Judgment P.K.Deb and Surinder Sarup JJ. 1. The sole accused appellant has preferred thi6 appeal for his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing of imprisonment for life in S. T. No. 54 of 1987 before the Additional Judicial Commisioner IV, Ranchi. Conviction was recorded on 19-9-1992 and sentence was imposed on 21-9-1992. 2. On earlier occasion also, there was conviction and sentence against the accused under the same penal provision by judgment and order dated 23-12-1988, but the same was challenged before this Court in appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1989 (R). A Division Bench of this Court had set aside the judgment of conviction by order dated 11-2-1992 as there was no proper recording of statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. for examination of the accused in the proper form and to deliver the judgment afresh. Accordingly, on remand, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. In his statement, he mentioned that as on Ajit Mahli was stated by PW 7 to have come to the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and as such on his examination the whole case would be clear about the innocence of the accused in the crime. On this statement and when the accused wanted the said Ajit Mahli to be examined as Defence witness, he was summoned, but at the time of examination of that witness, the defence counsel denied to examine him as defence witness, but as the witness was already summoned he was examined as a court witness for the ends of justice. 3. The prosecution case in short is that in the night between 31st March, 1986 and 1st April, 1986 deceased Ghasi Mahli was sleeping on a cot in Dhaba of his house in the village Sataki Tola Haldi Bera within the Police Station of Angara. He was sleeping in a separate cot while his wife and daughter, namely, Salmi Mahlin (PW 1) and Sukaru Kumari (PW 7) were sleeping in another cot in the same Dhaba. In the early dawn hours the wife and the daughter of the deceased woke up hearing screams of the deceased then they say that the accused, Karam Singh Munda of the same village was assaulting Ghasi Mahli with Bhujali. When Salmi Mahlin tried to intervene, she was abused and threatened. In the early dawn hours the wife and the daughter of the deceased woke up hearing screams of the deceased then they say that the accused, Karam Singh Munda of the same village was assaulting Ghasi Mahli with Bhujali. When Salmi Mahlin tried to intervene, she was abused and threatened. Ghasi Mahli died of the injuries at the spot itself. Both Salmi and Sukaru Mahlin raised alarm but nobody came as the villagers had gone to attend Barati in the contiguous village. After the Baratis came then the villagers came to the place of occurrence on hearing of the same and then and then only PW 1, Salmi Mahlin with the help of the villagers took the deadbody to Angara Police Station, Which is about 25 kilometers away from the village where the occurrence took place. They had to cross the whole way on foot by carrying the deceased on a cot through the jungles. In the late hours of the day on 2-4-1986, they reached the police station and then a Fardbayan was made by Salmi Mahlin before the officer-in-charge of Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was lodged which has been marked as Ext. 9 in the case. During the course of investigation, dead body was inquested and the same was sent for post mortem examination. The accused was found absconding, but after some days, he could be arrested from his house. After closure of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 302, IPC and on being committed, charges were framed under the same Section of the Indian Penal Court to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The motive behind the murder, as it has been stated by PW 1 both in the FIR and also in her evidence before the trial court that there was enmity between the deceased Ghasi Mahli and accused Karam Singh Munda for grazing the field of the accused by the bull of the deceased. The accused was always threatening the deceased of dire consequences. During the course of trial, as many as 13 witnesses have been examined and on behalf of the prosecution and as stated above, one Ajit Mahli was examined as Court witness on remand of the case from this Court. The accused was always threatening the deceased of dire consequences. During the course of trial, as many as 13 witnesses have been examined and on behalf of the prosecution and as stated above, one Ajit Mahli was examined as Court witness on remand of the case from this Court. The conviction has been arrived at on the basis of evidence of eyewitnesses, Salmi Mahlin PW 1 and Sukru Kumar, PW 7, wife and daughter of the deceased respectively. Other witnesses including PW 4 Yugal Mahli and PW 5 Jagat Mahli have supported the prosecution case, to the effect that on their return to village from Barati and coming to the place of occurrence, they were informed about the occurrence by PWs 1 and 7 including the name of the accused appellant as assailant. Ajit Mahli, the court witness has stated that although he came to the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence on hearing cries. He was not reported of the name of the assailant by PW 1, Salmi Mahlin. This witness has been cross examined at length and he stated on Courts querry that although, he was examined by the Investigating Agency, he did not disclose before the Investigating Officer that PW 1, Salmi Mahlin did not report about the name of the assailant on his reaching to the place of occurrence. 4. Regarding the occurrence, rightly the learned court below has relied on the evidence of these two eye witnesses, namely, PWs 1 and 7, who were the most natural witnesses as in that hour of occurrence, except the family members it is not expected that any other outsiders to be present at the place of occurrence. On material point, both PW 1 and PW 7 have corroborated each other regarding inflicting of injuries with knife by the accused appellant. The injuries as stated by PWs 1 and 7 find support from the post mortem examination which has been proved by PW 12, Dr. P. K. Srivastava. There were as many as seven incised wounds on the person of the deceased on his vital parts and the injury over the neck is the immediate cause of death of the deceased. The learned court below has rejected the evidence of Ajit Mahli regarding non reporting of the name of accused appellant to him by PW 1 and 7. There were as many as seven incised wounds on the person of the deceased on his vital parts and the injury over the neck is the immediate cause of death of the deceased. The learned court below has rejected the evidence of Ajit Mahli regarding non reporting of the name of accused appellant to him by PW 1 and 7. It seems that he is only a got up witness to support the innocence of the defence and only after remand when the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. his name came from the mouth of the accused appellant as his witness to support his case of innocence, but at the time of examination when summoned the defence Counsel shirked the responsibility of examining him as defence witness for the obvious reason and as such the Sessions Judge recorded his statement as a Court witness for ends of justice. It is true that PW 7 had stated in her evidence that soon after the occurrence, this Ajit Mahli came to the place of occurrence, but no where it has been stated either by the PW 1 or PW 7 that they have narrated the occurrence to this Ajit Mahli including the name of the assailant. So this negative evidence as adduced by Ajit Mahli has got no relevance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad has attacked the impugned order on the ground that there is some discrepancy in the evidence of PW 1 and 7 regarding the occurrence then there is delay in lodging of the FIR and that the I. O. has not been examined in the case. 6. As regards the discrepancy, Mr. R. K. Prasad tried to impress upon us that PW 7 had stated in her cross-examination that the marriage was being solemnised nearby her house, but if the totality of her evidence is taken into consideration then it could be found that it is only a stray statement made by her. She had rather referred to the marriage which was being solemnised on that very date in the contiguous village where all the village members had gone to attend the same. Regarding the actual occurrence of inflicting of blows on the person of the deceased, Ghasi Mahli by accused appellant, there is no contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1 and 7. Regarding the actual occurrence of inflicting of blows on the person of the deceased, Ghasi Mahli by accused appellant, there is no contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1 and 7. They have corroborated each other on that material point. We do not find any force in the submission of Mr. R. K. Prasad on that aspect. 7. Regarding the delay in lodging of the FIR, it has been elaborately discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in his impugned order and we totally agree to the decision arrived at by the learned trial Judge that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place in a village about 25 kilometres away from the police station. The occurrence was in the early dawn of 1-4-1986 then the two helpless ladies waited for the village persons to return from the Barati and when those persons returned in the late hours of the day then arrangements were made to take the deceased in cot to the police station and only in the early morning of 2-4-1986 they could start from the village on foot by carrying the deceased in a cot and they had to pass through jungles and reach the police station at about 14 hours and then information was lodged by PW 1. In the circumstances, there is no delay. The ruling as reported in AIR 1979 SC 135 Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra as sub-mitted by Mr. R. K. Prasad has got no bearing with the present case, as facts and circumstances are totally different. 8. No material contradiction can be shown regarding the FIR and evidence of Salmi Mahlin. So, the ruling cited in Nirmal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1987 Cr LJ 1644 (Himachal Pradesh) has also got no force. 9. Regarding non-examination of I. O., if has rightly been held by the learned Sessions Judge that in the present case, non-examination of I. O. has not materially affected the case, as no contradiction has been brought in the evidence of any of the witnesses nor there is any allegation that there was purfunctory investigation in the case. 10. Lastly, Mr. R. K. Prasod has referred to a ruling of this Court as reported in 1995 (2) All PLR 854 Sabitri Devi v. State of Bihar, regarding the weighing of evidence of partisan witness. 10. Lastly, Mr. R. K. Prasod has referred to a ruling of this Court as reported in 1995 (2) All PLR 854 Sabitri Devi v. State of Bihar, regarding the weighing of evidence of partisan witness. It is true that the Courts always want for independent witness if the same is available in the circumstances of the case before relying on the testimony of partisan witnesses. Here, in the present case, we have already stated that PW 1 and PW 7 are only natural witnesses available at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence. There was no possibility of any independent witnesses present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. When the witnesses, who cannot be termed as partisan witness only because they are relations of the deceased, they were the most natural Witness present at the place of occurrence and when they have corroborated each other on all material particulars, their evidence can be relied on for the purpose of recording the conviction. 11. There is no force in this appeal and hence the same is rejected.