Judgment G.S.Chaube, J. 1. In Sessions Trial No. 544/86, appellant No. 1 Hurku Kumhar had been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; and appellant No. 2 Bisam Kumhar had been convicted under Section 324 of the same Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against their conviction and sentences, both the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14.3.1986 PW 6 Aghnu Kumhar of village Sahdih-Marangpiri within Adki police station in the district of Ranchi had gone to Doreya Bazar accompanied by his wife Sabitri Devi. While returning from the bazar, they reached inside Pipra-kocha jungle at bout 5 in the evening. The appellants and 12 others including one Barjo Kumhar of the same village, who were hiding themselves behind bushes, accosted them. The appellants and Barjo Kumhar were armed with tablas (heavy-cutting weapons). Their remaining companions were carrying lathis. As soon as they emerged from behind the bushes (sic) Kumhar struck the said Aghnu Kumhar by means of tabla on the head followed by Barjo Kumhar whose weapon (tabla) hit one of the fingers of right hand of Aghnu Kumhar. In the meantime, appellant No. 1 struck Sabitri Devi on her neck by means of tabla cutting the neck. She fell down Thereafter, other accused-persons also started inflicting blows on her person by means of tabla. Some passers-by who were returning from the bazar, happened to reach there and raised alarm. Consequently, the assailants including these appellants fled inside the jungle. PW 6 remained inside the jungle throughout the night with his wife who had succumbed to the injuries. Next morning, a Sub-Inspector of Adki Police Station reached there and recorded his fardbeyan (Ext. 4) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ext. 3) was drawn and a case under Sections 341, 325, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the police station situated about 10 kms. west of the place of occurrence. Inquest on the dead-body was also held in presence of witnesses and dead-body sent to Sub-divisional Hospital at Khunti where post-mortem was held. 3) was drawn and a case under Sections 341, 325, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the police station situated about 10 kms. west of the place of occurrence. Inquest on the dead-body was also held in presence of witnesses and dead-body sent to Sub-divisional Hospital at Khunti where post-mortem was held. According to the first informant, since his parents-in-law had no male issue, they had transferred their entire immovable properties to deceased Sabitri Devi to the dislike of accused Barjo Kumhar (since dead) and the latter was threatening with dire consequences and was determined to drive them away from the village. The determing accused-persons including appellants were his relatives and supporters. 3. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against all the 14 accused-persons under Sections 147,148, 324, 302 and 307, IPC. As two of the accused-persons were juvenile, their trial was separated for being tried by a Juvenile Court and the remaining 12 accused-persons framed charges under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC against all the accused-persons. Separate charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against appellants Hurku and Bisam Kumhar respectively. A separate charge under Section 324, IPC was also framed against Barjo Kumhar. In course of trial, accused Barjo Kumhar and Chhetro Mohan Kumhar died. Therefore, only 10 of the accused-persons including these appellants faced full trial. The accused-persons denied the allegations and pleaded false implication due to enmity and land dispute. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. On consideration of the evidence of those witnesses, the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove involvement of accused-persons other than the appellants and Barjo Kuhmar in the occurrence. Therefore, he acquitted all accused-persons including the appellants of charges under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC. However, he held appellant No. 1 guilty of committing murder of Sabitri Devi and appellant No. 2 for voluntarily causing hurt to the informant Aghnu Kumhar by means of tabla and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them for the said offences. 5. Mrs. However, he held appellant No. 1 guilty of committing murder of Sabitri Devi and appellant No. 2 for voluntarily causing hurt to the informant Aghnu Kumhar by means of tabla and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them for the said offences. 5. Mrs. S. Kumar appearing for the appellants has challenged the conviction of the appellants on the grounds that except the injured, the first informant-husband of the deceased, no other independent witness has come to support the prosecutory story. Four other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were on inimical terms with the accused and friendly to the first informant. She has further contended that the occurrence allegedly took place due to land dispute in respect of which the first informant has made contradictory statements. While he stated that his parents in-law had no male issue, consequently they transferred their entire land to the deceased, the witnesses have stated that they had a son with whose widow Durga Mani, the informant and his wife were on litigating term. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the appellants deserve to be acquitted. 6. PW 6 Aghnu Kumhar is the first informant in the case. He has stated that earlier he was residing at his sasural at Marangpiri. On the day of occurrence, he had gone to Doreya Bazar accompanied by his deceased wife for making purchases. In the afternoon at about 4 while returning home from Doreya Bazar, they reached inside Pipra Kocha jungle which was a lonely place. All of a sudden, the appellants and 12 others including Barjo Kumhar emerged from behind the bushes. While these appellants and Barjo Kumhar were wielding tablas, the others were armed with lathis. He has further stated that at first appellant No. 2 struck on his head by means of tabla followed by Barjo Kumhar who hit on the finger of the hand. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 struck on the neck of his wife by means of the tabla which he was armed with. She fell down and then other accused-persons showered their lathis. After about an hour, she succumbed to the injuries. The witness has also stated that some villagers were also returning from Bazar. On learning of the incident from him, they informed some other villagers. In the morning a Sub-Inspector of Police arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded his first information report. After about an hour, she succumbed to the injuries. The witness has also stated that some villagers were also returning from Bazar. On learning of the incident from him, they informed some other villagers. In the morning a Sub-Inspector of Police arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded his first information report. However, when the witness was subjected to cross-examination, he stated that at the place of occurrence, no passerby was present even at distant places. He accompanied by his deceased wife alone were passing through the jungle at that time. In other words, besides him, nobody had seen the occurrence. 7. PW 1 Bishambhar Pooran and PW 3 Niranjan Munda, both of village Telenandu within the same police station have stated that on learning of the occurrence they had gone to the place of the occurrence in the jungle at about 8 in the night on the same day. They had found PW 6 injured and his wife Sabitri Devi lying dead in pool of blood. PW 6 informed them that appellant No. 1 had inflicted the fatal blow on the neck of the deceased and that he was himself assaulted by appellant No. 2 and Barjo Kumhar. In the morning of 15.3.1986 when police reached the place of occurrence, these witnesses as well as PW 2 were also present. Inquest was held in presence of PWs 1 and 2 while the police officer had seized some blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence in presence of PW 3. 8. PW 4 Upen Kumhar is the younger brother of PW 6. He has stated that on the day of occurrence, he had heard of the murder of his sister-in-law in the evening an went there to find that the deceased was lying with cut injuries on her neck and his brother (PW 6) was also having bleeding injuries on his head and hand. On enquiry, PW 6 disclosed to him that these appellants and Barjo Kumhar had assaulted him as well as the deceased. He had also stated that besides them, about 9-10 others had also participated in the occurrence, but he could not recollect their names. Indeed, in course of cross-examination, PW 4 could not state the distance between Marang-piri and Pipra Kocha jungle nor could he state the distance between the jungle and his own village. Pandrari within Tamar Police Station. 9. PW 5 Dr. Indeed, in course of cross-examination, PW 4 could not state the distance between Marang-piri and Pipra Kocha jungle nor could he state the distance between the jungle and his own village. Pandrari within Tamar Police Station. 9. PW 5 Dr. Shashikant Sinha had held post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased Sabitri Devi on 16.3.1986 at about 10 a.m. He had found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Sabitri Devi ; 1. Incised injury 3" x 1/2" x 3" deep placed transversely on the right eye brow. On dissection, the frontal bone was found fractured. The subdural space contained cotted blood and brain matter was cut beneath the said injury. 2. Incised injury 4" X 1/2 x 2" deep placed obliquely on the front of chest close to left shoulder joint. The costal cartilege of 3rd and 4th ribs had been found cut; 3. Incised sharp cut injury 6" x 3" x 4" deep placed on the back of the neck and on the junction of trunk and neck. The lower cervical vertebra was found cut. The spinal cord was severed and all major vessels of both the sides of neck were found cut. According to the Doctor, the abovementioned injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by some sharp-cutting weapon, like tabla. The death of the deceased had occurred within 48 hours before the autopsy as a result of shock and haemorrhage as well as cardio respiratory failure caused by abovementioned injuires. The post-mortem report submitted by him is Ext. 2. Thus, it is manifest from the evidence of PW 5 that the wife of PW 6 had been murdered by inflicting, at least, three cut injuries on her person, one of which was found on the rear side of neck cutting the cervical vertebra, spinal cord and all major vessels. According to PW 6 the injury on the neck of the deceased had been caused by appellant No. 1. When the deceased fell down on sustaining such injury, she was given a couple of further tabla blows may be by Barju Kumhar on appellant No. 2 who alone were carrying sharp-cutting weapons, like tabla at the time of the occurrence. In course of his cross-examination, PW 6 has stated that after his wife fell down on being hit by appellant No. 1, lathi wielding accused had showered their lathis on her person. In course of his cross-examination, PW 6 has stated that after his wife fell down on being hit by appellant No. 1, lathi wielding accused had showered their lathis on her person. However, medical evidence does not lend corroboration to the story of the deceased having been given lathi blows as well. However, simply because PW 6 stated that the deceased had been given some lathi blows and the Doctor did not find any injury caused by hard and blunt substance on the person of the deceased, the testimony of the witness cannot be discredited, especially when he had himself got injured at the hands of some other accused-persons including appellant No. 2 in course of the same occurrence. Of course, the Doctor who had examined the injuries on PW 6, could not be examined by the prosecution in course of trial in spite of best efforts by it. There is consistent evidence of the injured himself and three other witnesses that he had, in fact, sustained cut injuries on his person. 10 From the evidence of PW 6, it appears that co-accused Barjo Kumhar, (since dead) was trying to dislodge him and his wife Sabitri Devi from the lands which were allegedly transferred by her parents. In course of his cross-examination, he has admitted that deceased Sabitri Devi had a brother named Prabhu Kumhar and Durga Mani was his widow. From his evidence, it appears that some litigation was going on between him and his wife on the one hand and said Durga Mani on the other. Some criminal cases had also been instituted from both the sides. Even though PW 3 had denied in course of his evidence, PW 1 has admitted that prior to the occurrence both of them had deposed against the accused-persons including these appellants on behalf of Aghnu Kumhar. Both the witnesses have also admitted that earlier Durga Mani had instituted a criminal case against them and some others including the first informant. In course of his cross-examination, PW 2 Mansa Munda has also admitted that he was an accused in a criminal case instituted by Durga Mani. The witness had also stated that co-accused Barjo Kumhar was a brother of the husband of Durga Mani. 11. In course of his cross-examination, PW 2 Mansa Munda has also admitted that he was an accused in a criminal case instituted by Durga Mani. The witness had also stated that co-accused Barjo Kumhar was a brother of the husband of Durga Mani. 11. Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses referred to above, it emerges that some dispute respecting land was going on between PW 6 and his deceased-wife on the one hand and co-accused Barjo Kumhar and Durga Mani on the other. In the said dispute, the appellants and other accused-persons were helping Barjo Kumhar who wanted to drive the deceased and her husband away from the village of her parents and PWs 1, 2 and 3 were on the side of the informant and were deposing against the accused-persons on behalf of the wife of the informant. On this ground, it has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants that no reliance should be placed on what these witnesses have stated in support of the prosecution story. 12. In the present case, occurrence had taken place at a lonely place inside a forest. Besides the informant, his deceased wife and the assailants there were none else to witness the said occurrence. It has come in the evidence of PW 6 that some persons returning from the Bazar also happened to reach there and on being challenged by them, the assailants fled away. From the evidence, it also appears that those persons were altogether strangers. Somehow the news spread outside the jungle and PWs 1 to 4 went there. One of them is a full brother of the informant and others his supporters and sympathesers. Naturally, when they came to know of the mishap, they went to the place of the occurrence and came to learn from PW 6 that these appellants and Barjo Kumhar were the assailants. The persons who had arrived at the place of the occurrence either at the time of the occurrence or immediately thereafter were all strangers unknown to the first informant. They case, saw the occurrence, and went away. Therefore, for all practical purposes, none else than PW 6 himself had witnesed the occurrence. Consequently, in peculiar circumstance of the case, no corroborative evidence, except the medical evidence and what has come from the mouth of PWs 1,3 and 4, is expected. They case, saw the occurrence, and went away. Therefore, for all practical purposes, none else than PW 6 himself had witnesed the occurrence. Consequently, in peculiar circumstance of the case, no corroborative evidence, except the medical evidence and what has come from the mouth of PWs 1,3 and 4, is expected. Only because PW 4 is brother of the first informant and the remaining witnesses his sympathisers, what they have stated on oath cannot be disbelieved. On his part, PW 6 is the injured himself and the injuries on his person lend assurance that he was present at the time and place of the occurrence and witnesses his wife being killed. According to him, it was appellant No. 1 who had inflicted the fatal injury on the neck of the deceased. No direct enmity between him and these appellants has been disclosed. The dispute respecting land, if any, was between him and co-accused Barjo Kumhar. Therefore, under the circumstance the intensity of animosity could have been more against Barjo Kumhar than these appellants who are merely his supporters. If PW 6 had any intention to falsely implicate anybody for the murder of his wife, he could have chosen Barjo Kumhar and not appellant No. 1. Therefore, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as broad probabilities, I find no reason to disbelieve what PW 6 has stated respecting the assault on him by appellant No. 2 and that on the deceased by appellant No. 1. 13. The result is that I find no ground to arrive at conclusion other than that of the trial Court that it was appellant No. 1 who committed the murder of the deceased and appellant No. 2 inflicted injury on PW 6 by using a weapon of cutting. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of appellant No. 1 under Section 302, IPC and of appellant No. 2 under Section 304, IPC is affirmed and the appeal is dissmised. The bail of appellant No. 2 is cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the trial Court to serve his sentence. A.K.Prasad, J. 14 I agree.