B. PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge. Kalahandi Nuapada at Bhawanipatna, in S. C. No. 64 of 1994 convicting the appellant under section 302 I. P. C. and sentencing him there under to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed murder of one Raju Majhi, his own brother-in-law.

( 2 ) THE skeletal picture of the prosecution story as depicted in the judgment of the court below is as follows: The appellant is the maternal uncle of the informant (P. W. 1) Budha Majhi of village Arkhedi under Thuamul Rampur Police Station, in the district of Kalahandi. On 17/7/1994 evening, the appellant had visited the house of the informant and at that time he was holding a Tangia, a bow and arrow, After taking his dinner, he slept on the verandah of the house. The deceased and his wife (P. W. 2) also slept on the same verandah. In the midnight, P. W. 2, the mother of the informant shouted saying that the deceased (informants father) was killed and the appellant was running away after committing murder. P. W. 1, who was sleeping inside the room, opened the door and noticed his maternal uncle (the appellant) running away with a Tangia, bow and arrow in hand. However, he could not overpower the appellant as a result of which he escaped from the site. The villagers searched for the appellant by means of torchlight in the night, but could not trace him out. The father of the informant was lying dead with three injuries inflicted by means of Tangia and since it was night, the villagers guarded the dead body. On the following morning the matter was reported to the Police by the informant. The report was scribed by one Ankura Patra and after the contents of the report, were read over and explained to P. W. 1, the informant, he signed the report. The report was proved before the learned Sessions Judge and marked as Ext. 1. The Officer-In-Charge. Thuamul Rampur P. S. on receiving the report treated it as F. I. R. and registered P. S. Case No. 30/94 under section 302. I. P. C. and after drawing up formal F. I. R. immediately swang into action and took up investigation. He visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of Raju Majhi and prepared the inquest report. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He further seized the Tangia, bow and arrow and prepared seizurelist (Ext. 7 ). He collected bloodstained earth, sample earth from the spot as per Seizurelist (Ext. 5) and one Hero Cycle as per Seizurelist (Ext. 6 ). The 1. 0. prepared the spotmap (Ext. 10 ). After receipt of the postmortem report, the 1. 0. made a query to the Medical Officer as per Ext. 3/1 and ascertained that the injuries could be possible by an axe. The appellant was thereupon arrested and forwarded to judicial custody on 21/7/1994. The 1. 0. also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased as per seizurelist (Ext. 11 ). The axe (M. O. I) was seized as per Seizurelist (Ext. 7 ). After completion of investigation charge sheet was placed against the appellant.

( 3 ) IN order to bring home the charges to the appellant, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses of which P. Ws. 1 and 2 are said to be relations of Tthe deceased; P. W. 3 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the deceased Raju Majhi, P. W. 4 was a witness to seizure of bloodstain earth, Hero Cycle and also to the inquest report, whereas P. W. 5 was a witness to seizure of axe (M. O. I. ). P. Ws. 5 and 6 are said to be witnesses to extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant. P. W. 7 is the Police constable who carried the dead body to the P. H. C. for post mortem examination and P. W. 8 was the Investigating Officer.

( 4 ) THE accused did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. The plea of the accused was a complete denial.

( 5 ) THE learned trial judge mainly basing upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6, found the accused appellant guilty and accordingly convicted the appellant under s