ORDER K.R. Mohapatra, J - Appellant Abhimanyu Khatei herein has been convicted under sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2005 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000/- (rupees five thousand) for committing uxoricide, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 302 I.P.C. and further rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000/- (rupees one thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 498-A I.P.C. Learned trial court further directed that out of fine amount, if realized, a sum of Rs.5, 000/- shall be paid to the minor child of the deceased towards compensation. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been challenged in this appeal. 2. One Kartikeswar Dalai (P.W.2-informant) lodged the first information report (Ext. 2) on 01.08.2004 at Belaguntha police outpost alleging therein that he was staying in the house of his aunt Tanu Khatei (hereinafter 'the deceased'), who was married to the appellant three years prior to the date of incident. The appellant used to stay with the deceased at her house. The appellant was working at Surat and at the time of his visit to the village, he was staying with the deceased at her house, as the appellant had no permanent abode. Out of their wedlock, the appellant and the deceased were blessed with a son (Ganesh) . The appellant at the time of his visit to the village was subjecting the deceased to torture. The appellant was not contributing a single pie for maintenance of his wife and child. Seven to eight days prior to the incident, which took place on 01.08.2004, the appellant had returned from Surat and stayed with the deceased for about two days and thereafter he went to his sister's place. On 31.07.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant came to the house of the deceased, when the family members of the deceased including the informant were taking dinner. The appellant sat on the outer verandah of the house for some time and thereafter, he left the place. The informant and the deceased with her minor child slept at one room. On 31.07.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant came to the house of the deceased, when the family members of the deceased including the informant were taking dinner. The appellant sat on the outer verandah of the house for some time and thereafter, he left the place. The informant and the deceased with her minor child slept at one room. At about 1.00 a.m. on 31.07.2008/01.08.2008, the informant woke up hearing the groaning sound of his aunt (deceased) and found that the appellant was dealing repeated blows by means of a 'Thiakodi' (long spade) on the deceased. The appellant also threatened the informant to sleep at the same place or else he would kill him, but the informant out of fear ran towards courtyard with the minor child (Ganesh) . The appellant chased the informant, but the informant entered into the house of maternal aunt, who was the neighbour of the deceased. Thereafter, the informant came out to the village road and raised hulla to save the deceased from the assault of appellant. Hearing his yelling, Ramesh Samal, Suri Samal, Prafulla Swain, Solu Swain and others came to the spot, but by then the deceased had breathed her last and was lying in a pool of blood. Looking at the gathering of villagers at the spot, the appellant confined himself in a room at the backyard of the house and bolted the door from inside. He was also threatening that he would kill if anybody tries to catch hold of him. The villagers present there gheraoed the house to prevent the appellant from fleeing away and the informant went to Belaguntha Outpost to lodge information. 3. On receipt of the written report, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Belaguntha Outpost namely Balaraju Dora (P.W.12) entered the same as Belaguntha Outpost Station Diary Entry No. 2 dated 01.08.2004. Since the F.I.R. disclosed a cognizable offence, P.W.12 took up investigation after sending the report to I.I.C., Bhanjanagar P.S. for drawing formal F.I.R. and registration of the case. Accordingly, Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No. 106 dated 01.08.2004 was registered under sections 498-A/304-B/302 I.P.C. Upon registration of the F.I.R. at Bhanjanagar P.S., the I.I.C., Bhanjanagar P.S. directed P.W.12 to take up investigation. Since the F.I.R. disclosed a cognizable offence, P.W.12 took up investigation after sending the report to I.I.C., Bhanjanagar P.S. for drawing formal F.I.R. and registration of the case. Accordingly, Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No. 106 dated 01.08.2004 was registered under sections 498-A/304-B/302 I.P.C. Upon registration of the F.I.R. at Bhanjanagar P.S., the I.I.C., Bhanjanagar P.S. directed P.W.12 to take up investigation. As the date of incident was within seven years of marriage between the appellant and deceased, P.W.12 requested the I.I.C., Bhanjanagar P.S. to send a requisition to S.D.M., Bhanjanagar for deputation of an Executive Magistrate to remain present during inquest. In course of investigation, P.W.12 visited the spot along with constables, examined the informant and other witnesses present there. As the appellant had confined himself in a room bolting it from inside, the I.O. asked him (appellant) to come out of the room and assured him that nobody would cause any harm to him. At this, the appellant opened the door and came out. The Investigating Officer then caught-hold of the appellant and sent him to Outpost along with the Constable, Mr. S.N. Patro. Thereafter, P.W.12 (I.O.) conducted inquest over the dead body in presence of the Executive Magistrate, Mr. R.K. Mohapatro, Additional Tahasildar, Bhanjanagar and other witnesses and prepared the inquest report (Ext.1) . The corpse of the deceased was sent to S.D. Hospital, Bhanjanagar for post mortem vide dead body challan (Ext.6) . The I.O. also prepared the spot map (Ext.10) and seized blood stained earth, sample earth, weapon of offence (Long Spade-Thiakodi) vide seizure list (Ext.3) . The seized weapon was also sent to S.D.M. Hospital, Bhanjanagar along with dead body challan and command certificate for the opinion of the doctor vide requisition marked as Ext.9/3. At about 1.00 p.m., the I.O. returned to Belaguntha Outpost and examined the appellant. The wearing shirt of the appellant stained with blood was seized vide seizure list Ext.4. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and forwarded to the Court after observing formalities. The post-mortem report of the deceased (Ext.8) was received by the I.O. on 20.08.2004. During course of investigation, on 17.11.2004, the wearing apparels of the appellant as well as deceased were sent to R.F.S.L., Berhampur vide Ext.12. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted on 27.11.2004 under sections 498-A/302 I.P.C. 4. The post-mortem report of the deceased (Ext.8) was received by the I.O. on 20.08.2004. During course of investigation, on 17.11.2004, the wearing apparels of the appellant as well as deceased were sent to R.F.S.L., Berhampur vide Ext.12. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted on 27.11.2004 under sections 498-A/302 I.P.C. 4. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. P.W.2 is the informant as well as nephew of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 3 are neighbours of the deceased. P.W.4 is the sister and P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.6 is a co-villager of the deceased. P.W.7 is a child witness and happens to be the younger brother of the informant. P.W.8 is the maternal uncle and P.W.9 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.10 is the police constable and is a witness to the inquest, who accompanied the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W.11 is the Pediatric Specialist of Bhanjanagar SubDivisional Hospital, who conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer who received the F.I.R. at Bhanjanagar Outpost and conducted investigation as per direction of I.I.C., Bhanjanagar P.S. The prosecution also relied upon the documents like F.I.R. (Ext.2), inquest report (Ext.1), seizure lists (Exts. 3, 4 and 7), dead body challan (Ext.6), post-mortem report (Ext.8), spot map (Ext.10) and other documents. The material objects like weapon of offence (long spade) (M.O.I) and wearing apparels of the deceased vide M.O.II and M.O.III and blood stained shirt of the appellant vide M.O.IV were relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charges against the appellant. 5. The plea of defence of the appellant was of complete denial of his involvement in the alleged offence. He examined himself as D.W.I in support of his case. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar framed charges on 05.08.2004 against the appellant under section 498-A and section 302 I.P.C. 7. Miss Susmita Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment submitted that the same is against the weight of evidence and materials on record. Attending circumstance together with evidence of D.W.1 clearly established that the appellant was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Presence of the appellant at the spot was also improbable. Miss Susmita Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment submitted that the same is against the weight of evidence and materials on record. Attending circumstance together with evidence of D.W.1 clearly established that the appellant was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Presence of the appellant at the spot was also improbable. P.W.2, who claims himself to be the eye-witness to the occurrence is related to the deceased and cannot be relied upon in view of the evidence of P.W.5, the mother of the deceased who has categorically testified that the P.W.2 was not sleeping in the spot room, where the occurrence took place. She, therefore, submitted there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and circumstances do not complete a chain to prove the charges against the appellant. Hence, she prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the appellant may be set at liberty to forthwith. Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the testimony of P.W.2 (informant) coupled with evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, who were the immediate post-occurrence witnesses clearly proves that the appellant was the assailant. The testimony of P.W.11 along with post-mortem report as well as chemical examination report (Ext.13) proves the charges to the hilt. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar on a threadbare discussion of the materials available on record has convicted the appellant, which needs no interference. 8. We have carefully heard learned counsels for the respective parties at length and perused the materials available on record meticulously. P.W.2 (informant) in his evidence stated that on 31.07.2004, when the family members, namely, the deceased and her mother were taking dinner at about 8.00 p.m., at that time, the appellant rushed to the house and sat on the front verandah of the house for some time and left the place. After taking dinner, all of them went to sleep. The grandmother (P.W.5) slept on the front verandah of the house, whereas P.W.2, the deceased Tanu and her minor son slept in a room after closing the door. At about 1.00 a.m. upon hearing groaning sound of the deceased, P.W.2 woke up and saw that the appellant had already dealt a blow on the deceased by means of a long spade (M.O.I) and was raising the long spade to give another blow on the deceased. At about 1.00 a.m. upon hearing groaning sound of the deceased, P.W.2 woke up and saw that the appellant had already dealt a blow on the deceased by means of a long spade (M.O.I) and was raising the long spade to give another blow on the deceased. When P.W.2 woke up, the appellant threatened him to remain silent and not to move even by an inch from the spot. Out of fear, P.W.2 managed to escape from the spot along with minor child of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellant chased him, but he rushed inside the house of his maternal aunt along with minor child of the deceased and raised hullah, which attracted the villagers to the spot. Thereafter, the appellant confined himself in a room at the backyard of the house and bolted the door from inside. He was also threatening to do away with the lives of people in the event they attempt to catch hold of him. Due to the assault, the deceased was profusely bleeding from her cheek, face and neck and was lying on the floor. The spot was lighted by a bulb. Hearing hullah, the villagers including P.Ws.1, 3, 6 and others rushed to the spot. The villagers gheraoed the room, so that the appellant cannot flee away from the spot and he (P.W.2) went to Belaguntha Outpost to lodge the F.I.R. P.W.2 also proved the F.I.R. (Ext.2) and identified the weapon of offence (M.O.I), wearing apparel of the deceased (M.O.II) and a saree (M.O.III) which was kept near the deceased, where she slept. P.W.2 also categorically deposed that the deceased was subjected to torture by the appellant for demand of money, whenever he was visiting the village. In the cross-examination, he has categorically testified that the deceased was sleeping with her son and thereafter he was sleeping close to the child of the deceased at the relevant time. He has specifically stated that he had not seen the first blow given by the appellant on the deceased through long spade but he has seen the appellant dealing second blow by means of long spade, which hit on the right cheek of the deceased and at that time, the deceased was sleeping with her face upward. Nothing has been elicited to discard his testimony. Nothing has been elicited to discard his testimony. On a close scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.2, it reveals that he has vividly described the part of incident, he had seen and he appears to be a truthful witness. P.W.1 is a neighbor of the deceased and a post-occurrence witness. He is also a witness to the inquest. He categorically deposed that when he reached at the spot, P.W.5, the mother of the deceased and P.W.2, the informant were shouting that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by means of a 'Thiakodi' causing death of the deceased (Tanu) . He saw the appellant, who had confined himself in a room at the back side house of the deceased bolting it from inside and shouting whoever would enter into the said room, he would be killed. Thereafter, the matter was reported by P.W.2 to the police. He also corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 in all material particulars. P.W.3, the maternal uncle of P.W.2 and brother of the deceased, categorically deposed that on the ill-fated night, when he woke up hearing the shout of his nephew (P.W.2) that "MAIN KABATA KHOLA", his wife opened the door. Thereafter, he went and found that the deceased was lying dead on the floor with cut injuries on her face and neck below the ear and was profusely bleeding. Out of fear, he came out of the room and found that the appellant was at the back side of the house standing with a long spade in his hand and was giving out to kill if any person would come to him to catch hold of him. Nothing material could be elicited from him in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. P.W.4, who is another brother of the deceased and a post occurrence witness, also corroborated the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 in all material particulars. He also deposed with regard to ill-treatment of the appellant to the deceased after their marriage. His evidence with regard to the ill-treatment of the deceased by the appellant has not been shaken in any manner. P.W.5, who is the mother of the deceased and was sleeping on the front verandah of the house on the date of occurrence also corroborated the statement of P.W.2 and testified that the deceased was given in marriage prior to three years of her death. P.W.5, who is the mother of the deceased and was sleeping on the front verandah of the house on the date of occurrence also corroborated the statement of P.W.2 and testified that the deceased was given in marriage prior to three years of her death. She had given a cash of Rs.5, 000/- towards demand of dowry to the appellant at the time of marriage. After their marriage, the appellant and deceased stayed in a rented house for two months and thereafter shifted to her house and stayed there. Since the appellant was working at Surat, the deceased stayed with him at Surat for about four months. However, leaving the deceased at Surat, the appellant returned to the house of P.W.5 and on being asked, he disclosed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself at Surat. Later on, the sons of P.W.5, who were also working at Surat brought her (deceased) to village. The appellant was subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment demanding money. P.W.5 further deposed that on the ill-fated night after taking dinner, they went to sleep. She slept at the Danda verandah of the house and in the room, where the occurrence took place, the deceased and Suneswar Dalai (P.W.7) along with the youngest son of her eldest daughter slept. She also testified that P.W.2 (informant) and the minor son of the deceased slept in another room. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon such statement of P.W.5 submitted that since P.W.2 slept with the minor son of the deceased in a separate room, he could not have seen the occurrence as alleged. Thus, the version of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant. We are unable to accept such submission inasmuch as P.W.5 slept on the front verandah of the house. Thus, her statement to the effect that P.W.2 slept in a separate room is a sheer assumption. On the other hand, P.W.2 and P.W.7, the child witness and brother of the informant have categorically deposed that at the relevant time at about 10.00 p.m., the appellant had come to their house and sat on the Danda verandah. After some time, he left towards bazar (market) . After departure of the appellant, the informant (P.W.2), the deceased and her son slept in the first room. P.W.7 and one Sukanta, a friend of the informant, slept in the second room. After some time, he left towards bazar (market) . After departure of the appellant, the informant (P.W.2), the deceased and her son slept in the first room. P.W.7 and one Sukanta, a friend of the informant, slept in the second room. The Danda door was closed from inside. The maternal grandmother (P.W.5) slept on the Danda verandah. While P.W.7 was asleep, at the call of P.W.2, he woke up and found that the deceased was lying dead with several bleeding injuries and the appellant was shouting in the bari room closing the door from inside that whoever would come to him, he (the appellant) would finish him. Such statement of P.W.7 remained unchallenged in the crossexamination. Therefore, in view of the categorical clinching evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 with regard to the presence of P.W.2 in the occurrence room at the time of incident, we find no improbability feature in such statements. Further, P.W.5, who slept on the front verandah had no occasion to see as to who slept in which room, particularly when, the door was closed from inside. As such, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.2 cannot be accepted as an eye witness falls flat on the ground and hence rejected. Even if he is related to the deceased but that cannot be a ground to discard his evidence which is clear, trustworthy and above reproach. P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, has vividly described the manner of investigation. Although he was cross-examined by the defence in detail, nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve his sworn testimony. P.W.11, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy found the following injuries on the corpse of the deceased. "i. Incised wound 10cm. x 2.5cm. x 2 cm. over right cheek extending from lower jaw upto temporal region with fracture of the right zygomatic bone. ii. Incised wound 5cm. x 2cm. x 2cm. over back of right ear with fracture or right temporal bone and laceration of the underline meninges and brain substance. iii. Incised wound in front of the middle of the neck transecting the trachea oesophagus and all the great vessels and mussels of the neck up to vertebral column cutting more than 60% of the neck transversely. iv. Incised wound 2cm. x 1cm. x 2cm. below the chin. v. Incised wound 2cm. x 1cm. x 1cm. over the tragus of right ear. vi. Incised wound 2cm. x 1cm. iv. Incised wound 2cm. x 1cm. x 2cm. below the chin. v. Incised wound 2cm. x 1cm. x 1cm. over the tragus of right ear. vi. Incised wound 2cm. x 1cm. x 1cm. situated 4cm. above the injury no. 3. vii. Incised wound 2cm. x 1cm. x 1cm. situated 2cm. below injury no. 6. viii. Incised wound 2cm. x 1.5cm. x 1cm. over base of the neck on right side. He also stated that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death was haemorhage and shock due to transection of all the great vessels of the neck. He further deposed that on examination of weapon of offence (Thiakodi) produced before him that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased might have been caused by the said weapon of offence. He also proved his opinion as Ext.9. In the cross-examination, he has categorically said that the post-mortem report does not reveal any other injuries except injury nos.1 to 8, out of which injury no.3 was the vital injury. He further stated that injury no.3 can also cause the death of a person. He also confirmed that injury No.3 can be possible by weapon of offence seized (M.O.I) and produced before him in sleeping posture. Therefore, the evidence of the eye witness (P.W.2) gets corroboration from the medical evidence as given by P.W.11. 9. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1. Although he desperately tried to make out a case that he (D.W.1) was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence but he has not given any explanation to the categorical statements of the witnesses to the effect that after the occurrence, he confined himself inside a room situated at the back side of the house and he was found in that position by the I.O. (P.W.12) . 10. On a conspectus of the evidence of the witnesses as well as the documents exhibited, we are of the firm view that the appellant is the author of crime. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar taking into consideration all the attending circumstances rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant has committed uxoricide by killing his wife (Tanu), when she was asleep. P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 have categorically stated that the deceased was tortured and assaulted frequently by the appellant on demand of dowry. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar taking into consideration all the attending circumstances rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant has committed uxoricide by killing his wife (Tanu), when she was asleep. P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 have categorically stated that the deceased was tortured and assaulted frequently by the appellant on demand of dowry. They have also stated that the appellant was not contributing a single pie for maintenance of his family. The statements of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 remained un-shattered in cross-examination. Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses with regard to demand of dowry by the appellant, which culminated in killing his wife. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant under sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial Court suffers from no infirmity and accordingly, we uphold the same. In the result, the jail criminal appeal stands dismissed. L.C.R. be sent back forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed