JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. This Apple u/s.383 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant assailing his conviction U/s.302 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further undergo R.I for 2 months, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in his judgement dtd.24.1.2009 in C.T. case no.16 of 2008. 2. Put briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, the deceased was the 25 years old son of the appellant. On 24.8.2007 at noon when the appellant returned after ploughing with limping bullocks, deceased son had altercation with accused for having taken limping bullocks to plough and also had threatened his father. The appellant didn't take meal and wandered outside. By 11 P.M. deceased son went to sleep after taking dinner in the outer verendah. The informant wife asked the husband appellant for dinner. Appellant didn't take dinner. He brought out one "Katari" and dealt 5-6 blows to the head of his deceased son while sleeping. The deceased died instantaneously succumbing to the injuries. The informant shouted and went to Gramarakhi. Matter was reported to the police station over phone. She returned and found that the appellant husband had left the spot leaving the Katari on the Kukuda Bhadi (poultry shed). On that night, when police reached the spot, wife of the appellant presented written report which was registered as Rasol P.S. case no.67 of 2007 at 7 A.M. vide Ext.3. The investigation was ensued. In course of investigation inquest and post mortem were conducted. Blood stained "Katari" was seized under Ext.1. The "Katari" was sent for chemical examination which was found to have stained with human blood. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. The appellant faced trial for offence U/s.302 I.P.C. in the Court of session. 3. The plea of defence was denial simplicitor. In the statement recorded U/s.313 Cr.P.C. the appellant is found to have taken the plea of alibi while answering question no.9 and also stated that the brother of his wife has foisted this false case. 4. In order to bring home charge, prosecution examined 6 witnesses in all. Defence examined none. Informant (P.W.1) is the mother of deceased and wife of the appellant, her brother is P.W.5, P.W.2 is the Gramarakhi, P.W.3 is a witness to seizure. P.W.4 is a witness to the inquest and P.W.6 is the investigating officer. 12 documents were exhibited. 4. In order to bring home charge, prosecution examined 6 witnesses in all. Defence examined none. Informant (P.W.1) is the mother of deceased and wife of the appellant, her brother is P.W.5, P.W.2 is the Gramarakhi, P.W.3 is a witness to seizure. P.W.4 is a witness to the inquest and P.W.6 is the investigating officer. 12 documents were exhibited. Ext.11, the spot visit report, and Ext.12 the Post Mortem report, are exhibited on admission by learned SDC. 5. Learned trial court, relying upon the P.M. report and the opinion of the medical officer on the weapon of offence "Katari", held that the death was homicidal in nature. He believed the eye witness (P.W.1) informant as trust worthy and found the appellant as author of such death and accordingly convicted him U/s.302 I.P.C. and passed sentence stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when doctor was not examined and the defence could not get chance to cross-examine him, the accused was highly prejudiced, for which the conviction is not sustainable. Further it is submitted that the occurrence was the outcome of a quarrel between deceased and appellant occurred on that day for which the offence committed is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He further submitted that in absence of doctor who conducted Post mortem examination, the P.M. report should not have been exhibited and relied upon. 7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. B. P. Pradhan repelled the above contention stating that there is no evidence that the appellant acted in a spur of moment, without premeditation. Rather, evidence proves that father assaulted the deceased while he was sleeping and his intention to murder is so clear that his conviction does not warrant any interference. 8. Evidence is scanty but weighty in this case. The sole eye witness (P.W.1) is the mother of the deceased and wife of appellant. She has testified that on the date of occurrence, at 11 A.M. her husband returned from field with plough, tied the bullocks and went outside. After sometime her husband and son came. In the evening her husband told her that "E TO PUA MOTE HANIBAKU KAHUCHHI" (your son is saying to hack me). She has further testified that in the night, while her son Sarat (deceased) was sleeping in the outer verandah, her husband (appellant) brought a "Katari" and assaulted his son on his head by that "Katari". In the evening her husband told her that "E TO PUA MOTE HANIBAKU KAHUCHHI" (your son is saying to hack me). She has further testified that in the night, while her son Sarat (deceased) was sleeping in the outer verandah, her husband (appellant) brought a "Katari" and assaulted his son on his head by that "Katari". Her son sustained profuse bleeding injuries. She caught hold of her son and her wearing apparels were stained with blood. Her son died instantaneously. Then she ran to the village and went to the house of Gramarakhi who informed the matter to police. On that night at about 2 A.M. (after 3 hours) police came to her house. One boy scribed the F.I.R. and she presented the same to police by putting her L.T.I. In cross-examination she has stated that she had 6 children and the deceased son had married at Bihar for which her husband was against that marriage. Both the deceased and appellant had ill-feeling and deceased was working in a Biscuit factory. She has categorically denied about any altercation on that day prior to the incident. Her evidence is cogent and clear. She does not appear to have either exaggerated the incident or shown her special interest between husband and son. She gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 who happens to be the Gramarakhi to the extent that she informed the incident to him. P.W.2 has categorically stated that after P.W.1 came to his house and told about the incident he went to the spot where the weapon of offence was found and police reached thereafter. P.W.5, the brother of the informant has also given corroboration about post occurrence conduct of the informant and the Gramarakhi, though fairly testified to have not seen the incident. P.W.3, a neighbour at a distance of 200 meters from the spot, has stated that in the morning he found the deceased lying dead at varanda and police seized the blood stained "Katari" under Ext.1 in which he had given his signature. P.W.4 is a witness to the inquest (Ext.2). The investigating officer (P.W.6) proved the F.IR. (Ext.3) and categorically stated that he seized the "Katari" under Ext.1 and made inquest at 9 A.M. and sent the dead body for post mortem examination vide dead body challan (Ext.5). He obtained the P.M. report on 08.12.2007. P.W.4 is a witness to the inquest (Ext.2). The investigating officer (P.W.6) proved the F.IR. (Ext.3) and categorically stated that he seized the "Katari" under Ext.1 and made inquest at 9 A.M. and sent the dead body for post mortem examination vide dead body challan (Ext.5). He obtained the P.M. report on 08.12.2007. He sent the seized "Katari" to the doctor and got his report. On his prayer the seized materials were sent to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and Ext.10, the chemical examination report was received where the blood stain was found on the seized "Katari". After examination of six witnesses and admission of documents up to Ext.10, on 16.1.2009 the order-sheet reveals that on admission of State Defence Counsel (S.D.C.) Ext.11, the report of Scientific Officer and Ext.12, the post mortem examination report were marked. Thereafter prosecution closed his evidence and the case was posted for recording of accused statement. This being the total evidence, learned counsel for appellant urged that admission of P.M. report in absence of doctor evidence is not legal and accused is prejudiced because learned State Defence Counsel engaged by State to defend the accused, had not raised objection to clarify the position on the post mortem. 9. Admittedly, the doctor is not examined. No reason is found to have been given for his non-examination but as stated above, on admission by learned S.D.C. the P.M. report is exhibited. In the P.M. report the doctor has mentioned to have seen 8 cut injuries of different size such as:- (i) 5" X =" X1=" over left side head above left ear with fracture of skull bone and brain matters out; (ii) 2" X 1" X =" over left forehead, transversely placed; (iii) 2" X =" X =" over left cheek 3" lateral to angle of mouth; (iv) 3" X =" X =" over face; (v) 5" X 1" X 1" behind left ear; (vi) 4" X 1" X 2=" over back of neck; (vii) 3" X 1" X 1" over back of neck; and (viii) 2" X 1" X 2=" over the anterior aspect of left leg transversely placed 2" above left knee. Fracture of femur bone protracting out. The cause of death was opined due to shock and the mode of death was opined as intracranial injury, spinal injuries and massive haemorrhage. The time since death was opined as within 24 hours prior to his examination. Fracture of femur bone protracting out. The cause of death was opined due to shock and the mode of death was opined as intracranial injury, spinal injuries and massive haemorrhage. The time since death was opined as within 24 hours prior to his examination. In the statement recorded U/s.313 Cr.P.C. the accused has expressed his ignorance about the post mortem examination report vide question no.13. 10. U/S.294 Cr.P.C. certain documents can be admitted into evidence without formal proof. Such documents include P.M. report. The evidentiary value of post mortem examination report admitted into evidence without examination of doctor is answered by the Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court Boraiah Alias Shekar Vs. State, (2003) CriLJ 1031 wherein it is held as follows:- "12. We accordingly hold that Sub-section (3) of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. covers the P.M. report and every other document of which genuineness is not disputed and all such documents can be read in evidence as genuine without the formal proof of such documents by examining the author thereof. 13. Consequently, we respectfully agree with the view taken by the Full bench of the Bombal High court and the Allahabad High Court in the decisions (Shaikh Farid Hussinsab V. State of Maharashtra, (1983) CriLJ 487) and (Saddiq v. State, (1981) CriLJ 379) respectively and approve the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision (Sanne Gowda alias Gopal v. state by Sakaleshpur Rural Police, (2001) ILR(Kar) 2660) and disapprove the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anjinappa v. State of Karnataka, (2000) ILR(Kar) 3501 and hence it stands overruled. 13-A. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question referred to us for decision that the PM report filed by the prosecution under Sub-section (1) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. whose genuineness is not disputed by the accused may be read as substantive evidence under Sub-section (3) of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. xxxx" 11. In view of above law, we are unable to accept at this stage that accused was prejudiced when the State Defence Counsel admitted the PM report without examination of doctor. The said report (Ext.12) can be read as a piece of substantive evidence. Once the post mortem examination report is accepted, the death of deceased is found to be homicidal in nature. 12. The said report (Ext.12) can be read as a piece of substantive evidence. Once the post mortem examination report is accepted, the death of deceased is found to be homicidal in nature. 12. The author of injuries on the body of deceased was the appellant - father as per evidence of P.W.1. The seized "Katari" is not produced in the court but it was seized from the spot and was found to have stained with human blood as per serological test report (Ext.10) and seizure list (Ext.1). The wife of appellant as P.W.1 has categorically stated that there was no altercation on that date between the father and son. In absence of any legal evidence, it is not possible to make conjecture about any sudden quarrel. It may be stated that there was an ill-feeling regarding marriage of son between the father and son as the appellant was against the marriage of deceased at Bihar. Such ill-feeling may be the motive. In absence of any prior incident on that date between father and son, it cannot be said that father dealt "Katari" blows to the sleeping son without guilty intention. So the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder is clearly proved. Accordingly, no ground is available to interfere in the conviction of the appellant U/s.302 I.P.C. The sentence awarded is the minimum. The appeal fails and stands dismissed. Send back the L.C.Rs. I agree S.K. Mishra, J.