Judgment S. H. S. Abidi, J. 1. -this appeal has been preferred by appellant Sohrai manjhi, who has been convicted under Sec.302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The F. I. R. (Ext.2) was lodged on 18-6-1987, at about 12 noon by jiblal Manjhi (P. W.4), son of Roya Manjhi, the deceased, who has been killed on 18-6-1987, at about 8 a. m. in his house in village Rola, P. S. Gola, district Hazaribagn. The informant has said that the appellantss wife Malti was not well for the last about two months and had become week. She was also treated, but she could not recover. On 18-6-1986, at about 8 a. m. , the informants father Roya Manjhi was sleeping on a cot, then the appellant sohrai Manjhi armed with a Tangi entered into the house and gave Tangi blows on the neck of his father in the sleeping condition and killed him. The motive for the occurrence is said to be that the victim was doing the work of ojha and the appellant thought that it was on account of his evil influence that she was unwell. The occurrence was said to be seen by the informant, bis brother, P. W.2, Odega Manjhi and Thakur Das Manjhi, besides other. The informant gave information to Rameshwar Turi, the Chawkidar of the village who came to the house of the informant and saw the dead body and then the report was lodged. 3. On the basis of the F. I. R. . the investigation was taken up by Daya nand Singh, P. W.6, who came to the spot, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, which is said to have been done by Dr. D. K. Dhiraj, (not examined ). After examining the witnesses and completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. 4. The accused in his defence has denied the prosecution case and alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No witness in defence has been examined. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses. P. W.1 Mahabir Manjhi has said that he saw the dead body and was also a witness for the inquest report. The accused in his defence has denied the prosecution case and alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No witness in defence has been examined. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses. P. W.1 Mahabir Manjhi has said that he saw the dead body and was also a witness for the inquest report. P. W, 2 Odega Manjhi son of the deceased is the eye witness, besides P W.3, Thakur Das Manjhi, who is also a witness for inquest, P. W.4, Jiblal Manjhi is the informant, who has deposed as an eye witness. P. W.5, Hiramani Devi, has been tendered, though cross-examined. P. W.6, Daya Nand Prasad Singh is the I. O. , P. W.7 Moti Ram is a clerk in the office of the APP and has identified the signature of Dr. D. K. Dhiraj.5. The learned trial court on consideration of the entire material available on the record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the order of conviction and sentence is bad for various reasons. He has submitted that the evidence of the witnesses does not support the prosecution case. There are contradictions in the evidence about the place of occurrence; the I. O. has not prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, the blood stained axe which was said to have been found has not been produced in the Court and an axe is an item of daily use and is found in every house. It was further submitted that no report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has been received regarding the chemical examination to show that it was the human blood which was found at the spot. To appreciate these contentions, evidence adduced in the case have to be scrutinised. 7. P. W.4, Jiblal Manjhi is the informant, who has said that in the western Kothri of the house his father was sleeping on a cot and in the eastern kothri he was sleeping. He heard the sound of khat-khat and then he went out and went to the room of his father where he saw the appellant hitting by a Tangi on the neck of his father. He heard the sound of khat-khat and then he went out and went to the room of his father where he saw the appellant hitting by a Tangi on the neck of his father. In the meantime, his brother Odega manjhi, P. W.2 and Thakur Das, P. W.3 also arrived there, but the appellant ran away, with the blood stained Tangi in his hand. Blood was found on the bed and also on the cot. Thereafter he went to the Chawkldar, Rameshwar turi and informed him about the occurrence, who came to the spot and then he along with the Chawkldar and Mahabir Das went to the police station at about 12 and lodged the F. I. R. The I. O. reached the place of occurrence and recorded the statement, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. In the cross-examination he has said that he on hearing the sound of khat-khat went out and saw the accused assaulting the deceased. He was assaulting him from before and in his presence one blow was given to his father. His father had received injuries in the front portion of his neck. On hearing the alarm, Meena, Rameshwar Manjhi, bishto Manjhi and many others arrived there whose name he did not know. He told about the occurrence to the persons who had come there. The house of the Chawkldar was a bit away from his house. He had no enmity with the appellant from before the occurrence. He said that 5-6 months earlier than the occurrence, the wife of the appellant was ill and the appellant had said to his father that he was doing witch-craft and so he should set-right his wife. His father after taking something was lying on the cot and it was false to say that he was falsely implicating the accused on account of enmity. 8. P. W.2, Odega Manjhi is the other eye witness, who has said that at the time of the occurrence, he was catting wood for preparing hul along with Thakur Manjhi. At that time the appellant with a Tangi in his hand come and demanded Khaini (tobacoo powder) from Thakur Das and he gave the same to him. 8. P. W.2, Odega Manjhi is the other eye witness, who has said that at the time of the occurrence, he was catting wood for preparing hul along with Thakur Manjhi. At that time the appellant with a Tangi in his hand come and demanded Khaini (tobacoo powder) from Thakur Das and he gave the same to him. Thereafter the appellant went to the house of the victim and then he heard the sound of khat-khat coming from the house, whereupon he and Thakur Manjhi went there and saw the appellant cutting his father by Tangi and thereafter the appellant made good his escape. He told to mahabir Manjhi that the appellant has cut his father, whereupon Mababir went to inform the Chawkidar. In the cross-examination he said that he had no previous enmity with th j appellant. He said that he had got two houses in the village adjacent to each other. He said that the appellant after taking khaini immediately went to the house of the victim and after sometime he beard the sound of khat-khat and when he went there he saw the appellant running away with a blood stained tangi in his hand. In the southern room his father wai sleeping and blood had fallen down. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely implicating the accused. 9. P. W.3, Thakur Das Manjhi has also deposed as an eye witness. He has said that on the date of the occurrence, he was sitting with P. W.2 and preparing Hul, then the appellant came and demanded Khalni. After some time he heard the sound of khat-khat and then he and Odega went there and found the appellant coming out with a blood-staind tangi in his hand and on going inside the house found the victim in an injured condition. He had injuries in his neck, He said that Jiblal had already reached there before his arrival. He said that the I. O. came there at about 2 p. m. and prepared inquest report, and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, He also searched the house of the appellant and recovered a blood stained tangi and prepared seizure list upon which he had also signed. In the cross-examination he said that Odega Manjhi is his uncle and they had been working together. Odega was preparing Hul in his Aangan. In the cross-examination he said that Odega Manjhi is his uncle and they had been working together. Odega was preparing Hul in his Aangan. The appellant stayed for 1/2 hour and went away after taking Khaini. On hearing the sound of khat-khat, they immediately rushed. The deceased had two houses, but the occurrence had taken place in the new house, in which there was no door. He was sleeping on a cot. He has said that in the new house, there was only one room. The police has examined him. He said that he had no quarrel or enmity with the appellant. 10. Mahabir Manjhi, P. W.1 has said that on the date of the occurrence, roya Manjhi had been killed by a Tangi, which was told to him by Odega manjhi at his house, He has also said that Sohrai Manjhi had kill his father with a Tangi. Then he went to the house of Odega Manjhi and saw the victim lying having cut injuries on his neck. He said that before hii arrival. Thakur Manjbi and Jiblal Manjhi were there. He sent Odega manjhi to call for the Chawkidar. Thereafter Chawkidar came and then he along with Chawkidar and Jiblal went to the police station and lodged the report. Thereafter the police came and prepared inquest report, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and from the house of Sohrai manjhi, the I. O. recovered the blood stained Tangi for which a seizure memo was prepared on which he had signed. In the cross-examination he said that he was at the bouse of Loya Manjhi and none of the neighbour had come as they were not in the bouse. Other persons whose houses were there were not present and only the women were there. He reached the police station at about 12 noon and thereafter he returned to the village with the police at about 3 p. m. The I. O. seized the blood stained Tangi. P. W.5, Hiramani devi, wife of Roya Manjhi, the deceased bas been tendered, but she has been cross-examined. She said that the villagers use to call her husband ojha and he use to do witch-craft. 11. P. M.6, Daya Nand Pd. P. W.5, Hiramani devi, wife of Roya Manjhi, the deceased bas been tendered, but she has been cross-examined. She said that the villagers use to call her husband ojha and he use to do witch-craft. 11. P. M.6, Daya Nand Pd. Singh, who is the I. O. has said that on reaching the place of occurrence, after the F. I. R. was registered, he prepared inquest, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, examined the witnesses and seized the blood stained earth and prepared reizure memo. He also recovered the blood stained Tangi, from the house of the appellant, for which he also prepared seizure memo. He also examined the accused. He received the post-mortem report and after completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. 12. Mpti Ram, P. W.7 is a clerk in the A. P. P. office, who has identified the signature of Dr. D. K. Dhiraj. He said that Ext.5, the post mortem report was written by Dr. D. K. Dhiraj, and he identified his writing, The post mortem report was not prepared before him. 13. Thus from the above, it is made out that on 18-6-1986 at about 8 a. m, Roya Manjhi was sleeping on the cot in one of the rooms and was assaulted by the appellant by Tangi, on account of which he died on the spot. This occurrence was seen by Jiblal Manjhi, P. W.4 and also P. Ws.2 and 3 had seen the appellant running away having an axe with blood stains, in his hand and then immediately P. Ws.2 and 3 went there and saw the victim lying dead on the cot. 14. The evidence adduced in this case quite consistent and does not suffer from any infirmity or contradiction. Place of occurrence has also been uniformly stated by the witnesses, to be the new bouse of the deceased from where the dead body was recovered. Nothing has come out to show that the vie dm was in the old house. Simply because he has got two houses it does not mean that the place of occurrence is a different one. The evidence regarding one room or the two room does not affect the merit of the case and does not go to the root of the matter. Simply because he has got two houses it does not mean that the place of occurrence is a different one. The evidence regarding one room or the two room does not affect the merit of the case and does not go to the root of the matter. All the witnesses have said that they have no previous enmity with the appellant and there was no reason to faliely implicate him in such a crime ; rather they have said that the appellant have had a grudge, as he thought that it was the deceased who was doing witch-craft on his wife and due to this witch-craft his wife was ill. 15. The post mortem report has been brought on the record and it has been accepted in evidence. Under Sec.294 of the Code of Criminal procedure, it can be read in evidence unless objected to about its correctness p. W.7, the clerk in the P. P. office has proved the post-mortem report. For non-examination of the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, it cannot be discarded. The post-mortem report also fully corroborates the version given out by the witnesses regarding the assault. The report also shows about the injuries on the neck of the deceased and that too by a tangi. The injuries which were found by the doctor are as follows: (i) Incised wound 1/4" x 1/4" x partial skin deep on the dorsal aspect of distal phalanx of left middle finger. (ii) Incised wound 2-1/4" x 1" bone deep on the left side of the neck up to collar bone placed obliquely cutting soft tissues and chipping the middle part of left clavicle. (iii) Incised wound 3" x 2-1/2" bone deep in the front of neck on the right side extending up to mid line, separated by a 1/3" wide skin tag and from this there was another incised wound on the right lateral part of the neck measuring 2-1/2" x 2" x bone deep cutting soft tissues, traches, oesophagus and body of C-6 virtibra completely, abdomino thoracic dissection showed pallor or viscera. Stomack was l/3rd full with pertially digested rice etc. Heart and urinary bladder were empty. In bis opinion, death resulted from homicidal neck injuries caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. Time elapsed sinced death till post-mortem examination between 18 to 36 hours. 16. Stomack was l/3rd full with pertially digested rice etc. Heart and urinary bladder were empty. In bis opinion, death resulted from homicidal neck injuries caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. Time elapsed sinced death till post-mortem examination between 18 to 36 hours. 16. Thus from the above, it is clearly made out that the post-mortem report also fully corroborates the versions given by the witnesses. Therefore, on consideration of the entire materials available on the record, it is established that it was the appellant who committed the offence of murder of the deceased. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are hereby upheld. The appellant is in jail, he will serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed