JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed his conviction U/s. 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years respectively vide judgment dated 11.11.2009 in C.T. Case No.18 of 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the accusation runs thus:- The accused and his deceased-wife were staying in village Jhadiagudia. In the vicinity, his in-laws house was situated. On 27/28.12.2005 night at about 2 A.M, the informant woke up to attend the call of nature. He came out. He heard the screaming sound of his deceased-sister Marigali Marigali. He rushed and found the door bolted from inside. He knocked but it was not responded. He forced his entry to inside. He saw the accused giving several blows by means of Tangia (pick axe) to his wife Tulabati. Tulabati was lying with profuse bleeding. Seeing informant, the accused gave a Tangia blow to his (informant) neck. It was an attempt to murder him. He screamed out of pain. Hearing hullah, his brothers and others rushed and saw the incident. They tried to nab the accused but accused fled away with the axe. Others chased him but it was in vain. 2.(a) On next morning, the accused was apprehended near DANGAR with blood stained axe (M.O.I). He confessed to have committed murder of his wife. On that day at 8.45 A.M., the brother of the deceased, informant got an F.I.R. written and lodged the same which was registered as Tentulikhunti P.S. Case No.92 of 2005. The investigation was ensued. 2.(b) In course of investigation, inquest was made. P.W.17-Doctor conducted the post-mortem. The informant injured and accused were examined by Doctor-P.W.20 and were found to have sustained injuries vide Ext.12 and Ext.13. The Investigating Officer seized a Tangia (M.O.I) and one full underwear from the accused. The witnesses were examined. The sample earth, axe, seized underwear of the accused and other articles were sent for Chemical Examination. The axe and wearing apparels of the accused were found to have stained with blood of Group B?. 2.(c) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Learned SDJM took cognizance in G.R. Case No.515/2005 and committed the case to the Court of Session. The accused faced trial for the charge U/s.302 and 307 of IPC. The axe and wearing apparels of the accused were found to have stained with blood of Group B?. 2.(c) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Learned SDJM took cognizance in G.R. Case No.515/2005 and committed the case to the Court of Session. The accused faced trial for the charge U/s.302 and 307 of IPC. 2.(d) The plea of defence is alibi as well as false implication. It is stated under Section 313 Cr.p.C. that after murdering his wife, he has been roped in this case. Prosecution examined 20(twenty) witnesses. Defence examined none. 2.(e) P.W.8 is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.9 and P.W.1 are mother and brother of the deceased. P.W.10 is the sister-in-law of the accused. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 18 are independent witnesses to the seizure and post-occurrence. P.W.14 is a Constable while P.W.15 and 16 are Grama Rakhis. They are witnesses to the seizure. P.W.17 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem and his report is Ext.7. P.W.20 is the Doctor who examined the informant-injured and accused and has proved Injury Reports (Ext. 12 and Ext.13). P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer who inter alia has proved the spot map (Ext.8). 2.(f) Learned Addl. Sessions Judge believed the eye-witnessP.W.8 and other post-occurrence witnesses. He found that the death of Tulabati was homicidal in nature and accused was the author of such murder. He also found that the accused had attempted to commit murder of P.W.8 and in course of such attempt had caused injury vide Ext. 12. He did not believe the probability of the defence plea. Consequent thereupon, he convicted the accused and passed sentence as stated above. 3. Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries found on the deceased and injured-informant could not have been caused by the seized Tangia (M.O.I) as all those injuries were lacerated in nature. He further submits that the sole eye-witness being related to the deceased as brother is not reliable and the post-occurrence witnesses having given discrepant testimonies about the time of apprehension of the accused with the weapon of offence, a reasonable doubt creeps in, of which benefit should be extended to the accused. He further submits that the extrajudicial confession as stated is found to have been obtained by coercion and is not admissible. He further submits that the extrajudicial confession as stated is found to have been obtained by coercion and is not admissible. 3.(a) According to him, as learned lower Court has committed mistake in not appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, the judgment is liable to be set aside. 3.(b) Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. J. Katikia supports the conviction and sentence on the ground stated in the judgment. He repelled the contention regarding nature of injuries stating that the M.O.I-axe is the only weapon used to cause injuries found on the deceased and on informant and medical evidence does not rule out the possibility of infliction of lacerated nature of injuries by M.O.I-Tangia. For that he refers the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Book by H.W.V. Cox. 4. The Investigating Officer-P.W.19 has proved the spot map (Ext.8) and has testified the location of the house of the accused and its vicinity. The salient feature of such testimony indicates that the approach of the informant and other post-occurrence witnesses to the spot after hearing screaming sound from the deceased's house is not improbable. The relationship between the deceased with informant P.W.8 and her mother-P.W.9, brother-P.W.1 and particularly between the accused and P.W.10 as sister-in-law, is not in dispute. Related witnesses are not necessarily to be interested to ensure false implication leaving a real culprit to escape. Their testimonies are not inherently doubtful, if otherwise, found cogent, clear and unimpeachable. 4.(a) The informant-P.W.8 at about 2 A.M. night while proceeding to attend call of nature heard the screaming sound of her sister-deceased Marigali Marigali and reacted in a natural manner to knock the door. He has specifically stated that there was a lamp (dibiri) inside the house. He peeped through the plank hole of the door and found the accused assaulting the deceased by means of Tangia. He broke upon the door and seeing him, the accused gave a stroke to his neck causing bleeding injury. He raised hullah and Jitru Muduli (P.W.6) and Sripati Muduli (P.W.1) and others came to the spot and the accused fled away with Tangia. He has given the picturesque of the incident as to how his sister was laid on the ground with profuse bleeding injuries and injury was inflicted on his neck by the brother-in-law-accused by means of an axe (M.O.I). He has given the picturesque of the incident as to how his sister was laid on the ground with profuse bleeding injuries and injury was inflicted on his neck by the brother-in-law-accused by means of an axe (M.O.I). His evidence gets corroboration from P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 as post-occurrence witnesses. 4.(b) P.W.1 has stated that he along with others searched the accused but could not get him. P.W.9, the mother of the deceased 7 stated that when she rushed the spot, the accused had fled away. On anatomical survey of the evidence of informant-injured P.W.8, we are of the opinion that he is a reliable and trustworthy witness. The testimony is not tainted with any motive to falsely implicate his brother-in-law-accused for commission of his sister's murder. 4.(c) P.W.20 has examined P.W.8 and found to have sustained lacerated injuries on his right side neck and is stated to have been caused due to heavy sharp cutting objects. Medical Report is Ext.12. Medical evidence corroborates the oral testimony of P.W.8. 4.(d) Because of the above, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to disbelieve eyewitness-P.W.8. 5. Inquest was made by the Investigating Officer-P.W.19 and witnesses to the same are P.Ws.1, 3, 12, 13 and 18. Doctor-P.W.17 conducted post-mortem and found nine injuries which are lacerated and ante-mortem in nature vide Ext.7. Under Item No.VI, he has mentioned 4 injuries found on the left side buttock. On dissection he found fracture of skull over vertex and other injuries on the left side of neck. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock for the injuries to vital organs i.e. carotid vessels, jugular vain and brain. He has opined that the death was homicidal 8 in nature. Doctor was not cross-examined. The weapon of offence (M.O.I-pick axe) was seized from the accused vide Ext.5. The size of axe is stated in Ext.10 i.e. forwarding report for chemical examination which is, wooden handle of 21 inches, length of the axe 6 inches while width of blade is 2 inches. The shape of M.O.I indicates that it is not a fully sharp cutting weapon. 5.(a) Learned counsel for the appellant tried to cast doubt on the prosecution story raising a point that lacerated wound could not be caused by sharp cutting weapon. The shape of M.O.I indicates that it is not a fully sharp cutting weapon. 5.(a) Learned counsel for the appellant tried to cast doubt on the prosecution story raising a point that lacerated wound could not be caused by sharp cutting weapon. To dispel doubt, we referred the authority on the point and found from Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by H.W.V. Cox, 6th Edition at page-290 as follows:- The most common place for serious lacerations to be found, especially in forensic practice, is the scalp which is often the target for homicidal attack. As mentioned above, the hard underlying skull forms an unyielding base upon which the skin and soft tissues can be crushed, so that many blunt injuries of the scalp are indistinguishable at first sight from a laceration caused by a knife, sharp axe or any other cutting instrument. Further in the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, 25th Edition with regard to lacerated wound at page-604, it is mentioned at column c? that tearing of the skin and tissues can occur from impact by or against irregular or sharp objects (penetrating and exerting a pulling action.). 6. Descending to the evidence at hand, it is noteworthy that fracture of skull over vertex was noticed after dissection during postmortem. Nature of weapon and its impact on the body are determinative factors to the injuries found on the deceased and also on the informant-P.W.8. The medical evidence does not rule out the causing of injuries by M.O.I. 6.(a) On the analysis of medico-legal aspect of injuries found on the deceased and informant-P.W.8, we are satisfied that M.O.I was the weapon of offence and the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 7. The evidence of eye-witness-injured, P.W.8 getting corroboration from post-occurrence witness and medical evidence unerringly point out the guilt of the accused. Added to that, P.Ws.1, 4, 5, and 7 have categorically testified that the accused had confessed before them that he had committed murder of his wife by means of axe (M.O.I). This extra-judicial confession is admissible and is no way shown to have been extracted by means of coercion or inducement. Such confession was made when accused was found with blood stained axe. What could not be hidden might have become potential source to produce voluntary confession. We find no impediment to read the same as a part of legal evidence. This extra-judicial confession is admissible and is no way shown to have been extracted by means of coercion or inducement. Such confession was made when accused was found with blood stained axe. What could not be hidden might have become potential source to produce voluntary confession. We find no impediment to read the same as a part of legal evidence. As a 10 necessary corollary, extrajudicial confession adds weight to the sole eye-witness P.W.8. 8. The plea of alibi by defence does not appear probable because the accused was found on next day with the weapon of offence having blood stain. His attired one full underwear was also found to have blood stain on chemical examination. When the defining characteristics of evidence in a murder case are wholly reliable eye-witness, extra-judicial confession and corroboration from post-occurrence witnesses as well as medical evidence, the absence of motive cannot be a ground to corrode the infrastructure of the prosecution case. The prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case. 9. This is a full-proof case. Tested from all angles, prosecution is found to have established the charge U/s. 302 and 307 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has neither mis-appreciated the evidence nor mis-directed the judicial process. 9.(a) As a consequence, we confirm the conviction U/s.302 and 307 of I.P.C. and sentence passed thereon. No sufficient ground is found for interfering in the judgment recording conviction and sentence. 10. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 11. The appellant-convict is on bail. The Trial Court is to take steps immediately for recommitment of convict-appellant to undergo sentence. 12. Lcrs. be returned immediately to the lower court.