Judgment N.N.Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.8.1995 and 7.9.95 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1991 whereby Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, has convicted the appellant under Sec. 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 (rupees five thousand) and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Sec. 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 201 of Indian Penal Code, with the direction that the sentences will run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as mentioned in the fard-beyan (Ext.l) of Sohrai Gosai (PW4) is that on 8.8.1991 when the informant was sleeping with his wife in a room of his house, where a dhibri was burning and Maula Munda and Pauwa Munda-both sons of Sanika Munda-were sleeping in the adjoining eastern dhaba at about 12.00 in the midnight, Maula and Pauwa entered in his room followed by Sukhnath Munda with a Balua, Kachchu Munda (this appellant) with a bhujali and Dholo Mundain with a bhujali. Further case of the prosecution is that Maula Munda and Pauwa Munda, both squatted on a mat of the informant and thereafter those three accused persons tried to drag them away and Dholo Mundain gave a bhujali blow to Pauwa Munda and Sukhnath Munda and Kachchu Munda assaulted Maula Munda with the balua and bhujali respectively on his head and neck and both of them also assaulted Pauwa Munda on his neck, as a result of which Pauwa and Maula died. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant was threatened not to raise alarm, otherwise he also would be killed. Sukhnath Munda is stated to have sent the wife of the informant and her child to his own house and thereafter, they brought gunny bags and rassi and took away the dead bodies and concealed the dead bodies near Kara Sarna. 3. Fard beyan (Ext.l) of Sohrai Gosai (PW4) was recorded by S.I. M. Prasad, officer incharge of Karra P.S. on 9.8.1991 at 10.30 a.m. at Jalanga Siwana near Kara Sarna and Karra P.S. Case No. 43 of 1991 was recorded against this appellant and three others under, Secs. 3. Fard beyan (Ext.l) of Sohrai Gosai (PW4) was recorded by S.I. M. Prasad, officer incharge of Karra P.S. on 9.8.1991 at 10.30 a.m. at Jalanga Siwana near Kara Sarna and Karra P.S. Case No. 43 of 1991 was recorded against this appellant and three others under, Secs. 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code and the police, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the four accused persons including this appellant and as Dholo Mundain and Deosingh Munda were declared absonders and Sukhnath Munda died during trial, charges under Sec. 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code were framed against this appellant only, who was put on trial and was convicted, as aforesaid. 4. The defence is total denial of the charge and it was claimed that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. 5. The prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses in support of its case, out of whom, PW 1 is Abdul Hasan, Sarpanch of Govindpur Gram Panchayat, who proved the fardbeyan recorded in his presence (Ext.1).PW 2 Chariya Munda is witness on the point of recovery of the dead bodies of Maula and Pauwa Munda from Karasarna. PW 3 Albert Ekka is Pramukh of Karra Block, who proved the inquest reports (Exts. 2 and 2/1). He is also a hear-say witness of the alleged occurrence. PW 7 is Mudin Ali, a seizure list witness on the seizure list (Ext. 4) regarding seizure of blood stained earth from the house of the informant. He also proved formal FIR (Ext. 5). PW 4 is Sohrai Gosai, the informant and PW 5 is his wife Sukra Devi, who are both witnesses on the point of the alleged occurrence and PW 6 is Dr. S.K. Sandil who held post mortem examination on the dead body of Lakhan @ Pauwa Munda, aged about 17 years, at 1.30 P.M. on 9.8.91 and stated to have found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) Infront of neck of size 6"x3"x3" cutting of under-line muscular vessels including trachea and Osophagous. He opined that the injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be by bhujali, causing the death. According to him, time elapsed since death was more than 24 hours, he proved the post mortem report (Ext. 3). He opined that the injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be by bhujali, causing the death. According to him, time elapsed since death was more than 24 hours, he proved the post mortem report (Ext. 3). On the same day at 4.10 P.M. this doctor stated to have held post mortem on the dead body of Maula Munda, aged about 23 years and found the following antemortem injuries on his person: (i) Incised injury on the neck. Neck is only attached to a part of skin 6"x3"x3" in front side. (ii) Incised injury of left parietal bone underlying bone fractured size 2"x1/2 "x1 1/4 He opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be by bhujali in case of injury (i) and may be balua in case of injury (ii), more than 24 hours ago. He proved the post mortem report (Ext. 3/1). In cross examination, he opined that the size of injury depended upon force applied and it depended upon the weight of the weapon. He further opined that the said injuries could not be caused by chjiuri. 6. In course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant put much stress on the opinion of the doctor that the death was caused more than 24 hours before the post mortem examination. It was submitted that when post mortem examination was held at 4.10 and 4.30 P.M. on 9.8.1991 and according to the prosecution case, the occurrence did take place in the midnight of 8.8.91/9.8.91, it does not fit in the prosecution story. From perusal of the post mortem reports Ext, 3 and 3/1, no other corresponding data appears in the post mortem reports for fixing the time of death by the doctor/except that in column No. 6 of both the reports, it was mentioned that rigor mortis was not present and perhaps, applying the "rule of Twelve", the doctor might have opined that/as rigor mortis was not present, the death must have taken place more than 24 hours ago. In the book "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" by Dr. Bernard Knight, it has been mentioned that sometimes "Rule of Twelve" is quoted in respect of rigor 12 hours to become fully established, 12 hours in full rigor and 12 hours to pass off. This simplification is unjustified. In the book "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" by Dr. Bernard Knight, it has been mentioned that sometimes "Rule of Twelve" is quoted in respect of rigor 12 hours to become fully established, 12 hours in full rigor and 12 hours to pass off. This simplification is unjustified. In the warm climate, anti rigor mortis may commence in a hour or two and begin to disappear within 18 to 24 hours. Broadly speaking, sooner the rigor appears, the shorter time that it persists. In this case, in hot moth of August, the dead body was concealed near the river bed and as such there was every possibility of disappearance of rigor mortis even before 24 hours and on this point alone, the whole prosecution case cannot be thrown out. 7. Thus, from the evidence of PW 6 and the evidence of PW 2 Choreya Munda who is a witness on the point of recovery of the dead bodies of Pauwa Munda and Maula Munda, it is established that Pauwa Munda and Maula Munda died homicidal death. It also finds support from the evidence of PW 3, Albert Ekka, who is also a witness on the point of recovery of the dead bodies and also a witness on inquest reports (Exts 2 and 2/1). 8. Now the point for consideration is to see if the prosecution had been able to establish that the fatal injuries found on the person of the deceased Pauwa and Maula Munda were caused by these appellants in the manner, as alleged. On this point, the prosecution has examined two witnesses, PW 4 Sohrai Gosai (Informant) and PW 5 Sukro Devi, wife of the informant. The place of occurrence is the house of the informant. According to PW 4, in the night of the occurrence, Maula and Pauwa were sleeping in the veranda of the informant and the informant and his wife alongwith his newly born babies were sleeping in the adjoining room, where a dhibia was burning. PW 4 furtherstated that at about midnight, both Maula and Pauwa entered into his room raising alarm, followed by this appellant, Dholo and Sukhnath, amongst whom, this appellant and Dholo were armed with Bhujali and Sukhnath armed with a bahta. PW 4 furtherstated that at about midnight, both Maula and Pauwa entered into his room raising alarm, followed by this appellant, Dholo and Sukhnath, amongst whom, this appellant and Dholo were armed with Bhujali and Sukhnath armed with a bahta. PW 4 further stated that they dragged pauwa and Maula in a side of that room and thereupon, Dhola gave bhujali blow to Pauwa and Sukhnath gave a balua blow on the head of Maula and this appellant also gave a bhujali blow on the neck of Maula, as a result of which both of them died there and the miscreants threatened the informant not to raise alarm, otherwise they would also be killed, he further stated that the wife and the newly born baby of the informant was taken away be Sukhnath to his own house and meanwhile, the accused persons took away both the dead bodies and later on, they came and mopped the place of occurrence with cow-dung in order to remove the blood stains, but some blood remained intact on the wooden patra, which was seized by the investigating officer. The motive for the alleged occurrence is stated to be that this appellant, Dhola and Sukhdeo used to call the mother of Pauwa and Maula as a witch and/on last Tuesday, they had assaulted her and thrown her treating/her be dead, but she was alive and she filed a case in the police station against them and for that reason, this appellant and other co-accused committed the murder of two sons, Pauwa and Maula. In cross examination, he clarified that both the deceased did not sleep in his house earlier and due to fear that this appellant and other accused would kill them, for the case filed by their mother, they had come to sleep in his veranda. A point was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no wooden plank in the door and in such circumstance, the veranda of the informant was not a safe place for them (deceased) to sleep. I do not find any merit in this argument, as it was natural for the deceased to sleep at some other place for their safety and that they might not have expected that there also, they would be killed. I do not find any merit in this argument, as it was natural for the deceased to sleep at some other place for their safety and that they might not have expected that there also, they would be killed. An effort was also made on behalf of the appellant to show how the deceased were sleeping on the bed of the informant and his wife. But it is very clear from the statement of PW 4 in his cross-examination at para 10 that both the deceased squatted on the bed of the informant and from there they were dragged by the appellant and his associates. From the trend of cross-examination, it appears that effort was made to show that the sister of both the deceased i.e. Rasmani was entangled with the brother of the informant and a suggestion was made to PW 4, which he denied. Such a wild allegation did not go to benefit the appellant as it not made clear as to how this appellant would be implicated and why both the deceased would be killed by someone else. The evidence of PW 4 is quite consistent and his evidence inspires confidence and nothing was suggested as to why he would implicate this appellant. 9. PW 5 Sukro Devi, the wife of the informant also supported the evidence of PW 4. She stated in her cross-examination that she had given birth to a child only nine days ago. She stated that this appellant had given blow on the neck of the deceased Maula. In Her Cross-examination she stated about the mopping by one Munni, stated to be her mother-in-law. But in view of her statement that she was not present in the house at the time of the mopping (the place of the occurrence), the evidence of PW 4 that it was mopped by the appellant and his associate is to be taken to be true. She also stated that they did not raise alarm, as they were threatened no to do, otherwise they would be killed. Regarding light for identification, her evidence is very clear that there was a dhibia burning in the room, as a new baby was born recently. Thus, PW 5 has also fully supported the prosecution case against this appellant. She also stated that they did not raise alarm, as they were threatened no to do, otherwise they would be killed. Regarding light for identification, her evidence is very clear that there was a dhibia burning in the room, as a new baby was born recently. Thus, PW 5 has also fully supported the prosecution case against this appellant. The investigating officer of this case has hot been examined, but it is not very material as no prejudice has been shown to have been caused due to non-examination of the investigating officer and the attention of the witnesses had not been drawn to any contradictory statement. From the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, the place of occurrence is established to be the room of the informant wherefrom wooden patra with blood marks was seized by the police through seizure list (Ext. 4). Thus, PWs. 4 and 5 have fully supported the case against the appellant. 10. Summing up the entire discussions made above, I find no merit in this appeal. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court is hereby confirmed.