Judgment B.P. Sharma, J. This appeal has been preferred by the convict in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1989 of Deoghar District by way of Prisoner's Petition. His petition duly forwarded by the Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhagalpur has been treated as Memo of appeal in this ease. The appellant has been convicted of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the same. He has also been convicted u/s 498A I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the same. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The aforesaid orders of conviction and sentence were passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 3rd July 1991. 2. The brief history of the case is like this : On 30th April 1988, the Police Officer of Karon Police Station in the district of Deoghar received some information by way of general rumour that there was a murder in the village Ekdwara within that Police Station. In order to verify the information, A.S.I. D.N. Paswan proceeded for the P.O. village in the evening and on arriving there, he recorded the fardbeyan of one Circal Hansda son of late Thakur Hansda at 9.30 P.M. The fardbeyan was recorded in presence of the Mukhiya of Baijutarn Gram Panchayat and Sarpanch Sattar Khan. The informant Circal Hansda stated before the Police Officer that his daughter Kushum Majhian was earlier married to one Muneshwar Kisku @ Gutha Kisku son of Madan Kisku of Tala Kusmaha of village Jorasimal within P.S. Madhupur. The marriage had taken place about 5 years earlier and from this marriage, said Kushum Majhian had given birth to a male child. At the relevant time, the said male child was about 3 years of age. According to the informant, the daughter of the informant was kept properly by her in-laws for some time and thereafter they started illtreating her and torturing her mentally as well as physically. Further, according to the informant, on the past Saturday, the said Kushum was assaulted by her husband and when the informant learnt about it, he sent his wife to village Kusumaha to fetch his daughter. Accordingly, the wife of the informant went to the Sasural of her daughter and brought her back to her own house. Further, according to the informant, on the past Saturday, the said Kushum was assaulted by her husband and when the informant learnt about it, he sent his wife to village Kusumaha to fetch his daughter. Accordingly, the wife of the informant went to the Sasural of her daughter and brought her back to her own house. However, the son of said Kushum could not come with her, as he was not allowed to go by the son-in-law i.e. the husband of Kushum. Thereafter on the following Thursday, the informant had gone away to his Sasural along with his wife and they left behind their daughter, Kushum, a sister's daughter Tumbhi aged about 10 years and two young sons and old mother. He had gone to his Sasural in village Dhawatanr within the same P.S. Thereafter in the night of Friday at about 1.00 A.M., a few persons of his village came to the Sasural of the informant and informed him that his daughter was stabbed by his son-in-law and she (Kushum) had died. Thereupon, the informant took his wife and his brother-in-law Beldeo Marandi with him and rushed to his village. He arrived there and found that the dead body of his daughter was lying in the verandah of his house and a blood stained knife was also lying there. However, he was told by his sister's daughter and his sons that in the previous night at about 10.00 P.M. his son-in-law Muneshwar Kisku came and knocked the door and entered in the Angan. Thereafter while Kushum was sleeping on a cot along with cousin sister Tumbhi, the said Muneshwar came near the daughter of the informant Kushum and started pressing her mouth on which the victim started crying and her cousin sister also got up, the two sons of the informant also got up on noise and all of them saw this incident. Thereupon the said Muneshwar threatened them to keep quiet and go and sleep, otherwise he would kill them along with their elder sister. Out of fear, the three young children kept quiet and accused Muneshwar hit his wife Kushum with a knife and she started writhing in pain. Thereupon the assailant fled away leaving behind his wife. However, on hulla, many people came and they saw the victim injured and she told them that her husband Muneshwar had stabbed her and had tied away. Thereupon the assailant fled away leaving behind his wife. However, on hulla, many people came and they saw the victim injured and she told them that her husband Muneshwar had stabbed her and had tied away. After recording the fardbeyan (Ext-3), the Police Officer read over the same to the informant who found it correct and put his signature (Ext-1) and the two witnesses, i.e., Mukhiya and Sarpanch also put their signatures. These signatures are marked Ext-1/1 and 1/2 respectively. Thereupon on the basis of the fardbeyan, a forma F.I.R. (Ext-4) was drawn up in the P.S. and case was registered. In the mean while after recording the fardbeyan, in anticipation of the registration of the case, the said A.S.I. D.N. Paswan started preliminary investigation. He prepared a seizure list by seizing the blood stained knife and some other articles from the P.O. and he prepared the inquest report (Ext-5) and sent the dead body for P.M. Examination. Subsequently, the P.M. Examination was held and the Police Officer also procured the P.M. Report (Ext-2). He recorded the statements of witnesses and later procured the P.M. report and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet in the case. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. After the sessions case was registered, the Sessions Judge, Deoghar framed charge against the accused in the case and proceeded with the trial. On completion of the trial, the judgment and order as stated above were delivered and on being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the trial court, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that there were some differences between the deceased and her husband, the appellant and because the deceased died under some mysterious circumstance, merely on the basis of suspicion, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that there are serious kind of discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses in the case and the prosecution story is not fit to be believed and accepted and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 4. The broad fact gathered from the prosecution story are that the appellant was married with the deceased 5 years ago. The couple had begot a son who was aged about three years at the relevant time. 4. The broad fact gathered from the prosecution story are that the appellant was married with the deceased 5 years ago. The couple had begot a son who was aged about three years at the relevant time. The victim Kushum was ill-treated by Sasural people prior to the incident. The incident took place on 29th April 1988 in the night. It was a Friday. Prior to it, on Saturday, the deceased was brought by her mother from her Sasural to her parents house where the occurrence took place and on Thursday, the informant and his wife had gone away to the Sasural of the informant. However, a sister's daughter of the informant and his two young sons, apart from his old mother, were left behind in the house and in the night of 29.4.1988, while the inmates of the house were sleeping, the appellant Muneshwar came and got the door of the house opened and then he slept in the Angan but subsequently, he started pressing the neck of the victim, his wife and when Kushum started moving disparately to rescue herself, her cousin sister Tumbhi (PW.6) got up and saw this incident. Thereafter, the two sons of the informant, namely, Bajjan Hansda (PW.7) and Vimal Hansda (PW.5) got up and they also saw it. However, they were threatened by the appellant at the point of knife and were asked to keep quite. They kept mum out of fear and the appellant hit the victim with a knife in her chest. She started bleeding and writhing in pain and then the appellant left the blood stained knife on the cot and ran away through the open door. On hulla being raised by these three children, present in the house, other village people assembled and they saw the victim lying on a cot in an injured condition and bleeding and writhing in pain and on their arrival, they were told by the victim that her husband Muneshwar had stabbed her. Some of those persons tried to search the appellant but he escaped. After some time, the victim died of the' injuries sustained by her. Thereafter some persons of the village went to the Sasural of informant and gave them information regarding this incident. In the mean while, the village Choukidar was informed by the villagers and he had gone away to the Police Station to inform the Police about the occurrence. After some time, the victim died of the' injuries sustained by her. Thereafter some persons of the village went to the Sasural of informant and gave them information regarding this incident. In the mean while, the village Choukidar was informed by the villagers and he had gone away to the Police Station to inform the Police about the occurrence. When the informant came to his house, he saw the dead body of his daughter lying on the cot. He also informed the Mukhiya of his Gram Panchayat (P.W. 12) and the Sarpanch of the village of the appellant. Both of them learnt about the occurrence from the witnesses and they kept waiting for arrival of the Police Officer and when the Police Officer arrived, the informant gave his statement in presence of these two persons. Accordingly, the fardbeyan was recorded. The inquest report and seizure list were also prepared in presence of the Mukhiya and the Sarpanch and the I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses and inspected the P.O. Subsequently, after completing the formalities, and after procuring the P.M. Report (Ext-2), submitted charge sheet in this case. 5. For proving the charge against the appellant in this case, the prosecution examined altogether thirteen witnesses in this case. Out of these 13 witnesses, P.W.1 Jagdish Mirdha is the village Choukidar. He has stated that in the morning of Saturday, he learnt about the incident which had taken place on Friday and when he went to the P.O. house, he saw the dead body lying on a cot and also saw a knife lying there. Then he went to the P.S. and informed the Police accordingly. According to the prosecution story, the villagers called this village Choukidar and asked him to go and inform the Police and accordingly he had gone. He has also stated that he had gone to the P.S. to inform the Police about the incident. But P.W.13 Dip Narayan Paswan, the I.O. has stated in his evidence that on 30th April 1988 while he was posted in the Karon Police Station, he received a confidential information at about 4.00 P.M. that a wife was killed by her husband with knife. Accordingly, he made Station Diary entry No. 425 dated 30th April 1988 and thereafter proceeded for the P.O. village. Accordingly, he made Station Diary entry No. 425 dated 30th April 1988 and thereafter proceeded for the P.O. village. In this regard it has, been contended on behalf of the appellant that this part of the story leaves some scope for doubt because, according to other witnesses, this village Choukidar (P.W1) was asked to go to the P.S. to lodge information and P.W.1 has also stated that he had gone to lodge information in the P.S. but according to the Police Officer, PW13, he received information about the incident by way of rumour or a confidential information. It has also been pointed out that the said station diary entry which the I.O. admits to have made, has not been produced in Court and, therefore, the very source and manner of information becomes doubtful. So the prosecution story should be disbelieved. In this connection it has been contended on behalf of State that it appears that the Choukidar (P.W.1) had gone to the P.S to lodge information, no doubt, but it appears that before his arrival, the Police Officer (P.W13) got some hint about the incident by' way of rumour and, therefore, he had made station diary entry and was preparing to go to the P.O. village and then the Choukidar came and conveyed the message him. Therefore it has been contended that because of this confusion, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved. It has been contended on behalf of State that the contents of the Station diary are not important in this case, because the station diary entry is said to have been made on the basis of some general kind of information. Therefore, even if the station diary has not been produced in Court, it does not make any difference. In any view of the matter, the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant which was definitely recorded at 9.30 PM. on 30th April 1988 and it was recorded in presence of two important persons, being the Mukhiya and the Sarpanch of two different Gram Panchayats. One of them, the Mukhiya has however been examined in this case as PW12 and he has fully supported the prosecution story on this point. Therefore, this point is not material. I find myself in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the State. 6. One of them, the Mukhiya has however been examined in this case as PW12 and he has fully supported the prosecution story on this point. Therefore, this point is not material. I find myself in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the State. 6. Among other witnesses, the important witnesses in this case are PW5 Simal Hansda and PW6 Tumbhi Kumari. It appears from the prosecution story that PWs. 5 and 6 along with PW 7 were present in the house in the alleged night of occurrence. According to the prosecution story, while they were sleeping in the night, appellant is said to have come and entered inside the house by getting the door opened. It has been pointed out on behalf of appellant in this regard that both these witnesses, i.e. PWs. 5 and 6 have said that they did not open the door. Therefore, it .remains a mystery as to how the appellant got his entry in the house. In this connection, it has been submitted on behalf of State that there is no question of mystery because these two witnesses, PW5 and 6 were young children at the relevant time aged about 9-10 years and they were also accompanied by a young child PW7, who has been tendered as he was not in a position to fully understand and reply to the questions, when tested by the Court. Therefore, it appears that while children were sleeping, the appellant approached and knocked at the door, the eldest among the children present was the deceased herself. It appears that she might have opened the door and when she found that her husband had come, she did not object to his entry in house. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural in it. So far as the mother of the informant is concerned, she was present in the house in the alleged night of occurrence but it appears that on account of her old age, she was sleeping at some different place from the children and she is also since dead and, therefore, has riot been examined in this case. It has been submitted on behalf of State that since the children, P.Ws. It has been submitted on behalf of State that since the children, P.Ws. 5 and 6 had no knowledge as to how the appellant had entered inside the house they did not say that they had opened the door and because the person who had opened the door is no more alive to tell the truth this confusion has occurred but in the peculiar circumstance of the case it cannot be treated as a factor sufficient enough to create doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story. However, both these witnesses i.e., P.W.s 5 and 6 have fully supported the prosecution story, as eye witness to the occurrence. So far as P.W 6 is concerned it appears from the F.I.R. itself that she was sleeping with the deceased at the relevant time and she has stated that when her sister, the deceased started making' movement of her limbs, she got up and it is also very natural. She stated that when she got up, she saw that the appellant was pressing the mouth of her cousin sister, the deceased. She also stated that the two brothers of the deceased. P.Ws.5 and 7 also got up in the meanwhile but the appellant threatened them with knife and asked them to keep quiet, otherwise they would be killed. This kind of threatening was sufficient for the young children to become terrified and quiet. Accordingly, they were silent expectators to the devilish act of the assailant. According to them, the appellant dealt a knife blow in the chest of the victim and she started bleeding and writhing in pain, then the appellant fled away through the open door. The door was opened which is testified by the other witnesses, specially P Ws. 2, 3 and 4 who are said to have arrived at the P.O. soon after the occurrence on hearing hulla. The door was opened which is testified by the other witnesses, specially P Ws. 2, 3 and 4 who are said to have arrived at the P.O. soon after the occurrence on hearing hulla. These three witnesses, i.e. PWs.2, Baburam Tudu, PW.3 Darbari Hansda and P.W. 4 Durga Hembram have categorically stated that when they heard hulla from the house of informant at the alleged time of occurrence, they went to the house of the informant and then they entered inside the Angan through the door which was open, they found the daughter of the informant namely, Kushum Manjhian bleeding and writhing in pain on a cot and on their enquiry, she also told them that it was her husband Muneshwar who had stabbed her and they also found the blood stained knife lying there. Then they tried to search the appellant but he could not be traced and when they returned in the Angan, they found the victim dead. These three witnesses have, therefore, supported the prosecution story to this effect that they arrived at the P.O. soon after the occurrence on hearing hulla and they saw the victim bleeding and she was also writhing in pain and she disclosed the name of her assailant to them. Therefore, the statement of these three witnesses contain the dying declaration of the deceased also. These three witnesses have clearly stated that the victim disclosed the name of her husband, the appellant as her assailant. In this connection it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the contradictory statements made by these witnesses, their statements cannot be treated as an instance of containing oral dying declaration. It appear that the three witnesses were asked whether they had stated before the I.O. that when they enquired from the victim on their arrival in P.O. Angan, she disclosed name of her husband as her assailant and they answered in the affirmative. But the I.O. PW.13 has been asked these questions in cross-examination and he has answered these questions in the negative. Therefore, it has been submitted on behalf of appellant that in view of this contradiction, their statement, so far as the dying declaration is concerned; cannot be accepted. But the I.O. PW.13 has been asked these questions in cross-examination and he has answered these questions in the negative. Therefore, it has been submitted on behalf of appellant that in view of this contradiction, their statement, so far as the dying declaration is concerned; cannot be accepted. In this regard it has been contended on behalf of State that this kind of taking of contradiction is not permissible in law according to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Counsel for the State Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari has submitted that according to the requirement of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, when a witness is required to be contradicted about his earlier statement, either in writing or reduced into writing, the statement which was made earlier has first to be brought to the notice of the witness but the manner in which the witnesses have been put questions in their cross-examination are not in conformity with the requirement of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It appears that the spirit of Section 145 of the Evidence Act is that the writing of the inconsistent statement need not be shown to the witness before cross-examination but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must be drawn to that part of it for such purpose. There have been• several decisions on this point and the law is practically settled on this point. It has be dealt with in several decisions and it has been held that the earlier statement of the witness is required to be brought to the notice of the witness before contradicting in order that the witness should get opportunity to explain or clarify the statement, if there is any. Therefore, merely by asking a question whether the witness stated a fact in a particular manner before the P.O. or not and then on his affirmative answer putting a question to the I.O for taking contradiction and taking reply in the negative cannot amount to contradicting the witness in his cross-examination, as required u/s 145 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, merely by asking a question whether the witness stated a fact in a particular manner before the P.O. or not and then on his affirmative answer putting a question to the I.O for taking contradiction and taking reply in the negative cannot amount to contradicting the witness in his cross-examination, as required u/s 145 of the Evidence Act. Some times it so happens that a witness states a particular thing in a particular manner before the I.O. and when he is examined in court, he states the same thing in a different manner but it cannot be treated as contradiction rather it is on account of the manner of describing a particular thing or a particular fact in a particular manner. So what is important is the substance of the fact and not the form in which the fact has been stated. Therefore, the manner in which the defence has tried to take contradictions is not according to requirement of Section 145 of the Evidence Act and the same cannot be treated as contradiction in real sense. The three witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have very fairly and frankly admitted this fact that they were related to the informant by village relationship. In a village every body is related to each other in this manner and it does not appear that these three witnesses are either close relation or family relations of the informant or they had any reason to bear grudge against the appellant who was none else than the son-in-law of the informant and the husband of the deceased herself. The next important witness is PW 9 Circle Hansda, the informant himself. His wife Subodhi Manjhian (P.W.8) has however been tendered. PW 9 has supported the prosecution story in court by fully supporting the prosecution story narrated in his fardbeyan (Ext-3). He has also given the background of differences between the deceased and her husband. He has very clearly stated that he was not present in his house in the alleged night of occurrence and he returned on getting information from some village people at his Sasural and then he saw the dead body of his daughter and he also learnt about the occurrence from his children. Apart from these witnesses, some other witnesses have also been examined in support of prosecution story on the point of occurrence. Out of them P.W11 has been tendered. Apart from these witnesses, some other witnesses have also been examined in support of prosecution story on the point of occurrence. Out of them P.W11 has been tendered. P.W12 Lalmuni Mandal is the Mukhiya of Baijutanr Gram Panchayat. He has stated that he was informed by the informant that his daughter was murdered by his son-in-law and then he went to the house of the informant. There he found the dead body of the victim lying and he also saw a stab injury in her chest and the knife was also found lying there. The knife was blood stained. Then he made enquiry and he advised the village people to inform the police. He has also further stated that the Police Officer came to the place of the informant in the evening and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant in his presence. He has also further stated that after the fardbeyan was drawn up, he put his signature on it (Ext-1/1) and he has also stated that one Sattar Khan of Noniar Gram Panchayat was also present who put his signature (Ext-1/2). He has also further stated that the inquest report of the deceased was prepared by the Police Officer in his presence. The witnesses, including this P.W12 have been cross-examined at length but no serious kind of contradiction has occurred in the cross-examination of these witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to point towards a few minor discrepancies here and there but such minor discrepancies do not decide the case. Cases are decided on broad probabilities. Therefore, those discrepancies and contradictions are also not fit to be discussed. 7. P.W. 10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Chatterjee is the Doctor who had held the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Kushum on 1st May 1988 at about 10.30 A.M. The P.M. report is Ext-2. According to this Doctor, the deceased was aged 22 years and the Doctor found an injury on her person which has been described as one penetrating wound in the 6th intercostral space on the right side, lateral to sternum 1¼” X ½” deep. According to the Doctor, on further dissection, he found that the wound had punctured the right ventricle of the heart and on opening the chest, the chest cavity was found full of blood. According to the Doctor, on further dissection, he found that the wound had punctured the right ventricle of the heart and on opening the chest, the chest cavity was found full of blood. In the opinion of the Doctor the time elapsed since death was within 28 hours from the time of P.M. Examination and the death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of injury described above. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injury was caused by some sharp and penetrating weapon, such as Chhura. Therefore, it is clear that the medical evidence is also quite consistent with the occular evidence regarding the manner of occurrence. According to all the witnesses on the point of occurrence, the assailant had inflicted only one blow in the chest of the victim as a result of which she had died and from the medical evidence, as per P.W.10 and the P.M. report (Ext-2) only one injury was found in the chest on the right side and the injury had proved fatal because it had punctured the ventricle of the heart. Therefore, both oral and medical evidence are consistent on the point regarding manner of occurrence. So far as the identity of the assailant is concerned, he was well connected and well known to the eye witnesses and, therefore, there was no question of any confusion in this regard and it also appears that before her death, the victim herself had also disclosed the name of the appellant to at least three witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3, & 4. P.W.13, the I.O. has also supported the prosecution story by stating the manner in which he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant by going to his village and how he prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for P.M. Examination and he also seized some clothes and the knife from the P.O. by preparing a seizure list in presence of witnesses. He also inspected the P.O. and had noted the details of the descriptions of the P.O. He has clearly stated that he had seized the blood stained knife from the P.O. and subsequently the said knife was also produced and identified in court which was marked as material Ext.-1. Therefore from the entire evidence, in this case there does not appear to be any doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story. Therefore from the entire evidence, in this case there does not appear to be any doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story. I find myself in agreement with the learned trial court in holding that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused appellant in this case beyond all reasonable manner of doubt. 8. In the result, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial court are hereby confirmed.