JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 20.09.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Cuttack in S.T Case No. 185 of 2000 convicting the appellant under Sections 449 1302 I 307 I 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.03.1998 at about 4.00 P.M. when one Kina Sahu along with his friend Madhaba @ Samarendra Mohanty were sleeping in the 'bari' land of his house, at that time one Jhulan Nayak came rushing to that place and intimated the Kina Sahu and Madhaba that appellant Debula @ Debendra along with his associates being armed with sword, bombs and others weapons were rushing towards them to do away with their lives. On hearing. Madhaba and Kina hurriedly went to the house of Gadei Nayak and they concealed themselves in the kitchen room of Gadei Nayak. Appellant Debula along with his associates being armed with sword, bombs went to the house of the deceased for which his brother, the informant-Ulas Sahu forcibly entered into the house of his neighbour Gajendra Sahu out of. fear and the appellant Debula along with his associates rushed to the houses of Gadei Nayak and exploded bombs there. It is alleged that the appellant assaulted Kina as well as Madhaba with sword, for which Madhaba received bleeding injuries while Kina died at the spot in the kitchen room of Gadei Nayak. On the basis of the First Information Report, lodged by the informant, the brother of the deceased Niali P.S. Case No. 28 of 1998 was registered and investigation was taken up . 3. The Investigating Officer seized the blood stained broken door as well as blood stained bamboo carrying scale and blood stained wooden stick besides a pair of chapel etc. from the spot as per the seizure list under Ext.7 The wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the nail clippings, sample hair all stained with blood, collected by the Medical Officer was also seized by the Investigating Officer as per the seizure list under Ext.8. The blood stained seized materials were sent for chemical examination as per the forwarding letter under Ext.9 and the Chemical Examiner's report under Ext. The blood stained seized materials were sent for chemical examination as per the forwarding letter under Ext.9 and the Chemical Examiner's report under Ext. 10 suggests that the said blood stains on the exhibits was human blood. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 449 I 302 I 307 I 34 of I.P.C. and Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act against the appellant and another namely Gyan Ranjan Mohanty. The prosecution has established its case against the appellant whereas failed to prove its case against accused Gyan Ranjan. In the result Gyan Ranjan was not found guilty for the aforesaid offences and accordingly he was acquitted under section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Some accused persons were absconded and against them the trial was split up by the Sessions Court. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited several documents which were marked as Exts.1 to 12. The prosecution also proved four materials objects i.e. blood stained broken door, blood stained bamboo carrying scale, blood stained wooden plank and blood stained cut wood, which were marked as M.O.I to M.O.IV respectively. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.1 is the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 is the sister of the. deceased. P.W.3 is the injured friend of the deceased. P.W.5 is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.Ws.7 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and submitted postmortem report. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer, who medically examined the injured and submitted the injury report. The plea of the appellant was complete denial of the prosecution case. The appellant neither examined any witnesses nor exhibited any document 5. The trial court after threadbare discussion of the materials available on record and relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 coupled with the medical evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10 found the appellant guilty under Sections 449/302/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and convicted him thereunder. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence to show that there was prior meeting of mind and prearranged plans among the appellants for commission of murder of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence to show that there was prior meeting of mind and prearranged plans among the appellants for commission of murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that the version of the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution case and was found to be different what they had allegedly said before the police during investigation, in view of the material contradiction and glaring omission in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and need to be set aside. 7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate while supporting the impugned judgment passed by the trial court submits that it is well established by the prosecution that the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of sword and caused his murder besides causing injuries to Madhaba-P.W.3 by assaulting him with the said sword with a view to do away his life. He further submits that the charges framed against the appellant are well established by the prosecution from the evidence on record, as such the trial court rightly convicted him' under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C., therefore, the impugned judgment may not be interfered with. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the L.C.R, it appears that the prosecution has examined the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and other materials to prove its case beyond ail reasonable doubts. P.W.8 has proved the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 9. P.W.1 is the eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. He categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased along with the injured Madhaba-P.W.3 entered into the house of his brother Gadei Nayak-P.W.6 and by that time the appellant being armed with sword and bombs came there along with other accused persons. The accused persons assaulted the deceased and the injured Madhaba-P.W.3. 10. P.W.2, is also an eyewitness to the occurrence stated that the appellant being armed with sword and bombs along with his associates entered into the house of P.W.6. The appellant and his associates blasted bomb and assaulted the deceased and P.W.3. P.W.2 categorically stated that she has seen the assault by the appellant on the deceased and P.W.3, as a result of which the deceased died at the spot whereas P.W.3 was taken to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. 11. The appellant and his associates blasted bomb and assaulted the deceased and P.W.3. P.W.2 categorically stated that she has seen the assault by the appellant on the deceased and P.W.3, as a result of which the deceased died at the spot whereas P.W.3 was taken to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. 11. P.W.3, is the injured witness to the occurrence. In his evidence he stated that the appellant along with others entered into the house being armed with weapons. The appellant was armed with a sword while the other accused persons were armed with bombs, farsa and pistol. The appellant assaulted him and the deceased with sword resulting bleeding injuries on his head, right hand, left hand and other portion of the body as well as to the deceased, who died on the spot. 12. P.W.5, is the informant and brother of the deceased in his evidence stated that the appellant armed with sword forcibly entered into his house for which he concealed himself in the house of his paternal uncle. Thereafter, the appellant along with his associates rushed to the house of P.W.5. The informant went thereafter the appellant left the spot and he found that his brother lying dead and injured P.W.3 with bleeding injuries on both his hands, head and other portion of his body. 13. P.W.8, is the Medical Officer. He has proved the postmortem report Ext.4. He stated that on 22.03.1998 he has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found as many as 22 cut injuries on different parts of his body, besides he had also found four number of internal injuries after the dead body being dissected. He has opined that the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage on account of cranio cerebral injuries consistent with homicide, which can be caused, by sharp cutting weapon and the death of the deceased can possible due to the injuries as per Ext.4 in ordinary course of nature. 14. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses, as indicated above, it reveals that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, proves the prosecution case and the appellant along with other absconding accused assaulted the deceased and P.W.3 by means of sword and farsa. 14. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses, as indicated above, it reveals that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, proves the prosecution case and the appellant along with other absconding accused assaulted the deceased and P.W.3 by means of sword and farsa. As a result of such assault the deceased died on the spot and P.W.3 has sustained bleeding injuries. The evidence of P.W.3 is also corroborated by P.Ws.1 and 2, the eyewitnesses. Therefore, there is absolutely no materials to disbelieve those witnesses to the effect that the appellant has assaulted the deceased and caused injuries on the person of P.W.3 by sword with a view to do away their life. The charges framed against the appellant are well established by the prosecution from the evidence on record. The trial court has taken into consideration the evidence on record and on being satisfied that the prosecution has proved-its case beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the appellant. 15. Thus, taking all these things into account, there cannot be any doubt that the present appellant is the author of the crime. In such background, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the impugned judgment. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and confirms the same. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. S.N. Prasad, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed