ORDER : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Korea (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.66 of 2010, by which, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence. The conviction and sentence of the appellant imposed by the Court below are as follows : Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months. Under Section 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for three months. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story is that on 10.06.2010 while appellant was cutting down the trees, the deceased Shivatri Bai resisted and the appellant ran away from the spot. It is alleged that later on, the same day in the house of Shivatri Bai, the appellant came with an axe in his hand and gave repeated blows as also inflicted fatal injuries on her neck, abdomen, hand and in the arm, due to which, Shivatri Bai died homicidal death. An FIR (Ex.P/1) was recorded in the police station on the report of Ajay Kumar (PW1), the son of the deceased. After preparing inquest over the dead body, the same was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW7), who prepared postmortem report in Ex.P/13. After recording statement of prosecution witnesses, collection of other incriminating evidence, the police filed charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge, Korea. On the basis of material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Section 450 and 302 of the IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt, was subjected to trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence appearing against him led by the prosecution. The appellant denied and said that he has been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. 3. Learned trial Court, relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described above. 4. The appellant denied and said that he has been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. 3. Learned trial Court, relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that present is a case of false implication. The appellant has not committed any offence. The testimony of the so called prosecution witnesses Ajay Kumar (PW1) and Mamta (PW2) are liable to be disbelieved because they are all interested witnesses being the son and the daughter of the deceased. It is next submitted that the appellant has been involved in the alleged commission of offence only because of an incident of he being objected to by deceased when he was cutting the trees in the field and therefore, the entire story has been cooked up. It is next submitted that the seizure of axe has not been proved beyond doubt. Further, it is submitted that there is no evidence of the prosecution to prove that the axe contained human blood that too of the nature and origin of the blood group of the deceased. Lastly, it has been submitted that the manner in which the incident happened and the background, it could at the most be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as there was no intention to commit murder but only to teach a lesson because the appellant was objected to by the deceased. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment of conviction and submits that the case of the prosecution is proved by reliable and trustworthy evidence of more than one prosecution witnesses and merely because the witnesses happen to be the son and the daughter, by itself, would not be a reason to disbelieve their testimony. He further submits that the ocular testimony is fully corroborated from the medical evidence with regard to the place and nature of injury on the body of the deceased. He further submits that the doctor has clearly stated that the injury could be caused by the axe seized from the appellant. He further submits that the ocular testimony is fully corroborated from the medical evidence with regard to the place and nature of injury on the body of the deceased. He further submits that the doctor has clearly stated that the injury could be caused by the axe seized from the appellant. He further submits that the appellant had all the intention to cause death as after long interval of the incident of cutting of trees, the appellant had come to the house of the deceased, armed with deadly weapon like axe and he inflicted more than one blow on various vital part of the body of the deceased. It only manifests a clear intention to cause death and it being not covered under any of the exceptions would definitely amount to murder. 6. Homicidal death of Shivatri Bai is not substantially in dispute when one examines the contents of FIR, statement of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence which has come on record. We shall first deal with medical evidence with regard to the nature of injuries and the cause of death. Postmortem report was conducted by Dr. A.K. Shukla, who has been examined as prosecution witness of the prosecution and he has proved the postmortem report vide Ex.P/13 prepared by him upon conducting postmortem. In the Court, the following injuries were stated to have been found on the body of the deceased and which were mentioned in the postmortem report. Postmortem report was conducted by Dr. A.K. Shukla, who has been examined as prosecution witness of the prosecution and he has proved the postmortem report vide Ex.P/13 prepared by him upon conducting postmortem. In the Court, the following injuries were stated to have been found on the body of the deceased and which were mentioned in the postmortem report. Para 3 reads as under: ^^3- ckg; ijh{k.k%& 'kjhj BaMk Fkk] nksuksa gkFk o iSjksa esa vdM+u ekStwn Fkk] nksuksa vka[ks [kqyh gqbZ Fkh] dksfuZ;k gSth Fkk] vka[kks dh iqrfy;k QSyh Fkh] eqag vk/kk [kqyk Fkk] nksuks gkFk feV~Vh ls lus gq, Fks] uk[kwu isy Fkk] psgjs] Nkrh vkSj isV ,oa diM+ksa esa [kwu dk nkx FkkA 'kjhj esa fuEukafdr pksVsa ikbZ xbZ%& pksV dzŒ 1 & ,d xgjk dVk gqvk ?kko xys ds ihNs Hkkx esa Fkk] tks frjNk fLFkr Fkk] vkdkj lk<+s rhu bap yack] Ms<+ bap pkSMk vkSj rhu bap xgjk Fkk] ?kko dk fdukjk fu;fer ,oa fpduk FkkA ?kko esa ldqVsfu'k;'k fV'kq] elYl ,oa CyM oslYl dVs gq, Fks] xgjkbZ esa jh<+ dh gM~Mh Hkh dV xbZ FkhA pksV dzŒ & 2 Nkrh ds nka;s vksj uhps Hkkx esa xgjk dVk gqvk ?kko Fkk] vkdkj rhu bap yack] ,d bap pkSM+k vkSj <+kbZ bap xgjk FkkA yhoj dk nka;k Hkkx dV dj QV x;k Fkk] ftlls vR;kf/kd jDrlzko gqvk FkkA pksV dzŒ 3 & nka;s gFksyh ds Hkhrjh Hkkx esa dVk gqvk ?kko Fkk] vkdkj Ms<+ bap yack] vk/kk bap pkSM+k ,oa vk/kk bap xgjk Fkk] ?kko dk fdukjk vfu;fer FkkA [kwu tek gqvk FkkA vkarfjd ijh{k.k%& nksuks QsQM+s isy Fks] g`n; dk nksuks Hkkx [kkyh Fkk] isV [kkyh Fkk] yhoj dV dj QV x;k FkkA** 7. Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW7) also clearly opined in para 4 of the testimony with regard to the cause of death as below:- ^^4- eSusa 'ko ds lkFk ,d ihys jax dk fNaVnkj VsjhdkV lkM+h ,oa ,d yky jax dk Cykmt tks jDr ls luk gqvk Fkk] ftls lhycan djds iqfyl dks lkSai fn;k FkkA e`R;q dk dkj.k ,oa mldk izdkj%& esjs erkuqlkj mldh e`R;q g`n; ,oa 'okl xfr :dus ls gqbZ Fkh] tks vR;kf/kd jDrlzko ,oa lnek vkgr ds pksVksa ds dkj.k gqvk FkkA e`R;q dh izd`fr gR;kRed FkhA 'ko ijh{k.k ls e`R;q dk le; vkB ?kaVs dk FkkA esjh fjiksVZ izŒihŒ 13 gS] ftlds ^v* ls ^v* Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA** 8. The aforesaid evidence of the doctor, nature of injuries and the cause of death being arrest of heart and failure of respiratory system due to excessive bleeding and shock caused due to injuries inflicted by the dangerous weapon like sharp edged axe, therefore, leaves no manner of doubt that the deceased died homicidal death. Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of doctor to impeach that the death could not be homicidal in nature. 9. The case of the prosecution against the appellant is fully proved from the evidence of Ajay Kumar (PW1), the son of the deceased and Mamta (PW2), the daughter of the deceased. 10. Ajay Kumar (PW1) has deposed in his evidence that the following incident of resistance offered by the deceased Shivatri Bai to the appellant's act of cutting the trees, the appellant arrived in his house. He was armed with an axe and no sooner is arrived, he straightaway opened assault on his mother. This witness has clearly stated that the appellant inflicted injury in the neck, abdomen part near ribs and then in the arm. He has further stated that when the appellant saw him, he also charged upon him, then he ran away and cried for help where after appellant ran away from the spot along with his axe. This witness has been cross-examined but nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination as to why he should be disbelieved. He happens to be the son of the deceased and natural witness of the incident. 11. The other witness is Mamta (PW2), daughter of the deceased. She is child witness, being aged about 11 years. The evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of Ajay Kumar (PW1) with regard to the background in which the appellant came to assault Shivatri Bai as also the weapon used and the manner in which and the parts of the body on which injuries were inflicted by the appellant. Though she is child witness, she was duly examined by the trial Court with regard to her understanding and only upon due satisfaction, she has been examined without administering oath. Nothing could be elicited in her cross-examination to suggest that she is concocted evidence. 12. It is also extremely useful to note that the ocular testimony of Ajay Kumar (PW1) and Mamta (PW2) is fully supported and corroborated by the medical evidence. Nothing could be elicited in her cross-examination to suggest that she is concocted evidence. 12. It is also extremely useful to note that the ocular testimony of Ajay Kumar (PW1) and Mamta (PW2) is fully supported and corroborated by the medical evidence. A very clear and exact details of the weapon used and the places of the body at which the injuries were inflicted has been made and the injuries have been found on those very parts as stated by these two eyewitnesses. This corroboration of ocular testimony by medical evidence, leaves no manner of doubt that it is the appellant who came to the house of the deceased and inflicted injuries with the help of an axe. Memorandum (Ex.P/10) of the appellant followed by seizure of an axe vide Ex.P/11 has been proved by Bablu Prasad (PW6), who is the witness of memorandum and seizure. Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW7) in para 5 of his evidence has clearly stated that the axe, which was seized, was also sent for examination and he had given his opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the axe seized from the appellant. 13. In view of the above, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is the appellant, who inflicted fatal injury to the deceased resulting into his death. 14. Overwhelming submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could be convicted under Section 304 part-II of IPC in the background of the incident, in our considered opinion, is liable to be rejected. It is not a case where at the spot, the deceased had resisted cutting of trees, a fight took place and without any premeditation or preparation, injuries were inflicted which resulted into his death. According to the evidence of the prosecution, firstly, an incident took place in the field where the appellant was cutting the trees and was resisted by Shivatri Bai, thereafter, the appellant ran away. At a later point of time, on the same day, the appellant then came to the house of the deceased. This time he was armed with deadly weapon like an axe. He straightaway opened an assault of the deceased on her vital parts like neck, abdomen part and arm. This clearly proves premeditated mind of the appellant to kill the deceased. This time he was armed with deadly weapon like an axe. He straightaway opened an assault of the deceased on her vital parts like neck, abdomen part and arm. This clearly proves premeditated mind of the appellant to kill the deceased. It cannot be categorized as a case of assault on a sudden and grave provocation without any premeditation. The very arrival with an axe and the opening of an assault without any kind of altercation or conversation only shows the cruel manner in which appellant acted. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant does not warrant any interference. The appeal has no merit and therefore is dismissed.