JUDGMENT

SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. — This appeal at the instance of the applicant Uttam Dharua is directed against the judgment dated 29.4.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No. 224 of 1993 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to suffer R.I. for life.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 10.6.1993 at about 10 A.M. being accompanied by Murali Majhi (P.W.8), P.W.7 Dhanurjaya Majhi came to Kinijirkela Police Station and lodged an oral complaint stating, inter alia, that his younger brother Sibashan¬kar Majhi was staying in the house of his uncle Jaladhar Majhi. About three months prior thereto, his younger brother Sibashankar Majhi told P.W.7 that in his dream, he was directed to perform puja of ‘Lord Siva at Tal’ in the land of Suanjore Gountia. Accordingly, from that day, he was staying there after constructing a small temple and was performing puja of Lod Siva. Some days thereafter, the said Sibashankar Majhi asked Vukumati Majhi, being an old lady to help him in the Puja matter. Accordingly, said Vukumati Majhi and her son Ramdev Majhi stayed there since six days prior to the date of occurrence and were helping the devotees. The appellant Uttam Dharua had no issue despite his marriage some five to six years prior thereto. On the previous day being 9.6.1993 at around 7 ‘O’ clock in the morning one son of the paternal uncle of the informant came and reported his uncle Jaladhar that the appellant was pressing the neck of Sibadadu being the uncle of the informant by laying him on the floor when the said Sibadadu was taking meal. On hearing this, the informant along with said Murali and his uncle rushed to the temple and on arrival at the spot, they found that the appellant Uttam was pulling at the hand of Sibadadu by pressing his leg on the neck. When Murali asked the appellant as to why he was doing so,the appellant threatened to beat him and fled away from the spot. After the appellant fled away from the spot, the informant and others found his brother Sibadadu dead. At that time, P.W.3 Sukuram Kerketta, P.W.11, Vukumati Majhi and other devotees were present at the place of occurrence and they saw the incident. Thereafter, the informant along with other co-villagers searched for the appellant but they could not find him and his wife and it appears that both the appellant as well as his wife left the village. On the basis of the said oral complaint, which was reduced into writing by the Officer-in-charge of the said police station, a case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the appellant. After usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sundargarh. Learned trial Court on perusal of the materials on record framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In course of trial, in all 13 P.Ws. were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the appellant. The defence of the appellant was that of complete denial of the prosecution case. On conclu¬sion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as already stated. P. W. 1 was merely an inquest witness and accordingly, he signed the inquest report. So also, P.W.2 merely signed the inquest report. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no other importance of the evidence of these two witnesses.

4. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 were declared hostile by the prosecu¬tion and accordingly, prosecution cross-examined these witnesses after obtaining leave from the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution case at all.

5. P.W.6, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Acharia held post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that on 11.6.1993 being requisitioned by the police, he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was identified before him by police constable. On examination of the