Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. Appellants Kishori Mistry and Nirmal Mistry are own brothers. Appellant Kanti Devi is the wife of appellant Kishori Mistry. The two brothers have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and each has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Kishori Mistry has also been convicted under Section 324, IPC for causing injury to Gayatri Devi (PW 2) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Kanti Devi has been convicted under Section 302/109, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The appellants were charged, tried and convicted by the then Sessions Judge, Patna, Sri S.C. Mookherjee. The judgment was delivered on 20.9.1986. 3. The appellants were tried for incontinently causing the death of Sumitra Devi of village Usari, PS. Shahpur (Danapur) in the district of Patna. 4. The case of the prosecution has been narrated by the learned Sessions Judge as follows : "The prosecution version, as mentioned in the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of Gayatri Devi, the informant, is that on 16.4.1984 at about 8 p.m. an altercation took place between the informants mother Sumitra Devi (deceased and her aunt Kanti (wife of one of the accused Kishori Mistry) over demand of ornaments. On the same evening at about 9 p.m., when accused Kishori Mistry returned to his house from Patna accused Kanti complained to her husband about the frequent demands of the deceased regarding ornaments and further told him that on this score on each and every day she (deceased) had been quarrelling with her. Thereafter, accused Kanti brought out a dagger from the house, handed it over to accused Kishori and asked him to kill his (Kishoris) brothers wife i.e. the deceased. The prosecution case further is, that upon this, the informant and her mother started running away from their house and proceeded towards the house of one Dwarika Mahton. As soon as the informant (PW 2) and her mother reached near the dalan of one Dwarika Mahto, in a lane, accused Nirmal caught hold of her (deceased) and his other brother i.e. accused Kishori gave a dagger blow on her chest, as a result of which, she fell down and subsequently died. It is also alleged that PW 1, the informant, tried to save her mother when accused Kishori gave a chhura blow upon her forehead on which she raised alaram. It is also alleged that PW 1, the informant, tried to save her mother when accused Kishori gave a chhura blow upon her forehead on which she raised alaram. On the hulla, several persons including her father Ramdas Mistri, two brothers Deonandan and Rajendra arrived near the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. At their sight, the accused persons ran away from that place." 5. The grand father of the informant had married thrice. There was no issue from his first wife. Ramdas, father of the informant, was born from his second wife and his three sons i.e. Janki and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were Lorn third wife. According to the prosecution case landed properties were partitioned through panchayati amongst the brothers but the ornaments of the share of informants mother remained in possession of the step-mother of Kishori. On several occasions altercations had taken place, including one which took place on the date of occurrence. Gayatri Devi (informant) removed her mother to Dinapur hospital with the help of her father and brothers on a tempo where she was declared dead. Gayatri Devi was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment. 6. The then Sub-Inspector of Police of Shahpur Police Station, Venkatesh Sharma (PW 7) received telephonic message that Sumitra Devi of village Usari had been murdered. The said sub-inpsector recorded the information in the station diary and proceeded to Danapur hospital. He recorded the statement of the informant Gayatri Devi and later on an FIR was drawn up. He prepared the inquest report of the dead-body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. The Sub-Inspector of Police inspected the places of occurrences. The first one was the joint residential house of the parties facing north and partitioned by a wall having a common exit. The other place of occurrence where the informants mother was said to have been killed, was near the dalan of the Dwarika Mahton. The I.O. found blood marks on the wall of that dalan as well as on the road. A pair of chhapal was found near that place. 7. Dr. (Mrs.) John, who at the relevant time conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased on 17.4.1984. She found the following injuries : (i) One would 1-1/2" x 1/10" x penetrating the chest cavity on the left side below the left breast. A pair of chhapal was found near that place. 7. Dr. (Mrs.) John, who at the relevant time conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased on 17.4.1984. She found the following injuries : (i) One would 1-1/2" x 1/10" x penetrating the chest cavity on the left side below the left breast. On dissection there was a lot of blood in the pericardiat and the weapon had injured the heart about 1" deep. (ii) One incised would 3" x 1/10" on the left leg. 5th left rib was found fractured. According to the doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem caused by sharp cutting weapon i.e. chhura, and the death was due to Shock and haemorrhage. 8. The learned Sessions Judge examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution and held that the deceased was assaulted with a chhura on her chest, a vital part of the body, as a result of which she died. 9. At the trial the accused persons pleaded their innocence. Further the place, time and the manner of occurrence have been challenged. A plea has also been taken that the female folk had been using the bundh situated to the north east of the house of Dwarika Mahto for easing purposes which was objected to by the said Dwarika Mahto. 10. According to the Trial Court PW 2 (informant) has supported the version of the occurrence in fardbeyan. According to her evidence, in the morning there was some sort of altercation between her mother and Kanti Devi over demand of ornaments. She further says that in the evening her uncle Kishori Mistri (accused returned to the house from Patna and her aunt i.e. Kanti reported to him that his Bhaujai i.e. the deceased had been regularly quarrelling over ornament matter and as such she should be killed by means of chhura. According to her further evidence, Kanti Devi handed over a chhura and on seeing this, she and her mother ran away from that place. By that time, they reached near the dalan of Dwarika Mahto, the other accused Nirmal Mistry caught hold of her mother and at that stage Kanti Devi shouted that she should be killed to set the ornament dispute at rest. On hearing this, accused Kishori inflicted a chhura blow on her chest, as a result of which, blood started oozing out from that injured portion. On hearing this, accused Kishori inflicted a chhura blow on her chest, as a result of which, blood started oozing out from that injured portion. She shouted, whereupon, her father came there. She also stated that at that point of time, her aunt i.e. Kanti gave out that the informant shouts much and therefore, she should also be assaulted. Whereupon accused Kishori inflicted a chhura blow on her forehead. 11. PW 3 (Ramdas Mistri) had not seen his wife being assaulted by the accused persons. When he returned at about 9 p.m., he heard a Italia of his daughter. He immediately reached that place and saw a chhura in the hand of Kishori Mistri who inflicted a blow with the said weapon on the forehead of his daughter. In my view, the evidence of this witness can hardly be accepted that the accused persons were standing there. 12. Witness Deonandan (PW 6) is the son of the deceased. This witness tried to support the version given by this sister. The learned Sessions Judge found that this witness has corroborated his father and sister on material particulars. This witness has, however, not stated before the I.O. that accused Nirmal had caught hold of his mother. The learned Sessions Judge held that there is consistent evidence that the alleged incident had taken place in the night after accused Kishori had returned to his house from Patna. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of this witness in paragraph No. 16 of his judgment as follows : "The evidence of this witness as well as the other witnesses has been attached on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased and therefore, no reliance should be placed on their testimony. Relationship of the witnesses to the deceased person cannot be a ground to reject their statement outright. Each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances and keeping that in view, one has to judge the evidence of the witnesses. In the instant case, as indicated above, it is more or less admitted that some sort of family dispute was going on between the parties over certain ornament matter. This, as the evidence show, took a serious turn on the date of occurrence and ultimately resulted into the death of the deceased. In the instant case, as indicated above, it is more or less admitted that some sort of family dispute was going on between the parties over certain ornament matter. This, as the evidence show, took a serious turn on the date of occurrence and ultimately resulted into the death of the deceased. This incident had happened sometime after 9 p.m. It is a matter of common experience that in our State in the village normally the villagers go under the shutters sometime after evening. In such a situation, one cannot normally expect and independent person to witness an occurrence which took place at about 9 p.m. in the night and therefore, absence of independent witness in this case cannot be a ground to cast doubt on the evidence on the witnesses. There is another aspect in the matter which cannot be overlooked. In fact, it is the informant alone, who is actually an eye-witness to the entire occurrence. The other two i.e. her father and brother as indicated, reached in course of the occurrence and witnesses the same. The evidence of the informant cannot also be doubted, if it is visualised in the background in which the occurrence had taken place. It is the normal human conduct to run away from the place if any body feels that he is likely to be attacked to save his life. That had actually happened in this case and in the circumstances, I am satisfied that the evidence of the informant bears a stamp of truth and I accept it." 13. The learned Sessions Judge has adequately dealt with all the points raised on behalf of the accused with regard to time of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the evidence of the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge found that the occurrence has taken place at 9 p.m. in the night and therefore, absence of independent witness in this case cannot be a ground to cast doubt on the evidence of the witnesses. The evidence of the sole eyewitness the informant was found to be absolutely trustworthy and there is no reason to take a different view. The learned Sessions Judge found that the delay in lodging the FIR has sufficiently explained for the reason stated in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment. The evidence of the sole eyewitness the informant was found to be absolutely trustworthy and there is no reason to take a different view. The learned Sessions Judge found that the delay in lodging the FIR has sufficiently explained for the reason stated in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment. The learned Sessions Judge held that the place and manner of occurrence has been challenged on the ground that the deceased might have been assaulted by some persons of Dwarika when she had gone to attend call of nature on the bundh, as using any portion of the bundh for easing purpose was not liked by Dwarika Mahton. The informant in a clear way stated that the bundh is being used for easing purposes. There is no evidence that there was any objection from any other person in that regard. The I.O. found blood marks in the dalan of Dwarika Mahton. The objective finding of the I.O. corroborated the testimony of the witness that the deceased was near the dalan. 14. The learned Sessions Judge after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case recorded his final conclusions as follows : "Thus, on a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record and in view of the fact and circumstances indicated and discussed above, I find and hold that the prosecution has proved that an occurrence of the nature as stated had taken place, in course of which, these three accused persons took active part in the manner as alleged. It has been well proved that when the deceased ran away along with her daughter, in order to save her life, it was accused Nirmal, who for the purpose of assisting his brother accused Kishori to murder her (deceased), caught hold of her with the result and she could not escape and ultimately, at the direct instigation of accused Kanti accused Kishori inflicted a severe chhura blow on her chest causing her death almost at the spot. It has further been established that Kishori also inflicted a chhura blow on the forehead of the inform-ant, when she tried to protect her mother from being assaulted." 15. The learned Sessions Judge who had opportunity to mark demeanour of the witnesses found the testimony to be trustworthy and accordingly, convicted all the three appellants. The judgment of the Trial Court is unassailable. The learned Sessions Judge who had opportunity to mark demeanour of the witnesses found the testimony to be trustworthy and accordingly, convicted all the three appellants. The judgment of the Trial Court is unassailable. There is no reason to take a different view. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, is affirmed. The bail bonds of the appellants are hereby cancelled. They shall surrender before the Trial Court to serve the sentence. P.K.Sarkar, J. 17 I agree.