JUDGMENT : B.P. Routray, J. 1. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjahr in S.T. Case No.118/2008 is challenged by the Appellant in the present appeal. 2. Both the deceased persons, namely, Aiban Munda and Janga Munda were husband and wife residing in village Nardangi. P.W.2-Ramesh Chandra Munda is their son. P.W.-1-Baidu Munda is the brother of Aiban and P.W.7-Ranki Munda is the mother. The house of the Appellant is on the other side of the road in front of the house of deceased persons. The unfortunate incident happened on 23rd December, 2007. The son of the Appellant died fifteen days prior to the occurrence and his daughter was in continuous ailment. On that fateful day, Appellant was conducting a Puja in his house for speedy recovery of his daughter. Deceased Aiban along with his son (P.W.2) had been there to witness the Puja. Around 8 a.m. in the morning when the Puja was going on, the Appellant all of sudden attacked Aiban by means of an axe (M.O.I.) suspecting him and his wife responsible for death of his son by witchcraft. The Appellant straightaway dealt blows on the neck of Aiban resulting his instant death on the spot. Thereafter he rushed towards the house of Aiban where the other deceased Janga was present. The Appellant also dealt blows to her by the same axe on her neck causing her instant death there. The Appellant then fled away from the spot towards the jungle. He remained inside the jungle for the whole day and then surrendered before the Police along with M.O.I. 3. In the meantime, hearing about the murder, P.W.1 reached there and after coming to know everything from P.W.2 lodged the report in Daitari Police Station. P.W.9, the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Daitari Police Station registered the FIR as P.S. Case No.45/2007 in absence of the IIC and took up investigation. In course of investigation, P.W.9 held inquest over the dead bodies, sent them for post mortem examination and examined some witnesses. On the same night, the IIC (P.W.10) returned and took the charge of investigation. On the next day, he arrested the accused upon his surrendering and seized the blood stained weapon of offence (M.O.I) as well as wearing apparels of the Appellant upon his production. 4. On the same night, the IIC (P.W.10) returned and took the charge of investigation. On the next day, he arrested the accused upon his surrendering and seized the blood stained weapon of offence (M.O.I) as well as wearing apparels of the Appellant upon his production. 4. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet dated 18th April, 2008 was submitted by P.W.10 alleging commission of offence under Section 302, I.P.C. 5. Appellant did not admit the charge and faced trial taking plea of denial. The prosecution in order to prove their case examined 10 witnesses and marked 18 exhibits. The prosecution also marked the axe as M.O.I. which was the weapon of offence. No evidence has been adduced by the Appellant. 6. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Single Judge convicted the Appellant holding that the charge of murder has been duly established against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly sentenced him for life imprisonment. 7. It is submitted by the Appellant that the evidence of the eye-witnesses, viz., P.Ws.2, 5 and 7 are not trustworthy to sustain the conviction because their presence at the spot is doubtful. Learned counsel for the Appellant draws attention of the Court to the cross-examination of P.W.7 and other two witnesses to support his contention. It is further submitted by him that M.O.I. has not been duly proved as the weapon of offence and thus he prays to set aside the conviction. 8. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent on the other hand submitted that the prosecution has fully established the charge without any iota of doubt. He further submitted that this being a case of double murder where eye-witnesses are there, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the Appellant. He further placed reliance on the chemical examination report as the circumstance against the Appellant in addition to the statements of eye-witnesses. 9. At the outset, looking for the nature of death of deceased persons, it reveals from the evidence of P.W.8, the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination, that, deceased-Aiban sustained three incised wounds on and around the neck and deceased-Janga sustained four incised wounds on her neck along with one more incised wound on the right arm. The cause of death is the result of all such external injuries. The cause of death is the result of all such external injuries. P.W.8 has specifically opined that the respective injuries found on the neck of the deceased persons were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The death was homicidal and the cause is due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of those injuries. Upon analysis of the medical evidence as stated by P.W.8, the conclusion is irresistible that both deceased persons died homicidal nature of death. 10. The prosecution has projected P.Ws.2, 5 and 7 as the eye-witnesses of the assault. A thorough perusal of the statements of P.W.7 gives doubt on his version as an eye-witness. Said P.W.7 is the mother of deceased Aiban. She has said that she was residing with her other son Baidu Munda (P.W.1) at a different place on the other side of the hillock. She has admitted in her cross that she arrived at the spot after getting the information from P.W.2 and by the time she came there, the occurrence was already over. This statement of P.W.7 proves that she is not an eye-witness but a post occurrence witness. 11. Coming to examine the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, the same is found free from doubts. P.W.2 was an 11 years old boy at the time of occurrence. He is the son of the deceased persons. A contradiction is seen in his evidence that he has not stated before the I.O. about running away of the accused with the axe towards their house and assaulted deceased-Janga, which has been confirmed by the I.O. P.W.10 has admitted that this statement was not made by P.W.2 before him. Nevertheless this contradiction in the statement of P.W.2 is without any impact on his witnessing the assault by the Appellant on Aiban. Even if this part of evidence is taken away from the evidence of P.W.2 in conformity to the principles of contradiction as per Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., still the rest part of his evidence remains unassailed and unimpeachable. The other eye-witness is P.W.5. She is a co-villager of the Appellant as well as deceased persons. She has stated that the Appellant first shouted to kill Aiban and then assaulted him by the axe. Then the Appellant ran to Aiban’s house and killed Janga with the same axe. The other eye-witness is P.W.5. She is a co-villager of the Appellant as well as deceased persons. She has stated that the Appellant first shouted to kill Aiban and then assaulted him by the axe. Then the Appellant ran to Aiban’s house and killed Janga with the same axe. Here the defense tries his best to demolish her evidence by take advantage of her low vision. Of course on the suggestion of defense, this witness has admitted that she has a low vision power. But for this reason only, her evidence cannot be thrown away simply. Rather there are reasons to believe her. First, the occurrence took in open place on a bright winter morning. Neither there is any suggestion towards insufficiency of light nor any material is there towards the same. Secondly, the Appellant as well as the deceased persons were co-villagers of P.W.5 and well acquainted to her. Therefore any short of visibility either to identify the assailant or the assault cannot be inferred on the part of P.W.5. As such, on thorough analysis of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, nothing is found to disbelieve them. On the contrary, their evidence is found absolutely trustworthy to establish the guilt of the Appellant as the assailant of both the deceased persons. 12. P.W.10 in his evidence has stated that he seized the blood stained wearing apparels as well as the axe (M.O.I.) on production by the Appellant and send them for chemical examination. The chemical examination report and the serology report are marked under Exts.17 and 18 respectively. A perusal of those reports reveals that the half-shirt of the Appellant, the Saree, Saya and blouse of Janga, and M.O.I. were stained with human blood of same group. These reports stand as the additional circumstance to the direct evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 to fortify their statements in evidence against the Appellant. The further argument of the Appellant that M.O.I. is not proved as the weapon of offence for lack of its detail measurement in all aspects is an unfounded contention. P.W.8, who is the same Medical Officer conducted post mortem examination, has categorically stated in his evidence that all the external injuries noticed on the neck of both dead bodies are possible by M.O.I. He has proved his opinion under Annexure-9. Therefore, the only reason that P.W.8 has not taken its measurement cannot nullify his opinion. P.W.8, who is the same Medical Officer conducted post mortem examination, has categorically stated in his evidence that all the external injuries noticed on the neck of both dead bodies are possible by M.O.I. He has proved his opinion under Annexure-9. Therefore, the only reason that P.W.8 has not taken its measurement cannot nullify his opinion. Here it should be remembered that M.O.I. is the weapon which was stained with blood and seized upon production of the Appellant himself. This part is not challenged by the Appellant. Moreover, upon chemical examination of M.O.I., human blood of same group was found. Therefore, the entire contention put forth by the Appellant is rejected. 13. On re-appreciation of prosecution evidence in its entirety, brought on record in course of trial, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. We agree with the findings and conclusion of learned trial court in convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence of murder. 14. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.