K. P. MOHAPATRA,J.

( 1 ) - The appellants challenge the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting them under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C for short) for having committed the murder of deceased Subhadra and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased, a young woman, was the daughter of the informant (P. W. 1) and was married to P. W. 2, son of appellant Sapneswar. Appellant Rajkumari is the wife of appellant Sapneswar. Appellant Kamala their daughter and appellant Sartika is Kamalas husband. All the appellants along with the deceased and her husband (P. W. 2) were living in the house of appellant Sapneswar at village Satkhama. P. W. 1 belongs to village Sahajbahal. Prior to the date of occurrence P. W. 2 had gone to visit his father-in-law (P. W. 1) at village. Sahajbahal. On that day at about 10 am. P. W. 3 came to village Sahajbahal and informed P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the deceased was lying seriously ill. On receiving this information P. W. 1, his wife and P. W. 2 started and arrived at village Satkhama at about 12. 30 p. m. and found that Subhadra was dead and there was an injury on her neck. Appellant Sapneswar, on enquiry by P. W. 1 as to the cause of death, told that the deceased was suffering from diarrhoea and was vomiting which resulted in her death despite treatment by a doctor. The deceased was hale and hearty and her death was sudden. Therefore, P. W. 1 suspected foul play and so he reported the incident on the same day at about 4 p. m. at the Police Station and on his information F. I. R. (Ext. 15) was recorded and investigation was commenced. During investigation, it came to light that the deceased was throttled to death and it was a case of homicide. After close of investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the appellants for having committed the murder of the deceased in the night between 10th and 11th July 1985. According to the defence of the appellants, the deceased died of diarrhoea and vomiting despite medical treatment.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions TJudge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as already referred to above.

( 4 ) THE evidence of the Medical Officer (P. W. 12) discloses that he found two ante-mortem bruises on the upper portion of the thighs and one bruise of the size 1 x 11/2on the lower front portion of the throat. On dissection of the throat and from other symtoms appearing on the dead body he came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of forceful pressure on the throat. He did not also find any symptom of poison or of her suffering from diarrhoea with vomiting (vide reports Exts. 11 and 12/1 ). His evidence is clear enough to show that the death of the deceased was homicidal. During hearing this fact was not: disputed.

( 5 ) MR. S. S. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that there were no eye witnesses to the alleged murder. Conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence of a weak nature, which did not conclusively point at the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, their conviction for a serious offence of murder was unjustified.

( 6 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the following circumstantial evidence:

(1) Ante-mortem mark injury on the throat of the deceased and the false explanation given by the appellants that the deceased had suffered from diarrhoea with vomiting which resulted in her death. (2) Ill-feeling and quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law, appellant Rajkumari. (3) Wrong information given by appellant Sapneswar to P. W. 2 through P. W. 3 that the deceased was suffering although she was already dead. (4) Information given by appellant Sartika while in police custody leading to the discovery of a stiok (M. O. 11) said to have been used for pressing the throat of the deceased. (7) Before disc