JUDGMENT B. B. Mangalmurti, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7th November, 2006 and order of sentence dated 8th November, 2006 passed by Mohammed Kasim, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.90 of 2004 holding the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as also fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for two months with set off clause for the period already undergone during trial. 2. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that the S.I., Madan Mohan Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Chandil P.S. recorded the fardbeyan of the Informant Boby Mahali,wife of Nimai Mahali on 30.05.2004 at about 16.00 hours stating therein that on 30.05.2004 at about 12.00 noon the informant was cutting wood for cooking purpose with an axe in front of her Indira Awas House. Her Bhaisur Ram Das Mahali was talking with co-villager Jubail Sawayan under the Imli tree at a distance of about 30 feet from the informant. Informant felt thirst and went inside the house to drink water leaving her axe outside the house with the wood. After some interval, she heard cry of her Bhaisur Ram Das Mahali, then she immediately came out of her house and saw that co-villager Jubail Sawayan using her axe was causing axe blow about four times on the neck of her Bhaisur. When she tried to intervene, the accused had caused serious injuries on the neck and ear side and on seeing the assemblage of villagers fled away on the south side of the village holding axe in his hand. When informant tried to extend medical treatment with the help of villagers but he died on the spot. The cause of incident is that her Bhaisur had taken Rupees three hundred from Jubail Sawayan for purchase of rice, and on demand for return of the same, altercation between them started and Jubail Sawayan used axe for killing her Bhaisur which was also seen by other villagers. 3. After submission of charge-sheet, the cognizance of offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of session on 04.08.2004. 3. After submission of charge-sheet, the cognizance of offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of session on 04.08.2004. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against sole appellant and prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses and have exhibited some documents as well as Material exhibits on their behalf whereas Defence has not examined any witness nor any documents were brought on record. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, eight witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.l-Boby Mahali, Informant of this case, P.W.2- Gopal Gorai, seizure list witness, P.W.3-Kartik Gorai, P.W.4-Madan Mohan Singh, who recorded the fardeyan etc. and arrested the accused, P.W.5-Kamal Narayan Singh, I.O., P.W.6-Dr. A.K. Choudhary, P.W.7-Choudhary Prakash Narayan, who brought Material Exhibits and P.W.8-Chand Mukhi, another eye- witness of this case. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, following documents were exhibited. Exhibit 1-signature on new seizure list, Exhibit 2- Fardbeyan, Exhibit 3 and 3/1-Seizure list, Exhibit 4-Formal F.I.R., Exhibit 5-signature on post-mortem report. 6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that merely on the statement of one eye-witness i.e. P.W.l-Boby Mahali, the conviction has been made as other witnesses may be termed as hearsay witness. He further submitted that the injuries stated by the prosecution is not corroborated by the post-mortem report of the doctor. He further submitted that without proper appreciation of the evidence, the conviction is bad. He also submitted that seized Tangi was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory but no report was brought on record by the prosecution which creates doubt over the prosecution. Lastly, he has submitted that the intention was not to kill but on the spur of moment the occurrence took place. 7. Learned A.P.P. submitted that judgment of conviction has been arrived at on the basis of oral and documentary evidences. He also submitted that P.W.I and P.W.8 are eye-witnesses. The doctor has been examined as P.W.6 who found ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon over shoulder, on neck and fracture of temporal bone. The police after arrest of appellant on the date of occurrence recovered the Tangi which was used for committing the murder. The motive has been amply proved by the prosecution as due to demand of return of money by the appellant from deceased, prompted altercation between them which culminated in causing several injuries over the person of deceased resulted in his death. The motive has been amply proved by the prosecution as due to demand of return of money by the appellant from deceased, prompted altercation between them which culminated in causing several injuries over the person of deceased resulted in his death. The neighbours and villagers have supported the prosecution story supported with the medical evidence so there is no scope of any doubt in arriving at concrete finding pointing towards the appellant having committed the murder. The reliable witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the trial court has rightly placed reliance over those evidences and judgment of conviction was passed. 8. Considering the above pleadings of the parties and on scrutiny, it would appear that the informant was examined as P.W.I and narrated the prosecution story in detail that the occurrence took place at about 12.00 noon while she was cutting wood in front of her house. Both the appellant and deceased were talking while she was inside the house heard cry of deceased and when she came out she saw appellant giving repeated blow to the deceased and when she tried to intervene then appellant managed to escape. P.W.2-Gopal Gorai before whom the appellant has handed over Tangi to the police and this witness has also put signature over the paper prepared by the police that has been marked as Ext.l. The statement of accused was recorded before this witness that led to recovery of Tangi which was concealed behind/near his shop. This part of the statement of accused is held to be proved as the weapon used in committing crime were recovered by the statement of appellant before the police. Eye-witness P.W.8-Chand Mukhi had seen the appellant and deceased sitting under Imli tree. This witness has also stated reason behind the occurrence. P.W.6-Dr. A.K. Choudhary has proved post-mortem report as Ext.5 and has found injuries over the shoulder, part of neck right side behind ear with cut fracture of temporal bone, back of mid neck and cut fracture of 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae. He had also found that injuries are ante-mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons. P.W.7-Choudhary Prakash Narayan has brought material exhibits Tangi marked as Ext.l and blood-stained earth marked as Ext.II. Two investigating officers P.W.4-Madan Mohan Singh and P.W.5-Kamal Narayan Singh both have been examined in this case and have proved the case of prosecution. He had also found that injuries are ante-mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons. P.W.7-Choudhary Prakash Narayan has brought material exhibits Tangi marked as Ext.l and blood-stained earth marked as Ext.II. Two investigating officers P.W.4-Madan Mohan Singh and P.W.5-Kamal Narayan Singh both have been examined in this case and have proved the case of prosecution. Therefore, consistency in the above evidences of prosecution witnesses were found. Prosecution has proved the motive, weapon used in the occurrence as well as supported with oral evidences and trial court has rightly come to a finding that this appellant has caused death of deceased Ram Das Mahali. 9. Therefore, in such circumstances we are of the opinion that prosecution has able to prove its case and no occasion arises to interfere in the findings of the trial court. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.