentally unfit. P.W.9, the other witness, who has signed Ext.6 has turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.10 shows that on examination of the dead body, he found four numbers of external injuries in the nature of abrasions. Further, he has stated that the cause of death is due to severe bleeding due to cardiac shock and the death has occurred within 24 hours from the time of examination at 2.30 P.M. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature and injury no.4 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That injury might have been caused with heavy and sharp cutting weapon. He proved the postmortem report as Exhibit-9. On 30.1.2007, i.e. five days after the occurrence, the police had sent a query along with the weapon of offence-axe (M.O.I) to him to report as to whether the injuries noticed in the postmortem report are possible or not by such weapon of offence. On examination of the axe, he reported that the injuries noticed in the postmortem report are possible by that axe. Exhibit-10 is that report. In cross-examination, he stated that he has not mentioned in Exhibit-9 that the injuries are ante mortem in nature. He reiterated that all the injuries noticed in the postmortem report are possible by M.O.I. He further stated that he has given the inch measurement of the injuries, though on account of oversight he mentioned cm in respect of injury no.4. Three blows were inflicted on the neck. He reiterated that all the injuries noticed in the postmortem report are possible by M.O.I. He further stated that he has given the inch measurement of the injuries, though on account of oversight he mentioned cm in respect of injury no.4. Three blows were inflicted on the neck. All the three injuries were dealt one after another and injury no.3 was the result of three blows. Injury no.4 is a lacerated injury. He further made it clear that it is a fact that he did not find any abrasion injury in the postmortem report. Inadvertently he has stated so in his examination-in-chief. But these are all cut injuries which he described as follows:- (i). Left shoulder and scapula of size ½”x1/2x1/2”. (ii). Left scapula to neck 2”x1”x1”. (iii). Head of occipital bone to with left ear to pins are there for three times of deep injury of size 4½”x2”x2”. (iv). Neck of foramen magunum cut to severe injury 6½x4”x4” inches (Lacerated wound). All the injuries are possible by the sharp side of the axe M.O.I. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.W.2 is a seizure witness, whom police took to the place of occurrence at Badadunguritala nala. He proves seizure list under Exhibit-2. He further stated that the Policebabu collected blood stained earth from the spot and prepared seizure list under Exhibit-3, which he has signed. The blood stained shirt of the deceased was lying on the cultivable land of Murali Thakur. The Policebabu seized the shirt and prepared seizure list under Exhibit-4, which he has signed. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he can identify the seized articles. P.W.11 is the I.O., who in his examination-in-chief stated that on 25.1.2007 while working as O.I.C. of Belpada Police Station at 9 P.M. the P.W.4 presented a written report which was registered by him as P.S. Case No.8 of 2007 under Section 302/201 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, he took up investigation. Exhibit-11 is the written report lodged by P.W.4 (informant). During course of investigation, he examined complainant and recorded his statement, issued command certificate to the constable, visited the spot, seized blood stained earth on 26.1.2007 in presence of witnesses and prepared the seizure list under Ext.3. He also seized one faded green colour half shirt stained with blood under Exhibit-4. He held inquest over the dead body. During course of investigation, he examined complainant and recorded his statement, issued command certificate to the constable, visited the spot, seized blood stained earth on 26.1.2007 in presence of witnesses and prepared the seizure list under Ext.3. He also seized one faded green colour half shirt stained with blood under Exhibit-4. He held inquest over the dead body. He seized one black colour half pant stained with blood and command certificate vide Exhibit-14. On 29.1.2007, he arrested the appellant, who in course of investigation, confessed in presence of witnesses P.Ws.8 and 9 to have committed the murder by means of an axe and confessed to have concealed the weapon of offence in the hut located in the cultivable land of Budu Tandi and stated that he would show the place of concealment of the axe for recovering the same. Exhibit-6 is the statement of the appellant. The appellant thereafter led him and other witnesses like P.Ws.8 and 9 to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the axe from the hut located in the ridge of cultivable land of Budu Tandi of Sargiguda. Accordingly, seizure list under Exhibit-7 was prepared. Thereafter, the appellant took them to his house and handed over one white dhoti stained with blood which was seized vide Exhibit-8. M.O.III is the Dhoti. He forwarded the appellant on 30.1.2007 and made a query to P.W.10 by producing seized axe to ascertain whether the injuries mentioned in postmortem report is possible by seized axe. He also made a prayer to the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh for sending the seized articles for chemical examination. Ext.16 is the forwarding report of the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh to R.F.S.L., Ainthapalli. In cross-examination, he stated that P.W.4 had come alone at the time of lodging the F.I.R. and he examined him after registering the case. On the same day, he visited the spot but he did not examine any witnesses as it was night. The informant (P.W.4) also accompanied him to the spot at night. On the next day, he visited the spot first and found blood stained shirt, stick and chhapal lying near the spot. He collected blood staines from the place. After inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Further, he stated that the statement of the appellant under Exhibit-6 was recorded in presence of witnesses at the police station. On the next day, he visited the spot first and found blood stained shirt, stick and chhapal lying near the spot. He collected blood staines from the place. After inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Further, he stated that the statement of the appellant under Exhibit-6 was recorded in presence of witnesses at the police station. When the appellant led them to the cottage of Budu Tandi, no other person was present there. The appellant entered inside the house and brought out the axe. He could not re-collect whether the axe was stained with blood at the time of recovery and seizure. But he stated that the Dhoti was stained with blood. After 26th he examined P.Ws.8, 9 and others. He denied a suggestion that the appellant had not made a disclosure statement and given recovery of the axe and that by threatening the appellant he took his statement and seizure of axe and dhoti were made in the police station. On 24.6.2008 P.W.11 was re-examined on recall and there he stated that he had examined P.W.9. P.W.9 stated before him that on 29.1.2007 being called by the Belpada Police Station, when he and P.W.8 entered the police station, they found the appellant there and on interrogation by the police, the appellant disclosed to have killed the deceased by means of an axe near Badadunguritala nala due to previous enmity and prior to the occurrence, he had threatened P.W.4 to murder him and his son and after assaulting Sabar on his back, neck and head, murdered him and concealed the dead body of Sabar in the Nala by covering sand and after taking bath and washing his clothes and tangia, he went towards the village Sargiguda and on the way he concealed the axe in the hut of Budu Tandi located in his cultivable land and then he went to his house and after changing his wearing clothes, he kept the same and saying so, he led him and P.W.8 to the hut of Budu Tandi and brought the axe and handed over the same to the policebabu. In further cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that P.W.9 had signed the disclosure statement of the appellant on his instruction and that he kept P.W.14 in the police custody for 7 days. In further cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that P.W.9 had signed the disclosure statement of the appellant on his instruction and that he kept P.W.14 in the police custody for 7 days. With regard to P.W.6 he testified that P.W.6 has not stated to him that he heard the sound of a boy saying “Dhan go bua mote kutu chhe”. But he admitted that P.W.6 has stated to him that he heard shouting of a boy. P.W.12 is a Home Guard, who has proved the seizure of a pant stained with blood. P.W.13 is the A.S.I., Photograph of D.F.S.L. Bolangir, who took photo of the deceased, the spot and of thrashing floor. P.W.14 is a cultivator of Mandal Mouza, who has been declared hostile. Though in examination-in-chief he has stated that he saw the appellant holding an axe with wet clothes on his body and disclosed to have murdered the son of P.W.4 and cautioned him not to disclose the said fact to anybody, however, in cross-examination, he has stated that after the confession made by the appellant, he was in his village. Except police, he did not disclose this fact before anybody. Within one month of the occurrence, the police examined him and recorded his statement by keeping him in the police station for 7 days suspecting him to have committed the murder of P.W.4. Before recording his statement when police assaulted him he voluntarily disclosed the entire fact confessed by the appellant. In such background, on account of his delayed examination and on account of his testimony about his disclosure of confession of appellant due to assault, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that his statement does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, it has discarded the evidence of P.W.14. 9. An analysis of evidence shows that though P.W.4 speaks about being threatened with dire consequences thrice by the appellant, however, F.I.R. under Ext.11 shows he was threatened with dire consequences only once i.e. some days prior to occurrence. However, such inconsistency has not been put to him during cross- examination. Further, the evidence of P.W.4 relating to he being threatened thrice remains undemolished in cross-examination. Therefore, the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the above noted inconsistency. However, such inconsistency has not been put to him during cross- examination. Further, the evidence of P.W.4 relating to he being threatened thrice remains undemolished in cross-examination. Therefore, the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the above noted inconsistency. Rather, a holistic analysis of evidence of P.W.4 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.5 & 7 clearly show that there was quarrel and ill-feeling between P.W.4 and his family members with appellant for which the appellant had threatened to kill both P.W.4 and the deceased. P.W.5 has fully corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 relating to threat held out by the appellant to P.W.4 and his deceased nephew one year prior to the occurrence and 7/8 days prior to occurrence. With regard to the third occurrence, there is a minor inconsistency. While P.W.4 states that such threatening took place on the date of occurrence; according to P.W.5, the third threatening took place a day prior to occurrence. Keeping in mind the fact that both these witnesses are rustic and illiterate villagers, who adduced their evidence one year after the occurrence before the court, the above discrepancy can only be described as a minor one. Further, in his cross-examination, P.W.5 has clearly stated that he had heard thrice the appellant threatening to kill P.W.4 or his son. P.W.7, the sister of deceased like P.Ws.4 & 5, is a rustic villager, who has endorsed her testimony with L.T.I. Though vis-a-vis the evidence of P.Ws.4 & 5, there is some inconsistency in her evidence as to timing of threat however she has clearly testified that prior to occurrence, the appellant was threatening to kill her father or brother. Though in Para-4 of her cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant never had any ill-feeling towards the deceased, however, she has made it clear that the appellant had ill-feeling towards her parents. A holistic interpretation of her evidence coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 4 & 5 would show that the appellant had the motive to settle the score with the parents of the deceased and he chose to settle the same in a manner where it would hurt the parents most though he might not have any ill-feeling towards the deceased. Further, P.W.7 has in her cross-examination has stated about land of P.W.6 being situated near the Badadunguritala nala, where the ghastly crime was committed. Further, P.W.7 has in her cross-examination has stated about land of P.W.6 being situated near the Badadunguritala nala, where the ghastly crime was committed. She also stated that P.W.6 had grown channa in his field in the year of occurrence and was guarding his channa grain. P.W.6 has corroborated the version of P.W.7 when in his cross-examination he has stated that his channa land was nearer to Badadunguritala nala than other cultivators. He had been to his gram field at 2 P.M. While there, he heard shouting of a boy and proceeded in that direction. Near the Nala, he found the appellant holding a Tangia with mark of vermillion and with his Dhoti stained with blood. Though the exact version of shouting as stated by him in his examination-in-chief cannot be believed as in his cross-examination he has admitted that he has not told such exact version before the police, however his version relating to hearing of shout has remained undemolished. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at 4 P.M. he heard the sound of a boy and the deceased was the village boy. P.W.6 has also given L.T.I. endorsing his testimony. Thus, he is also an illiterate and rustic villager. In such background, nothing much can be read into his inconsistent version of hearing the sound of a boy so also hearing the sound of man as stated by him in his cross examination. Rather, while testifying that he heard the sound of a boy, he has also stated that the deceased was their village boy. Taking the totality of circumstances, one can reasonably infer that what P.W.6, a rustic illiterate villager clearly meant is that on hearing the voice of deceased, when he was going to the spot from where such sound emanated, he found the appellant with Tangia on hand with blood stained Dhoti. Later, the appellant himself has handed over the blood stained Dhoti to the I.O.-P.W.11. Such conduct of the appellant assumes importance under Section-8 of the Evidence Act. P.W.11 has also seized blood stained earth from the Nala in presence of witnesses vide Ext.3. Further, from near the spot, P.W.11 has also seized one faded green colour half shirt stained with blood vide Ext.4. Such conduct of the appellant assumes importance under Section-8 of the Evidence Act. P.W.11 has also seized blood stained earth from the Nala in presence of witnesses vide Ext.3. Further, from near the spot, P.W.11 has also seized one faded green colour half shirt stained with blood vide Ext.4. That apart the postmortem report under Ext.9 was prepared on 26.1.2007 at about 2.30 P.M. and there the doctor P.W.10 has opined that the death had occurred within 24 hours of such examination. P.W.6 has stated that he had heard the cry at around 4 P.M. It may not be out of place to indicate here that P.W.4 has seen appellant on 25.1.2007 at 2 P.M. with axe and vermillion mark on his forehead. At 4 P.M. of the same day P.W.6 while going towards the Nala met appellant in a similar fashion with blood stained Dhoti. All these provide various chains in circumstantial evidence. From an analysis of evidence of P.Ws.8 & 9, one can see while P.W.9 has turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.8 is replete with contradictions as he has stated in his cross-examination that contents of Ext.6 were not read over by the Thanababu and they did not sign any paper at police station but put their signatures only near the hut of Budu Tandi i.e. the place of recovery and further that contents of seizure list were not read over and explained to them. Notwithstanding all these P.W.11 has clearly stated that during interrogation, the appellant confessed to have committed the crime by means of axe and to have concealed the same in hut located in the land of Budu Tandi. He further stated that he would show the place of concealment and give recovery of axe. Vide Ext.6 such confessional statement was recorded in presence of P.Ws.8 & 9 and thereafter the appellant led him and other witnesses and gave recovery. Though the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 9 in this regard is not of much help for reasons indicated earlier, but still then the evidence of I.O. (P.W.11) on the said matters remains undemolished. Law nowhere requires the investigating agency to have the signatures of independent witnesses on the disclosure statement of an accused recorded under Section-27 of the Evidence Act. Though the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 9 in this regard is not of much help for reasons indicated earlier, but still then the evidence of I.O. (P.W.11) on the said matters remains undemolished. Law nowhere requires the investigating agency to have the signatures of independent witnesses on the disclosure statement of an accused recorded under Section-27 of the Evidence Act. Further, it has been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Modan Singh –v- State of Rajasthan reported in (1978) 4 SCC 435 that if the evidence of the I.O., who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence of recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. In Mohd. Aslam –v- State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 9 SCC 362 , the Supreme Court has reiterated the said view. In such background, evidence of P.W.11 on the matter of leading to discovery of Tangia (M.O.I) cannot be ignored. This again emerges as a strong circumstance against the appellant. 10. In such background, we have to examine the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. His first submission was that the evidence with regard to motive of the appellant to commit the murder was highly deficient. We refuse to accept such submission because the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 clearly shows that there was ill-feeling between the appellant and P.W.4 and his wife and prior to the occurrence he has given threat to eliminate both P.W.4 and the deceased. Though there exist some minor discrepancy with regard to timing of threat between the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 7, however, a holistic reading of their evidence would show that there was bad blood between the appellant and P.W.4 and accordingly, the appellant had held out the threat several times. P.W.5 corroborates the version of P.W.4 with regard to threat held by the appellant one year prior to the occurrence so also the threat held out 8 days prior to the occurrence. With regard to the last occurrence, there is a minor discrepancy inasmuch as while the P.W.4 indicates that such threat was held out by the appellant on the date of occurrence, P.W.5 has stated about such a threat being held out by the appellant one day prior to the occurrence. With regard to the last occurrence, there is a minor discrepancy inasmuch as while the P.W.4 indicates that such threat was held out by the appellant on the date of occurrence, P.W.5 has stated about such a threat being held out by the appellant one day prior to the occurrence. Being rustic villagers, such discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is of not much consequence. P.W.7 has stated that there was a quarrel in the previous year and also a quarrel 4 to 5 days prior to the occurrence where the appellant threatened to do away the lives of P.W.4 and her brother. She has also stated prior to the occurrence the appellant was threatening her father (P.W.4) to kill him and her brother. Like P.W.4, P.W.7 has also attached L.T.I. to the copies of her deposition. These show both of them to be illiterate and rustic villagers. Therefore, her saying in the cross-examination that the appellant had no ill-feeling towards her deceased brother cannot mean much as in her examination-in-chief she has clearly stated that the appellant threatened to kill both her father (P.W.4) and her deceased brother. Not having ill-feeling may be one thing but in order to settle the score, a person can do harm to another by killing his close relatives, though he may not be having any ill-feeling towards that close relative. Now to the next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that since P.W.9 has turned hostile and the version of P.W.8 is inconsistent therefore the evidence leading to discovery should be ignored in the background of the decision reported in Baichandra Majhi –v- State of Orissa (2012 Suppl.II OLR) 120. In our opinion, the said case is factually distinguishable. There the conviction was made solely on the basis of leading to discovery under Section-27 of the Evidence Act. There this Court dis-believed the disclosure statement leading to discovery as the witnesses leading to discovery stated that the disclosure statement on which the police told him to put his signature was never read over and explained to them. Here as indicated earlier strong motive of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution by way of cogent evidence. Further, the evidence of P.W.6 also offers a strong circumstantial evidence. Here as indicated earlier strong motive of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution by way of cogent evidence. Further, the evidence of P.W.6 also offers a strong circumstantial evidence. He has clearly stated that his cultivable land was situated near Badadunguritala nala and he having heard the cry of the deceased coming from Badadunguritala nala went towards that spot. While going towards Badadunguritala nala he found the appellant near the Nala with Tangia and blood stained Dhoti. P.W.4 also supports/corroborates such evidence with regard to spot of occurrence being Badadunguritala nala from where he found the dead body of his son. P.W.11 and other seizure witnesses have also stated about the seizure of blood stained earth from the spot at Badadunguritala nala and the chemical examination report at Exhibit-18 shows that the blood stained earth to contain the blood of human origin of Group-B. It also indicates the half shirt and half pant of the deceased containing human blood of Group-B. The argument that P.W.6 is not an independent witness, but an interested witness has no leg to stand as he had denied the suggestion that the parents of deceased have sold him to P.W.6 and he had kept the deceased as his son. Further, the argument that evidence on leading to discovery has lost all its meaning as evidence of P.W.8 is inconsistent and as P.W.9 has turned hostile, cannot be accepted as the evidence of I.O. (P.W.11) in this regard remains convincing and has not been demolished in cross-examination. Recovery of weapon of offence as made from the place could not have been possible but for the information supplied by the appellant. For all these reasons, the evidence of the I.O. with regard to leading to discovery of axe (M.O.I) cannot be ignored. Further, in Baichandra Majhi case (supra) the weapon of offence which was sent for chemical examination did not contain any blood. Here on the contrary, the chemical examination report finds the Tangia i.e. weapon of offence to be stained with blood. Furthermore, P.W.10 has clearly stated that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were possible by such an axe. With regard to the last submission of Mr. Here on the contrary, the chemical examination report finds the Tangia i.e. weapon of offence to be stained with blood. Furthermore, P.W.10 has clearly stated that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were possible by such an axe. With regard to the last submission of Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant that since P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not specifically spoken about Tangia under M.O.I, this is fatal to prosecution, cannot be accepted because as per the version of P.W.11, the appellant himself had led to recovery of such Tangia. Further despite inconsistencies in his evidence, P.W.8 has made it clear in his re-examination that M.O.I is the Tangia recovered from the hut of Budu Tandi. 11. In such background, according to us, the cumulative effect of the sequence of events as discussed earlier would show that there exists a complete chain of circumstantial evidence of conclusive nature against the appellant. For all these reasons, we are of view that the appellant has been rightly convicted and accordingly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. I. Mahanty, J. I agree.