JUDGMENT S. Pujahari, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anugul in Criminal Trial (Sessions) No. 296 of 2003/62 of 2003, whereby the appellant was held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life having intentionally committed the death of one Ajit Kumar Podha (referred to as the deceased' hereinafter). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 18/19.04.2003, deceased, the younger brother of Sarat Kumar Podha (P.W.2) of village-Sapoinali (Chaulaputa). was in deep slumber on a cot in the outer verandah of his house where Maheswar Nath (P.W. 1), Pitabas Sahu (P.W.4) and Sarat Kumar Podha (P.W.2). were also sleeping. In the midnight hearing screaming of the deceased when P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 woke up, they were taken aback when on finding the appellant armed with an axe (Tangia) inflicting successive blows on the deceased lying on the cot. When those three persons raised alarm, the deceased holding the axe took to his heels. They found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood with fatal injuries on his neck and other injuries on his palms, shoulder and cheek. According to the prosecution, 3 to 4 days prior to that fateful night, a village meeting convened on the allegation of the deceased that P W.2 had developed illicit intimacy with his wife. However, when P.W.2 was found to be innocent, it is alleged, the deceased warned the appellant for having supported P.W.2 who developed extramarital relationship with his wife Prosecution alleged that being frustrated and aggrieved, the appellant had threatened the deceased to take his life. Three to four days thereafter, this fateful incident occurred. That was the motive for the crime as per prosecution. P.W.2 on 19.04.2003 at 6 a.m. lodged F.I.R. (Ext.3) at Chhendipada Police Station whereupon P S. Case No. 37 dated 19.04.2003 was registered, investigation taken up, incriminating materials were seized; inquest was done over the dead body, under proper dead body challan the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination, witnesses were examined and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. 3. 3. On commitment, after framing charge under Section 302 of IPC and recording the plea of denial of the appellant, the Trial Court recorded the evidence when prosecution got examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and IX Material Objects including the weapon of offence and bloodstains and clothes of the deceased and the appellant. After putting documentary and oral evidence under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to the appellant, the Trial Court provided opportunity to him to adduce defence evidence where appellant examined two witnesses The Trial Court on consideration of evidence found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC and convicted thereunder. The appellant was awarded sentence, as mentioned above. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused all the materials placed on record with care and caution. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that PWs. 1, 2 and 4 being interested and partisan witnesses] their evidence is of no avail to the prosecution in absence of independent corroboration. The other contention of the learned counsel is that even if it is assumed for a moment that the appellant inflicted some blows by means of axe like M.O.I, he never intended to inflict any fatal blow to cause the death of the deceased, and urged to alter the conviction and sentence accordingly. 6. Repelling such contentions, the learned Addl. Standing counsel for State submitted that when the appellant inflicted murderous blows by means of a dangerous weapon like M.O.I. his intention to cause the death of the deceased is manifest from his act. That being the nature of the act committed by appellant, the learned Addl Standing counsel contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not call for any second opinion. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions raised at the Bar, we have sifted the evidence, both oral and documentary, with care and caution and have also scrutinized the impugned judgment recorded by the learned Trial Court. 8. As to whether or not the injuries found with the deceased were homicidal in nature, the learned Trial Court had discussed the evidence threadbare in paragraph-21 of the judgment P.W.7, the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Community Health Centre. 8. As to whether or not the injuries found with the deceased were homicidal in nature, the learned Trial Court had discussed the evidence threadbare in paragraph-21 of the judgment P.W.7, the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Community Health Centre. Chhendipada had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 19.04.2003 and found the following injuries :- "Rigor mortis found on both upper and lower limbs. There are 8 chopped wounds on the body of the deceased and clotted was also present on the wounds All the wounds were antemortem in nature. (i) A chopped wound on right side of neck of size 3" long 1/2 wide X 3" in deep hyoid bone fracture The wounds is grievous m nature. (ii) Two chopped wounds on right side of the face, of size 2" long x 1" wide x 2" deeo| each Mandible on right side was fractured. (iii) One lacerated injury on chest below the neck on the left side of size 1" long x 1 wide x 1" deep. (iv) One chopped wound on right shoulder of size 2 1 /2 " long x 1" wide x 1" deep. (v) One chopped wound of size 3" deep x 2" long (vi) Four fingers except the thumb detached from the hand and partially attached to the hand. Matacarpals on left hand are fractured (vii) One chopped wound on the right hand of size 2 1/2" long x 3" deep x 1/2 wide and anther chopped wound of size 5" long x 1 1/2' wide x 3" deep, metacarpal broken." 9. Matacarpals on left hand are fractured (vii) One chopped wound on the right hand of size 2 1/2" long x 3" deep x 1/2 wide and anther chopped wound of size 5" long x 1 1/2' wide x 3" deep, metacarpal broken." 9. According to RW.7, the injuries found on the neck, face and hands were grievous in nature and further opined that injuries so found were to have been caused by a weapon, like M.O I. RW.7 has further opined that the death was due to the injuries caused on the neck All such have been extensively stated in the post-mortem report, Ext 4 and dealt with at length by the learned Trial Court In course of post-mortem examination the seized axe, M.O.I was also sent to P.W.7 for his opinion where the doctor opined that all such injuries found on the body of the deceased were possibly caused by weapon of offence like M.O.I. The injuries were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary brought on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the injuries as per Ext.4 were homicidal in nature and the deceased died a homicidal death. 10. As to who is the author of the crime, prosecution heavily relied on the ocular version of PWs 1, 2 and 4 as well as on the version of immediate after occurrence witness-Jayananda Podha (P.W.3). P Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have deposed with aplomb to have seen the appellants inflicting blows by means of an axe (M.O.I) on the helpless and hapless deceased while he was lying on the cot and raising alaram seeking protection The presence of P. Ws. 1. 3 and 4 at that scene of occurrence was natural inasmuch as it was summer night and villagers usually sleep in open place in front of their dwelling houses and in community halls (Kotha Ghara) during summer months. They have no prior animosity with the appellant on any count. Their presence at the spot of occurrence was never questioned and challenged by the defence. No material was also placed on record to suggest that PWs. They have no prior animosity with the appellant on any count. Their presence at the spot of occurrence was never questioned and challenged by the defence. No material was also placed on record to suggest that PWs. 1, 2 and 4 are partisan witnesses much less having 1 any axe to grind against the appellant The evidence of P.W.3 lends absolute corroboration to the version of PWs 1, 2 and 4 as to the infliction of fatal injuries by the appellant on the person of the deceased. His evidence goes to show that being informed by P.W.4 when he rushed to the spot, found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Nothing elicited to discard their presence and their version of the occurrence. In cross-examination it was elicited from P.W. 1 that appellant inflicted 5 No. Of blows on the deceased and witnessing that murderous assault he shouted for help. He was not in loggerheads with the appellant and being a co-villager was friendly to the deceased as well as the appellant. In cross examination P.W.2 deposed that it was a moonlit night and he was sleeping on the floor near the cot where the deceased was sleeping. P.W 4 stated that when P.W. 1 raised alarm that the appellant was assaulting the deceased he woke up and found the appellant running away from the spot holding 'Tangia', M O.l. In course of investigation, bloodstained clothes of the deceased as well as bloodstained axe were seized and sent to chemical examiner. The chemical examination report and serology report were exhibited as Exts. 18 and 19 respectively. The blood group of the deceased was found on the axe, M.O I. This is the gist of the ! evidence brought on record against the appellant to establish that it was he who authored the crime. 11. The evidence of prime prosecution witnesses, viz. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are apparently disinterested and independent witnesses, remained intact. The injuries found in the post-mortem examination report. Ext 4 are completely consistent with their ocular version The nature of weapon of offence used by the assailant as per the ocular evidence is also consistent with the opinion of the doctor (P.W.7) who stated that the injuries found by him in Ext 4 are possibly caused by M.O.I identified by the witnesses in Court. Ext 4 are completely consistent with their ocular version The nature of weapon of offence used by the assailant as per the ocular evidence is also consistent with the opinion of the doctor (P.W.7) who stated that the injuries found by him in Ext 4 are possibly caused by M.O.I identified by the witnesses in Court. It is also proved that the appellant inflicted successive blows by heavy sharp cutting weapon like M O.I till the witnesses appeared and raised alarm to attract other persons. There is no contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular version. As to the injuries, what is reflected in post-mortem examination report (Ext.4) and deposed by the doctor (P.W.7) and also found in the inquest report (Ext 1) are in consonance with the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1. 2 and 4. Production of M O.I and inferences emanating from Exts 18 and 19 also lend further assurance to the prosecution case. Normally, if the eyewitnesses version is totally acceptable being truthful, then such evidence could be acted upon even if there is some inter-se contradictions in the ocular version as to the number of blows and site on the body where the blows were inflicted. Invariably, witnesses add few embroidery in the prosecution story either knowingly or unknowingly for apprehension of being disbelieved. But, that itself is no ground to throw the case in astray if the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is solemn duty of the Court to put the evidence on the anvil of probability and credibility and such evidence if sieve through the colander and passes through the gauzes, can safely be accepted. The learned Trial Court has discusses the evidence of prosecution witnesses threadbare and by a reasoned order has placed absolute reliance on such testimony that it was the appellant alone who is the author of the crime. 12. We would repeat that the presence of PW.s.1, 2 and 4 at the spot of occurrence is natural and highly probable Moreover, that was not traversed, or countermand in defence cross-examination. 12. We would repeat that the presence of PW.s.1, 2 and 4 at the spot of occurrence is natural and highly probable Moreover, that was not traversed, or countermand in defence cross-examination. When there is no inherent discrepancy, inconsistency or improbability in their evidence and they appear to be natural witnesses to the occurrence being close door neighbours having no animosity with the appellant, there is no reason as to why their evidence should be thrown out. Their version cannot be discarded on any flimsy grounds. Moreover, the prosecution allegation of motive brought on record has not been challenged by the appellant That apart, when there is direct evidence inculpating the,n appellant. That apart, when there is direct evidence inculpating the appellant even absence of proof of motive is of n avail to the appellant. It only put the Court on its guard to carefully scrutinize the prosecution evidence before its acceptance. 13. Here, the evidence when considered in its core, revealed that the appellant bearing a motive to kill the deceased who sided with the P.W.2 who allegedly had illicit intimacy with the wife of the appellant, inflicted successive blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased to cause his death. Death was caused with the intention of causing death as held by the learned Trial Court, "Culpable homicide" is not 'murder' if it either does not fall within any of the clauses mentioned under Section 300 of IPC or falls within any of the five exceptions mentioned under Section 300 of IPC. The intention is a subjective consideration and the state of mind would depend upon various factors like the nature of the weapon used, nature of injuries inflicted and conduct of the accused prior to the assault and after the assault. Here, the evidence also revealed that while leaving the dying victim the appellant defended his act for the deceased having supported the cause of P.W.2 in developing intimacy with his wife. 14. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45 , the Apex Court in paragraph 21 have held as follows:- "21. Here, the evidence also revealed that while leaving the dying victim the appellant defended his act for the deceased having supported the cause of P.W.2 in developing intimacy with his wife. 14. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45 , the Apex Court in paragraph 21 have held as follows:- "21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a Court is confronted with the question whether the offence 'murder' or 'culpable homicidal not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be the convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such casual connection between the act of the accused and the death leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the first or the second oart of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code." 15. Reverting back, the doctor (P.W.7) has stated on oath and has also reflected in postmortem examination report (Ext.4) that injuries found are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The blows were also inflicted on vital place like neck and the injuries thereon were grievous in nature. On cumulative assessment, it is evident that there was premeditation and the act was not done in heat of passion. The blows were also inflicted on vital place like neck and the injuries thereon were grievous in nature. On cumulative assessment, it is evident that there was premeditation and the act was not done in heat of passion. The appellant took undue advantage of the situation and finding the deceased in fast asleep he inflicted multiple blows by a dangerous heavy weapon on the vital part of the deceased. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the evidence adduced, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant attracts the mischief of Section 302 of IPC as rightly held by the learned, Trial Court in a well reasoned judgment. 16. To sum up, having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the reasoned judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court, we do not find any ground to take a different view. The fact remains that there is a brutal murderous assault as revealed from the medical evidence and corroborated by the disinterested and reliable witnesses whose presence at the spot was probable and natural. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this Jail criminal appeal and, accordingly, it stands dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul are hereby confirmed. 18. L.C.R. received be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment.