JUDGMENT Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - The captive appeal is assailed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.06.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul under which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. FACTS: 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that one Jasoda is the sister of Pandab Nahak and deceased Panchu Nahak. Jasoda has married the accused Pravakar Bhoi @ Millan. It is alleged, inter alia, that after the marriage the accused used to pick up quarrel with his wife Jasoda and assault her. On 06.03.2003 while accused was quarrelling with his wife Jasoda, deceased Panchu Nahak intervened and asked the accused not to assault her. Then the accused being enraged assaulted on the neck of deceased by means of a Katari causeing bleeding injuries to the deceased and finally he succumbed to the injuries. The informant, who is the brother of the deceased, submitted written F.I.R. before the Police. After registering the case Police took up investigation. After due investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant-accused. 3. The plea of the appellant-convict as appearing from the cross-examination made to the P.Ws. and the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that he is innocent and while the deceased tried to assault the convict by Katari, same hit the deceased on his neck causing death. 4. Learned Sessions Judge after examining 12 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and verifying different documents adduced by the prosecution came to a conclusion that it is appellant-convict who is perpetuated of the crime and as such convicted him under Section 302 of IPC. Consequently, he sentenced the convict thereunder by awarding the sentence of life imprisonment. SUBMISSIONS 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, illegal and against the weight on evidence. Learned trial Court has erred in law by taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses who are related to the deceased. Even if the learned trial Court had relied upon their evidence but their evidence are not to be considered because of the presence of discrepancies in their evidence. He further submitted that weapon of offence recovered has been wrongly observed to have been used for the commission of offence. Even if the learned trial Court had relied upon their evidence but their evidence are not to be considered because of the presence of discrepancies in their evidence. He further submitted that weapon of offence recovered has been wrongly observed to have been used for the commission of offence. The report of the chemical examiner cannot be said to be on full proof to prove the circumstantial evidence against the convict. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the injury on the person of the accused which goes unexplained by the prosecution. On the other hand, the injury on the person of the convict amply proves that he was being assaulted by the deceased and his group members and falsely the case has been filed against him. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive has not been proved by the prosecution but learned trial Court has filed to appreciate such point of law before finding the appellant guilty. No independent witness has been examined in this case for which the learned trial Court ought to have disbelieved the case of the prosecution. On the whole, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court being wrong, illegal and non-application of judicial mind, same should be set aside and convict should be acquitted. 7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State submitted that there are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence amply proved the case of prosecution. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that P.Ws. 2 and 3 being relatives have adduced the unequivocal evidence to prove the occurrence and guilt of the accused. Although they are relatives but it was well settled ion law that evidence of relatives cannot be discarded merely because they are relatives whereas their evidence requires close scrutiny by the learned trial Court. Similarly, there is enough evidence of inquest and medical evidence to show that the death of the deceased was homicidal having sustained multiple injuries on his person. Besides, the seizure of the blood-stained weapon of offence and blood-stained cloth from the spot purportedly corroborate the case of the prosecution. On the whole, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State absolutely supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. Besides, the seizure of the blood-stained weapon of offence and blood-stained cloth from the spot purportedly corroborate the case of the prosecution. On the whole, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State absolutely supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. POINT FOR DETERMINATION (i) As to whether the appellant-convict committed murder of the deceased Panchu Nahak by intentionally causing his death? DISCUSSIONS: 9. It is revealed from the evidence of P.W. 3 that in his presence inquest over the dead body of Panchu Nahak (deceased) was held vide Ext. 3. Similarly evidence of P.W. 7 shows that the Police has made inquest over the dead body of the deceased and put his signature thereon vide Ext. 3/2. Ext. 3 shows that deceased has got bleeding injury on his neck and P.Ws. 4 and 7 are found to be witnesses to the inquest report. 10. P.W. 11, who is the doctor has revealed that on Police requisition on 7.3.2003, he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and his observations are as follows:- “i. Rigor mortis present on upper and lower limbs, mouth was semi opened, eys were simi closed. ii. One sharp cutting injury on the left side of the neck of size 4’’*3"*2" at the level of thyroid cartilage left side common carotid atery turned into 2 pieces and left internal jugular vein turned into two pieces, left platysma and left steroo cleidomastoid and left sterno-hyoid muscle cut into two pieces.” iii. Both chambers of the heart were empty. Cause of death was due to syncope due to bleeding due to injury to major vessels to neck. Time since death-within 24 hours to 48 hours from the date and time of conducting post mortem examination.” He proved the post mortem report vide Ext. 10. In cross-examination, it is only revealed that the injury mentioned in the post mortem report may be caused by one blow or more than one blow by Katari, so, in the cross-examination there is no any material brought out to shake the testimony of the doctor. On the other hand, the pot-mortem report vide Ext. 10 also supports the evidence of P.W. 11 as nature of injury and cause of death. There is nothing found any inconsistency or any discrepancy to the evidence of P.W. 11 and the post mortem report. 11. On the other hand, the pot-mortem report vide Ext. 10 also supports the evidence of P.W. 11 as nature of injury and cause of death. There is nothing found any inconsistency or any discrepancy to the evidence of P.W. 11 and the post mortem report. 11. It is reported in Mohammad Zahid Vs. State of Tamilnadu; AIR 1999 SC 2416 , at para-24 where Their Lordships have observed in following manner:- “24. We are aware of the fact that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post mortem, as compared to the statements found in the text books, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory……. “ With due respect to such decision, it is made clear that there is no contradiction between the statement of P.W. 11, the doctor and his report. Moreover, the nature of injury on the body of the deceased amply finds support from the evidence of P.W. 11. It is, therefore, conclusively proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal and it was caused by sharp cutting weapon as available from the evidence of P.W. 11 read with post mortem report. 12. In the Text Book of Woodroffe and Amir Ali’s Law of Evidence, 17th Edition, Vol. I, page-375, it is stated thus:- “The English Rule of Common Law Unus Nullus that one is equal to none governed strictly at one time the effect of evidence. Testimony usually was counted not weighed, one oath in any cause being insufficient. In Anglo-Saxon and Norman times, proof was according to the importance of the case made six-handed, twelve-handed etc., and he who had the greater number of witnesses prevailed. This rule came to be greatly relaxed, and in England now the general rule is the same as enacted in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act.” Thus, under Section 134 of Evidence Act no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for prove of any fact. So, evidence of single witness can be relied on to prove the fact if it is unimpeachable. 13. So, evidence of single witness can be relied on to prove the fact if it is unimpeachable. 13. It is also reported in AIR 1998 SC 2896 (Rajendra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) at para-7, where Their Lordships have observed as follows:- “… When the evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond doubt the case of the prosecution, the failure to examine another person does not affect the credibility of the prosecution.” 14. It is also reported in Jose vs. The State of Kerala; AIR 1973 SC 944 at para-5, where Their Lordships have observed as follows:- “…. According to the learned Counsel it is not safe to base a conviction for murder on the testimony of a single witness. We are not inclined to accept this contention of Mr. Ramachandran. There is no impediment in law in a conviction being based upon the testimony of a single witness provided the Courts come to the conclusion that his evidence is honest and trustworthy…….” With due respect to above decision we observe that it is the quality not quantity of evidence which matters. We hasten to observe that if the prosecution evidence on record is creditworthy and sufficient, the question of extending benefit to the said accused is non-est. 15. Keeping in mind of the principles of law as delineated above let the evidence on record be re-appreciated and find out whether the appreciation of evidence by learned trial Court is correct and legal. It is the duty of the First Appellate Court to evaluate the evidence of witnesses and to observe whether trial Court has appreciated material on record with proper perspective to concur his/her finding. 16. From the evidence of P.W.2, who is the brother of the deceased, reveals that the accused was a labourer and used to cutting date Palm trees. On the date of occurrence while accused assaulted his sister Jasoda, they intervened. Accused then went away to his house and brought out Katari and cut date Palm tree standing near their house. Then accused abused his wife Jasoda in obscene language and when deceased asked accused to keep away the Katari, accused dealt blows by such Katari to the neck of the deceased causing bleeding injury. Thus, the deceased died due to profuse bleeding from his neck. Then accused abused his wife Jasoda in obscene language and when deceased asked accused to keep away the Katari, accused dealt blows by such Katari to the neck of the deceased causing bleeding injury. Thus, the deceased died due to profuse bleeding from his neck. It is stated that the F.I.R. was lodged having been scribed by one Narahari under the instruction of P.W. 2. Since, he has put his L.T.I. he did not prove the document. It is for the public prosecutor who is duty bound to prove the F.I.R. through the informant P.W. 2. However P.W. 4 admitted to have scribed the F.I.R. as per instruction of P.W. 2 & proved the F.I.R. vide Ext. 2. He has been cross-examined at length. In para-7 of the cross-examination he narrated that after the accused inflicted Katari blow on the neck of the deceased, he requested the accused to take steps to save the life of Panchu (deceased). The plea of defence was suggested to P.W. 2 to which denied about the assault to deceased by Katari. Reiterating his evidence he stated that the accused inflicted two Katari blows on the neck of deceased holding the Katori on his right hand. Thus, the statement of P.W. 2 after being scrutinized is found to be credible and above the approach to be relied upon solely. So, it appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that he has seen the accused bringing Katari from his house and assaulted the deceased on his neck causing death in spite of their protest. 17. Similarly, P.W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. It is revealed from his examination-in-chief that the accused was quarrelling with his wife Jasoda and brought Jasoda to the house of P.W. 3. When deceased requested accused to take food, the accused inflicted blows on the neck of deceased by Katari causing bleeding injuries on his person, then accused went away. There is cryptic cross-examination to these two witnesses. Only during cross-examination P.W. 3 could not say when the quarrel took place between the accused and his wife. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W. 3 could not be well shaken by the defence. 18. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 have adduced consistently that after quarrel between accused and his wife Jasoda, the accused inflicted Katari blow to the deceased causing injuries on his person. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W. 3 could not be well shaken by the defence. 18. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 have adduced consistently that after quarrel between accused and his wife Jasoda, the accused inflicted Katari blow to the deceased causing injuries on his person. It is true that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are related to deceased. 19. P.W.5 who is also brother of deceased revealed that he had intervened to settle the matter between the accused and his wife, but accused went to his house to bring Katari and finally inflicted two blows on the neck of deceased for which the deceased died. In para-4 of the cross- examination it is stated that he has not seen Panchu dragging the hands of the accused, but Panchu and accused were going closely. The accused was behind Panchu at the relevant time. It is also revealed at Para-4 of the cross-examination that he has seen accused Pravakar was armed with Katari on the right hand. There is no any fruitful cross-examination to the witness. Nothing has been brought in the cross-examination to array him as partisan or interested witness. Thus, he also admittedly supports the case of the prosecution to lend the corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Arjun Singh & Ors; AIR 2011 SC 3380 at para-14 where Their Lordships have observed as follows:- “…. This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that the testimony of such eye-witnesses should not be rejected merely because witnesses are related to the deceased. This Court has held that their testimonies have to be carefully analysed because of their relationship and if the same are cogent and if there is no discrepancy, the same are acceptable vide Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 1 …” 21. It is reported in Vijay Shankar Shinde & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2008 SC 1198 at Para-9 where Their Lorships observed in the following manner:- “…. As a matter of fact, the evidence of injured person who is examined as a witness lends more credence, because normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant.” 22. V. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2008 SC 1198 at Para-9 where Their Lorships observed in the following manner:- “…. As a matter of fact, the evidence of injured person who is examined as a witness lends more credence, because normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant.” 22. It is reported in Joginder Singh V. State of Punjab; AIR 2009 SC 2263 where Their Lordships observed at para-9:- “We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh’s case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed:” We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased, we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in ‘Rameshwsar v. State of Rajasthan’ ( AIR 1952 SC 54 at p. 59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.” 23. It is also reported in Mangal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Bharat; AIR 1957 SC 199 where Their Lordships observed at para-7:- “It was suggested that when the two eye-witnesses to the occurrence were interested persons there should be corroboration of their evidence by independent witnesses. It seems to us that this is a proposition which cannot be of universal application……………” 24. It is also reported in Bhagga & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 2008 SC 175 where Their Lordships observed at para-15:- “…. It seems to us that this is a proposition which cannot be of universal application……………” 24. It is also reported in Bhagga & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 2008 SC 175 where Their Lordships observed at para-15:- “…. As held by both the Courts below, the mere fact that all the said eye-witnesses belong to one family cannot be a reason to disbelieve their evidence, since they were all on the spot or nearby the spot when the incident occurred….” With due respect to the decision, it is clear that relationship is not sufficient to dub a witness as interested but their evidence have to be scrutinized with caution. Keeping in mind the principles, it is found that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 even if related to deceased have been scrutinized to the extent and found to be truthful. Since they are eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence are not in any way full of conjecture, it must be held that they have amply proved the occurrence of assault by accused to deceased by means of Katari, a sharp cutting weapon on the neck of the deceased. 25. Thus, after due scrutiny evidences P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 are accepted and there is consistent direct evidence to prove that the accused assaulted deceased by Katari on his neck causing brutal injury which lead to his death. Keeping in mind the principle of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, their evidence after scrutiny are found to be trustworthy, cogent and above approach to prove the occurrence and overt act of accused. Thus the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that they are related and their evidence cannot be accepted is out of bound. 26. P.W. 6 who is one outsider corroborating P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 stated that while he was sitting in the Varandah of deceased Panchu, the accused came with his wife to the house of Panchu assaulting his wife. When Panchu intervened, accused went to his house and brought out his Katari and Panchu requested accused to take food, but instead of taking food, accused dealt blow on left side of neck of Panchu by Katari and there is no fruitful cross- examination to the witness. When Panchu intervened, accused went to his house and brought out his Katari and Panchu requested accused to take food, but instead of taking food, accused dealt blow on left side of neck of Panchu by Katari and there is no fruitful cross- examination to the witness. Rather, it is revealed from the cross-examination of P.W.6 that Panchu intervened and during alteration between Panchu and deceased, Panchu used his right hand to drag the accused. There is no other meaningful cross-examination to the witness. Hence P.W.6 being an outsider is found to have lent support to P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 to prove the occurrence and the assault made by accused to deceased, causing death of deceased thereby. 27. It is revealed from the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 12 that the blood-stained earth, sample earth, one blood-stained Katari were seized from the spot. Similarly, P.W. 12 has proved the seizure of bold-stained rope used by accused to climb the date palm tree just before the occurrence from the spot. Of course, the wearing apparel of the deceased on examination are found to have stained with human blood of ‘B’ and at the same time the report of the chemical examiner vide Exts. 15 and 16 show that the seized jute rope used by accused for climbing the date palm tree has got human blood but without grouping of latter it is not sure that such jute was stained with group ‘B’ human blood so as to support the case of prosecution. However, the seized jute stained with human blood lends assurance to the case of prosecution. 28. It is revealed from the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 7 and 12 read with Ext. 5 that the napkin (gamucha) of accused stained with blood was seized from spot, Exts. 15 and 16 show that such napkin of accused has group has ‘B’ blood-stain which is also blood group of deceased. Of course blood group of accused has not been conducted but seizure of wearing apparel of accused showing blood group ‘B’ amply corroborates the direct evidence to strengthen the case of prosecution. Unless there is occurrence involving accused, there could not be blood-stained jute rope or the blood-stained wearing apparel of the accused. Of course blood group of accused has not been conducted but seizure of wearing apparel of accused showing blood group ‘B’ amply corroborates the direct evidence to strengthen the case of prosecution. Unless there is occurrence involving accused, there could not be blood-stained jute rope or the blood-stained wearing apparel of the accused. be that as it may, the evidence of witnesses coupled with opinion of the chemical examiner also lend corroboration to the case of prosecution to prove the occurrence and culpability of the accused. 29. The evidence of P.W.12 revealed that the weapon of offence i.e., Katari has been seized from spot vide Ext. 4 and same is produced in Court vide M.O.I. P.W. 12 stated that the Katari stained with blood was seized but the chemical examiner report vide Ext. 16 does not show that the weapon of offence was stained with blood. Due to lapse of time of nine months between the date of occurrence and date of Serological examination, it is quite probable for chemical examiner for not finding any blood-stain on seized Katari. But the said weapon of offence was sent to P.W.11 for opinion and it has opined that one or more blow by Katari (M.O.I.) will cause the injuries as found by him on the person of deceased. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the seized Katari (M.O.I.) was used by the accused to cause the death of the deceased. 30. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that accused has sustained injury on his person and it has not been explained by prosecution for which he is entitled to benefit of doubt. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 10 read with Ext. 8 shows that it is superficial injury caused while he was tied by the witnesses to a date Palm tree. Such explanation has been noted in the impugned judgment. Therefore, such explanation is probable and it cannot be disastrous to the cause of prosecution. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the occurrence is proved but due to sudden quarrel between the parties, the assault was made by the accused to the deceased as revealed from the statement of the witnesses, for that the appellant could be convicted under Section 304 of IPC but not under Section 302 of IPC. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the occurrence is proved but due to sudden quarrel between the parties, the assault was made by the accused to the deceased as revealed from the statement of the witnesses, for that the appellant could be convicted under Section 304 of IPC but not under Section 302 of IPC. In support of her contention, she cited decision in Sharad V. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 45 OCR (SC) 195. In this case during quarrel the appellant assaulted the deceased causing injury on his left side chest and same is superficial in nature and having regard to the fact and circumstances of that case the appellant was convicted under Section 304 part-I IPC, but not under Section 302 of IPC. Similarly in the case of Dharamu Sahu V. State of Orissa; (2010) 45 OCR 316, where Their Lordships held that in absence of any immediate cause for a accused to cause stab blow, the offence would be under Section 304 part-I of IPC instead of under Section 302 of IPC. Similarly, she cited the decision reported in (2010) 45 OCR 320; State of Orissa V. Tatana @ Om Tatsat Acharya, where Their Lordships observed that in absence of any pre-meditation to cause death or intention to inflict the particular injury, accused was guilty under Section 304 part-II of IPC. Similarly, decision reported in (2010) 0 Supreme (Ori)316; Babula Patro V. State of Orissa, where this Court observed that at fit of anger when accused person assaulted deceased causing injury, the offence is covered under Section 300 “thirdly” of IPC and hence the appellant in that case was guilty for culpable homicide not amount to murder under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. It is also reported in 2010 (Supp.II) OLR 206; Sukura Hantal Vs. State of Orissa, where Their Lordships observed that in such case the appellant would be guilty under Section 304 Part-II of IPC but not under Section 302 of IPC as occurrence took place due to sudden provocation. There are other decisions on the same proposition cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. All these decisions have got unique observation that in absence of any pre-mediation or strong preparation, the death caused by the culprit on sudden provocation cannot be said to be culpable homicide amounting to murder but same would be culpable homicide not amount to murder. All these decisions have got unique observation that in absence of any pre-mediation or strong preparation, the death caused by the culprit on sudden provocation cannot be said to be culpable homicide amounting to murder but same would be culpable homicide not amount to murder. Decisions have been rendered basing on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 being occurrence witnesses have categorically revealed that when the quarrel was going on between the accused and his wife, the deceased asked the accused not to quarrel but accused went inside the house and brought out two Kataris. It is further revealed from the evidence that the accused abused the children of deceased and brought out one Katari from his back side and assaulted with Katari blows to the left side neck of deceased when deceased asked the accused to keep the Katari in the house and protested the quarrel of accused with his wife (sister of deceased) and abuse to deceased’s children. Had the accused no intention to cause death there could have been single blow but not double blows by Katari causing absolute dislocation of artery, vain and other interior organ of the neck as per post mortem report of the doctor. It is evidence of doctor (P.W.11) that injuries were in ordinary course of nature to cause death. When deceased was un-armed and tried to pacify the quarrel, it cannot be said that out of tussle between accused and the deceased, the assault was made on a fit of anger or on a sudden provocation by the accused. 32. So, it is not a case of pre-mediation or sudden provocation to inflict injury at the instance of accused to the deceased. On the other hand, facts and circumstances of the decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant are different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. So, we are unable to apply the decisions to the present case. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the offence is under Section 304 of IPC but instead under Section 302 of IPC has been proved against accused-appellant is untenable. CONCLUSION 33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are proved against the appellant convict. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the offence is under Section 304 of IPC but instead under Section 302 of IPC has been proved against accused-appellant is untenable. CONCLUSION 33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are proved against the appellant convict. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant appears to have no sufficient force to strengthen the plea of defence. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State placed the above materials and strenuously urged to reject the criminal appeal. For the foregoing discussions, we find force with the submission of learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State whereas the learned counsel for the appellant convict could not convince to discard the case of prosecution. However, we place our appreciation on record about endeavour made by learned Amicus Curiae for defending appellant. We, therefore, of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Court. We, hereby, agree with the finding of the learned trial Court and confirm the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court. Accordingly, the Jail Criminal Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. S.K.MISHRA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.