Judgment S.B.SINHA and R.N.SAHAY JJ. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of cbnviction and sentence, dated 30th June, 1988 passed by Sri Manoharlal Visa, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 48/87 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court convicted the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Mani Kamar (father of the informant) as also for attempting to cause death of Akli Debi (mother of of the informant). The appellant happens to be nephew of the deceased. 2. Kokilchand Kamar (P.W. 11), the informant of this case, gave a fardbayan which was recorded at 10.30 hours on 28-9-1986 at Ratidih by the Officer-in-charge of Nimiaghat Police Station. He alleged that at 7.30 A.M. on that date while he was washing his face near a well in his house situated at village Nagri, the accused came there armed with a Bhakua with a view to assault him saying that he would kill him and his family members as allegedly they had engaged ghost and witch for doing away with the accused; whereupon he ran towards the north of his village raising alarm and in order to save himself entered into the house of one Mahadeo Koeri. The appellant allegedly then went to the house of the informant to kill the parents of the informant. In the meanwhile a number of villagers assembled there on hearing his hulla and after sometime he heard that the accused had been chasing his mother. Thereupon, the informant came out and saw the appellant giving a Bhakua blow with its sharp edged portion on the head of his mother Akli Debi, as a result whereof she fell down in the eastern portion of the field of Mukhiya. The informant further saw that after assaulting his mother, the appellant again proceeded towards the house of the informant saying that whoever would go near him, he would be killed. Upon this, the informant having become frightened, went to the house of the Mukhiya of the village and with him brought Mukhiya Bhim Manjhi, Chaukidar Dhuja Hazam and a number of villagers of his Tola and then he came to learn that the appellant has killed his father Mani Kamar by assaulting him with Bhakua. Upon this, the informant having become frightened, went to the house of the Mukhiya of the village and with him brought Mukhiya Bhim Manjhi, Chaukidar Dhuja Hazam and a number of villagers of his Tola and then he came to learn that the appellant has killed his father Mani Kamar by assaulting him with Bhakua. It is alleged that as the appellant was armed with Bhakua, none could master courage to catch hold of him. However, in the meantime, the Sarpanch Jainarain Mahto came there who along with Mukhiya tried to catch him; whereupon the appellant fled away inside his house. Mukhiya, Sarpanch and a number of persons, thereafter, entered the house of the appellant and caught hold of him alongwith the Bhakua. The informant thereafter saw his father lying dead on the road near the house of one Narain Singh with two bleeding injuries on his head. According to the informant, his mother had become unconscious because of the injuries sustained by her. 3. It appears that in the meanwhile, police reached the village having received a message from the Mukhiya, and as noticed hereinbefore, the informant gave his fardbayan before the Officer-in-charge of the Nimiaghat Police Station at about 10.30 P.M. on the same day. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. P.W. 8 Raju Naik and P.W. 9 Mahadeo Manjhi are witnesses on seizure. P.W. 13 Arjun Tiwari is a formal witness who proved the Station diary entry No. 626, dated 28-9-1986 being in the pen of Sitaram Singh, S. I. of police which was marked before the learned Court below as Ext. 9. P.W. 2 Parvati Devi, P.W. 1 Bhukhali Devi, P.W. 3 Simati Devi and P.W. 4 Tejo Mahto are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 10 Dr. Nageshwar Prasad held autopsy on the dead-body of Mani Kamar and proved the post mortem report which was marked as Ext. 7. P.W. 6 is Dr. Visheswar Jha who had examined the mother of the informant Akli Devi. P.W. 5 is the injured Akli Devi who according to the prosecution case was assaulted by the appellant. P.W. 11 Kokil Chandra Kamar is informant in this case and P.W.12 Sitaram Singh is the Investigating Officer. 5. 7. P.W. 6 is Dr. Visheswar Jha who had examined the mother of the informant Akli Devi. P.W. 5 is the injured Akli Devi who according to the prosecution case was assaulted by the appellant. P.W. 11 Kokil Chandra Kamar is informant in this case and P.W.12 Sitaram Singh is the Investigating Officer. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record found the appellant guilty for commission of murder of Mani Kamar and further found him guilty for committing an offence for attempt to commit murder of Akli Devi and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment for commission of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial Court directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 6. Before us, Sri Biren Poddar who appeared amicus curiae did not question the factum of death of Mani Kamar nor questioned the factum of the injuries received by Akli Devi. Learned counsel, however, submitted that in this prosecution must be held to have failed to prove its charge as against the appellant. 7. Learned counsel further contended that P.W. 2 is a near relation of the deceased and as such her evidence should not be relied upon. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the Mukhiya of the village Bhim Manjhi who examined himself as P.W. 7 stated in his deposition that when the informant came to him, he sent an information to the Officer-in-charge of Nimiaghat police station is to the effect that a murder had taken place and, thus, according to the learned counsel, the said witness either is not reliable and in the event if it is held that the alleged murder had already taken place, the information sent by him, that is, Ext. 9 should be treated as First Information Report. Learned counsel further pointed out various contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses. 8. The prosecution case has been supported by P. W. 1 Bhukhali Devi, P.W. 2 Parvati Devi, P.W. 3 Simati Devi. 9 should be treated as First Information Report. Learned counsel further pointed out various contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses. 8. The prosecution case has been supported by P. W. 1 Bhukhali Devi, P.W. 2 Parvati Devi, P.W. 3 Simati Devi. They stated in their deposition that at about 7 A.M. on the date of occurrence, they found the deceased Mani Kamar coming from the southern direction and allegedly at that time, the appellant had also been coming from the other side with a Bhakua in his hand and they found the appellant giving three blows by a Bhakua on the head of the deceased as a result whereof he fell down on the lane and died. 9. P.W. 2 Parvati Devi is the daughter in law of the deceased, According to this witness, she at the material time had been standing at the Darwaja P.W. 1, however, stated that she had been sweeping the qali in front of her house P.W. 3 also in her deposition stated that she had been sweeping the lane in front of her house. 10. P.W. 4 Tejo Mahto is a witness of assault on P.W. 5. He stated that when he had been tending buffalow in the field of Bhim Mahto. He found the appellant chasing the informant and the informant went to the garden of Mahadeo Koeri. Thereafter the appellant returned and having found P.W. 5 coming from the opposite direction, who had been looking for her son. inflicted 3-4 Bhakua blows on the head of P.W. 5, as a result whereof she fell down in the field of Mukhiya. This witness further stated that P.W. 5 thereafter became unconscious. This witness further stated that having heard that the appellant had killed the deceased Mani Kamar, he went to the place of occurrence where he saw the appellant standing with a Bhakua in his hand. He further stated that thereafter police came to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report in which he and Tuplal Mahto put their signature. In Court he proved his own signature and the signature of Tuplal Mahto in the inquest report which was marked as Exts. 1 and 1/1 respectively. 11. P.W. 11 is the informant. He further stated that thereafter police came to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report in which he and Tuplal Mahto put their signature. In Court he proved his own signature and the signature of Tuplal Mahto in the inquest report which was marked as Exts. 1 and 1/1 respectively. 11. P.W. 11 is the informant. He in his deposition stated that when he had been washing bis face at the well situated near his house, the appellant came there with a Bhakua and ran towards him with a view to assault him as a result of which he ran inside the house of one Maha- deo Koeri in order to save himself. He further stated that through the back door of the house he went to the garden and from there he was watching the action of the appellant and witnessed the appellant assaulting his mother bv a Bhakua whereafter he ran to P.W. 7 to inform him. P.W. 7 asked him to stay there when he himself went towards the place of occurrence. This witness further stated that he thereafter proceeded to his own house and found his father lying dead on the street near the house of Narayan Singh. This witness further stated that Rupia Devi, (not examined) and P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 told him in presence of the Mukhiya and Sarpanch that they had seen the accused assaulting his father. This witness has further stated that Sarpanch, Mukhiya and other villagers caught the accused/appellant with Bhakua and thereafter the appellant was handed over to the police when the police arrived at the spot. 12. P.W. 5 is Akli Devi. She is an injured witness. She has also supported a part of the prosecution case, namely, to the extent of the appellants assaulting her. She also stated that on the date of occurrence when the informant had been washing his face, the appellant came there armed with a Bhakua and ran to assault him and upon alarm raised by the informant, she came out of her house and found the informant fleeing away. Thereafter, she proceeded further to see him and when she reached near the field of the Mukhiya, the appellant who had been coming from the northern side assaulted her with a Bhakua on her head and she received bleeding injuries and fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, she proceeded further to see him and when she reached near the field of the Mukhiya, the appellant who had been coming from the northern side assaulted her with a Bhakua on her head and she received bleeding injuries and fell down and became unconscious. According to this witness, she regained consciousness after about one and half month at Dumri hospital. 13. P.W. 7 is Mukhiya of the village. He stated in his evidence that at about 7.30 A.M. on 28-9-1986, the informant came running to his house and informed him that the appellant armed a Bhakua had been chasing him. He then sent one Gobind Prasad to the police station and himself went to Ratidih Tola and P.W. 5 lying in an injured condition in his field. Thereafter, he proceeded to the house of the informant where he found the appellant standing with a Bhakua and further found that in front of the house of Baban Singh and Prabhu Singh, the dead-body of Mani Kamar was lying smeared with blood. He further testified that the Sarpanch Jai Narain Mahto and a number of villagers had assembled there and the appellant was giving out that whoever would dare to come near him, would be killed. He further stated that when he and other villagers ran to catch hold of the appellant, entered in his house whereafter the villagers also went inside the said house. He further stated that Sarpanch Jai Narain Mahto snatched the Bhakua from the hand of the appellant and he having been caught was brought near the village school. This witness further stated that the appellant confessed that he had assauted Mani Kamar and his wife as Mani Kamar and his wife are bhut and dain. This witness proved the fardbayan and the formal F. I. R. He further stated that the Bhakua which was seized from the appellant was handed over to the police and inrespect thereof, a seizure list was prepared which was marked as Ext. 5. He further proved the inquest report prepared by P.W. 12. 14. This witness further stated that he saw the injuries on the person of the deceased as also on P.W. 5. 15. 5. He further proved the inquest report prepared by P.W. 12. 14. This witness further stated that he saw the injuries on the person of the deceased as also on P.W. 5. 15. P.W. 8 Raju Naik stated that the police had seized the blood-stained soil from two places, namely, from the place where the informants mother was lying injured and from the place where the deceased had been lying dead. P.W. 9 is another witness to the seizure. 16. Dr. Nageshwar Prasad (P.W. 10) held autopsy on the dead-body of deceased Mani Kamar on 29-9-1986 and found the following injuries : "1. Incised wound 5 inch x 3/4 inch X 2 inch on the left side of the head running from in-front of the left ear lobe across the upper part of the left ear and cutting the skin of the scalp, upper part of the left ear lobe and left tempral and occipital bone. The brain matter had extruded out through the wound. Subtrutaneous tissues of the scalp was found congested. Brain matter and maninges were also congested and blood clots were found in the cravical cavity. 2. Incised wound 4 inch x 2 inch X 1 inch on the back of the head cutting through the skin, occipital bone and subtutaneous tissues and brain matter was found extruding out; 3. Incised wound 1/2" X 1" x skin deep on the left side of the neck; 4. Rigor mortis were present in all the four limbs. Mud was found over the left and right thigh and legs and the fists were closed." 17. This doctor has stated that all the injuries aforementioned were ante mortem in nature and were caused by sharp-cutting weapon which may be a Bhakua. According to the doctor, the time elapsed since death was between 24-30 hours. According to this witness, injury No. 1 which is a brain injury was sufficient to cause death. 18. P.W. 6 Dr. Biseswar Jha examined injured Akli Devi on 28-9-1986 and found the following injuries on her person : "1. Deep sharp cutting wound 4 inch X 1/4 inch x 1/2 inch bleeding with bone cut situated anterp posteriorly on right temporal region of head nearly an inch above the right ear. 2. Sharp cutting wound 2" x 1/4" X scalp deep on occipito parietal zone on right upper part of head ; 19. Deep sharp cutting wound 4 inch X 1/4 inch x 1/2 inch bleeding with bone cut situated anterp posteriorly on right temporal region of head nearly an inch above the right ear. 2. Sharp cutting wound 2" x 1/4" X scalp deep on occipito parietal zone on right upper part of head ; 19. This witness opined that injury No. 1 was grievious in nature and the injury Nos. 2 and 3 were simple. According to the doctor, all the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon like Bhakua. He proved the injury report which was marked as Ext. 2. 20. P.W. 12 Sitaram Singh is the Investigating Officer. This witness stated that he received an information from the Mukhiya of the village which he recorded in the Station Diary (Ext. 9) and thereafter proceeded to the village in-question wherein he found the dead-body of Mani Kamar lying on a lane near the house of one Narain Singh. He further stated that P.W. 7 produced a Bhakua before him which was also seized. This witness further stated that he also found P.W. 5 lying in an injured condition. He further found blood at the place where she was lying injured. He thereafter seized the blood stained earth from both the places. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, submitted that Ext. 9 should have been treated to be a first information report. From a perusal of the Station diary entry (Ext. 9) it is clear that it does not contain any detail information with regard to the death of Mani Kamar at the hands of the appellant. From the evidence of P.W. 7 it is evident that he had sent Gobind Prasad to the police station having come to learn from the informant that the appellant had been chasing him. 22. In view of the fact that a mere information was sent by P.W. 7 with a view to obtain the police help and not with an intention to inform P.W. 12 about the alleged occurrence, Ext. 9 cannot be treated as a first information report. 23. Mr. Poddar submitted that there appears to be some discrepancies in the statement of the informant and the statement of P.W. 7 with regard to the first part of the occurrence. 9 cannot be treated as a first information report. 23. Mr. Poddar submitted that there appears to be some discrepancies in the statement of the informant and the statement of P.W. 7 with regard to the first part of the occurrence. It has been pointed out that the informant in his evidence stated that he saw the appellant assaulting his mother but P.W. 7 merely stated that the only information given to him by the informant was that the appellant had been chasing him and his family members for assaulting them with a Bhakua. 24. In our opinion, the purported contradiction pointed out is minor in nature. While judging the credibility of a witness, his mental condition at the time of occurrence and other factors have also to be taken into consideration. In this case, the witnesses were examined after about one year. In this situation, some allowance has to be given for forgetfulness of the witnesses also. 25. In the instant case, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. Their presence near their door for the purpose of cleaning the gali in front of their houses at the early hours appears to be normal. It is true that P.W. 2 is a related witness, but, that by itself is no ground in disbelieving her, particularly, in view of the fact that the prosecution case has been proved by other independent witnesses also. In this connection, it will be mentioned that both P.W. 1 and P.W.3 denied the suggestion given to them by the appellants that they had been deposing falsely as they used to work as labourers of the deceased. 26. The defence has not denied the relationship of the appellant with the deceased. It has also not been denied that the house of P.Ws. 1 and 3 are near the house of the informant and his family. Not only the assault on the deceased by the appellant has been proved by three independent witnesses, the earlier part of the occurrence, namely, the appellant making an attempt to assault the informant has been proved by the informant himself as also by P.W. 5. 27. P.W. 5 is an injured witness and there is absolutely no reason disbelieve her testimony. She not only proved that the appellant had intended to assault the informant, she had also proved that he assaulted her also. 27. P.W. 5 is an injured witness and there is absolutely no reason disbelieve her testimony. She not only proved that the appellant had intended to assault the informant, she had also proved that he assaulted her also. According to the doctor she received one grievious injury and two simple injuries. 28. This part of the prosecution story has also been proved by P.W. 4. It is true that there are certain contradictions, as pointed out by the learned counsel, but in our opinion, they are not such which would demolish the entire prosecution case. 29. Mr. Poddar further submitted that in this case P.W. 5 has, stated that her husband was not at home on the date of occurrence and he came later on. According to the learned counsel, this goes to show that the prosecution story, as alleged in the first information report, is not correct. In my opinion, there is no inconsistency between the statements of P.W. 5 aforementioned and the first information report. 30. It has come on records that after assaulting P.W. 5 in the field of the Mukhiya when the appellant was returning back, he met the deceased on the way. It has not been alleged in the first information report that at the time of occurrence the deceased was in his house. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the deceased at the time of occurrence came out of his house. In this situation, in our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. 31. In the instant case, therefore, the prosecution has proved that the appellant is guilty for commission of murder of Mani Kamar as also guilty for commission of offence for attempting to commit the murder of Akli Devi (P.W. 5) inasmuch as all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and other facts and circumstances brought on record are without any blemish whatsoever. 32. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.