JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - In this appeal under Sec.383 Cr.P.C. the sole appellant has assailed his conviction U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C.') and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in his judgment dtd.26.03.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.23 of 2006. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that accused married the deceased ten years back of the incident and both of them were blessed with two daughters. On 24/25.11.2005 night the deceased and accused were sleeping in a room where the deceased was found to have been murdered and the father of the deceased P.W.4 lodged F.I.R. (Ext.6), whereafter inquest was made, so also post mortem examination. The doctor P.W.7 found 13 incised injuries and gave opinion that cumulatively all the injuries were fatal. The investigating officer seized the weapon of offence, axe which was sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted U/s.302 of I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and accused faced trial for the aforesaid charge. 3. Defence plea was legal insanity and in support of this plea, defence unsuccessfully examined two witness as D.Ws.1 and 2. 3-A. In support of its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all including the eye witness P.W.1, the brother of the accused. The mother of accused P.W.2 is a post occurrence witness. P.Ws.3 and 5 are witnesses to seizure. P.Ws.8 and 9 are investigating officers. P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination vide Ext.10. Sixteen documents including F.I.R., P.M. report, etc. are exhibited by prosecution. The seized axe and wearing apparels were marked as M.O.I and M.O.V. 4. Learned trial court analyzing the materials on record, discarded the evidence U/s.27 of the Evidence Act with regards to discovery of axe (M.O.I) from the spot. Relying upon the evidence of doctor, held that death of deceased was proved to be homicidal in nature as opined by doctor P.W.7 and his post mortem examination report (Ext.10). Learned Trial Court found the evidence of sole eye witnesses P.W.1, the brother of accused, as natural and reliable and basing upon that convicted and sentenced the accused supra. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Miss. Learned Trial Court found the evidence of sole eye witnesses P.W.1, the brother of accused, as natural and reliable and basing upon that convicted and sentenced the accused supra. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Miss. Madhumita Panda strenuously urged that it was not possible to see the actual assault as there was no light inside the room while the eye witness brother of the accused was staying in another house, separate from the house where occurrence took place and for that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt. 6. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the judgment on the grounds stated therein. 7. Keeping the contentions in view, we carefully perused the evidence on record. Prosecution has established to the hilt that the death of deceased on 24/25.11.2005 in the night was homicidal in nature and doctor found thirteen incised wound, ante-mortem in nature. 8. There is no dispute that the accused and his wife, the deceased were staying inside the room and on the night the occurrence, brother of the accused (P.W.1) saw accused dealing axe blows. Absence of light is carefully analyzed by the learned Lower Court and in the circumstance, where the eye witness is the brother and accused has failed to explain as to what happened inside the room where both of them were sleeping, we have enough justification to discard such absence of light plea. The eye witnesses get corroboration from the medical source. When the accused has taken the plea of insanity and failed to prove it and there is no ground to question the reliability of the testimony of eye witness P.W.1 who is expected not to leave the real culprit to escape, we are of the considered opinion that P.W.1 is a wholly reliable witness and conviction based upon that does not warrant any interference. The sentence imposed is the minimum as prescribed for the offence U/s.302 I.P.C. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Send back the L.C.Rs. forthwith.