Judgment 1. This appeal by the sole appellant Shaukat Ali is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-8-1991 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1989/3 of 1991, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that Rahmat Mian, husband of the informant Amna Khatoon (PW 3) was working in a Chatkal (Jute Mill) but since three months prior to 24-9-87 which is the date of reporting the case with the police, he was living in his house situate at Village Narayanchak, P.S. Madhaura, District Saran and was engaged in the work of preparing Biri. His two brothers, Barkat Ali (PW 6) and appellant Shaukat Ali with their families, were also living in the same house but all the three brothers were separate in mess. There was an agreement between the husband of informant and his brothers for providing food to their parents. The informant was regularly providing food to her mother-in-law whereas Barkat Ali and Shaukat Ali were giving food to their father by monthly rotation. Appellant was not providing food to his father properly and whenever his turn came, he used to avoid to provide food to his father. From 23-9-87 the term of appellant for providing food to his father started and when he was asked to give food to his father he flatly refused and started abusing. On the same day i.e. on 23-9-87 at about 8 P.M. when food was not given to father-in-law of the informant, her husband asked the appellant to give food to his father on which the appellant abused him and he brought a "Chhura" and gave a Chhura blow on the chest of the husband of the informant who fell in the angan and thereafter the appellant repeatedly gave a number of Chhura blows to the husband of informant causing injuries on his neck and both arms. Blood started coming out from the injuries received by the husband of the informant who raised hulla that appellant had assaulted him with Chhura and when the informant tried to rescue her husband the appellant pushed her also and she fell down and appellant then gave threatenings to her for assaulting with Chhura. Blood started coming out from the injuries received by the husband of the informant who raised hulla that appellant had assaulted him with Chhura and when the informant tried to rescue her husband the appellant pushed her also and she fell down and appellant then gave threatenings to her for assaulting with Chhura. On hulla Barkat Ali (PW 6), Shakina Bibi the mother-in-law of the informant, Salauddin, Layakat Ali and Masiuddin, who are neighbours of informant and others came there who also witnessed the occurrence. The appellant after assault fled away towards north. The husband of informant died. The fardbeyan of informant was recorded by Gopal Prasad (PW 10), who at that time was posted as Officer-in-charge of Madhaura Police Station and had reached the house of informant at 6 A.M. on 24-9-87 while on patrolling duty. He prepared inquest report (Ext. 6) of the dead body of the deceased, seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list (Ext.5), sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination and recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation submitted the chargehseet under Sec. 302 IPC against the appellant. After cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Sec. 302 IPC was framed against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge. 3. The case of the appellant as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and from his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that at the time of occurrence he was at Siwan and he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of informant because he had dispute with her and her husband. After trial the Court below found the appellant guilty under Sec. 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Amna Khatoon (PW 3) is the informant and wife of deceased. Ram Janam Mishra (PW 1) and Birendra Singh (PW 2) are formal witnesses who have proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) and formal FIR (Ext. 2). Sri Sidheshwar Prasad (PW 9) is the doctor who had conductedautopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Md. Zakaria (PW 5) and Md. Amna Khatoon (PW 3) is the informant and wife of deceased. Ram Janam Mishra (PW 1) and Birendra Singh (PW 2) are formal witnesses who have proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) and formal FIR (Ext. 2). Sri Sidheshwar Prasad (PW 9) is the doctor who had conductedautopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Md. Zakaria (PW 5) and Md. Ekbal (PW 8) had reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and had found the deceased lying dead in his angan and were told by Barkat Ali (PW 6) about the murder of the deceased by the appellant. They are also witnesses on the inquest report (Ext. 6) and seizure list (Ext. 5) prepared by the police at the place of occurrence. Their signatures on inquest report are marked Exts. 3 and 3/3 and signatures on seizure list are marked Exts. 3/1 and 3/4. Barkat Ali (PW 6), brother of deceased as well as of appellant, Anbari Begum (PW 4), wife of Barkat Ali (PW 6) and Hamid Ali (PW 7) son of deceased are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Gopal Prasad (PW 10) is the I.O. of this case. 5. Dr. Sidheshwar Prasad (PW 9), in his evidence, has stated that on 24-9-87 at 1 P.M. he had held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante mortem injuries :- (i) Incised wound 4" x 21/2" x bone (cervical spine) deep on the left side of the neck, cutting muscles and important blood vessels of the neck.(ii) Sharp penetrating wound 2" x 11/4" x chest cavity deep on the front of the chest right side, causing sharp punctured wound 1" x 1/2" x 3/4" on the front of the right lung, after cutting the 4th rib of the right side of the chest with collection of dark red fluid blood 11/2 pint.(iii) Sharp penetrating wound 1" x 3/4" x chest cavity deep on the front of the chest right side. 1" linear to injury no. 1" linear to injury no. (ii) causing sharp punctured wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the front of the right lung.(iv) Incised wound 21/2" x 11/4" x muscle deep on the front of left arm.(v) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the dorsum wrist left side.(vi) Incised wound 8" x 41/2" x bone deep on the front of right arm cutting the muscles and important blood vessels of the right arm.According to him, Injury Nos. (i), (iv), (iv), (v) and (vi) were caused by sharp edge weapon such as Chhura and rest by sharp pointed weapon such as point of Chhura and injury Nos. (i) to (iii) were grievous and rest were simple in nature and the death was caused as a result of shock and haemorrhage especially due to injury Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours from the time of holding post mortem examination. He has proved the post mortem examination report, which is marked Exts. 2. His cross examination was declined. 6 Amna Khatoon (PW 3), the informant, in her evidence, has said that appellant and Barkat Ali (PW 6) are the brothers of her husband and her husband along with these two brothers used to live in one house along with her. Appellant and Barkat Ali used to provide food to her father-in-law by monthly rotation and whenever the term of appellant for providing food to his father came, he used to avoid it and for this reason there was dispute between him and his brother Barkat Ali. According to her, at the time of occurrence the appellant was having altercation with Barkat Ali for the same reason and when her husband came out the appellant gave chhura blows on her husband as a result of which her husband fell down in the angan and when she went to rescue her husband the appellant pushed her and she also fell down. Her husband died in the angan itself and the appellant thereafter fled away towards the northern door of the house. On the next day her statements were recorded by the police. She has admitted that appellant prior to occurrence was employed at Siwan but she has denied the suggestion of defence that at the time of occurrence also the appellant was at Siwan. 7. On the next day her statements were recorded by the police. She has admitted that appellant prior to occurrence was employed at Siwan but she has denied the suggestion of defence that at the time of occurrence also the appellant was at Siwan. 7. Barkat Ali (PW 6) is the brother of the deceased as well as of the appellant. He in his evidence has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his house when he heard hulla from the angan and when he went there running, he saw the appellant assaulting his brother with Chhura and when he wanted to catch hold of the appellant he was also given a push by the appellant and he fell down and appellant thereafter fled away through the northern door of the house. He has further stated that the deceased used to provide food to his mother and he and appellant by rotation of one month used to provide food to their father. At the time of occurrence, it was the term of appellant to provide food to his father and on this point altercation had taken place and when deceased asked the appellant why he was not giving food to his father, the appellant abused the deceased and assaulted him with Chhura. He has stated that his brother, the deceased, died in the angan at the time of occurrence itself. 8. Anbari Begum (PW 4), the wife of Barkat Ali (PW 6)has stated that at the time of occurrence she was giving food to her husband and on hulla she went in the angan when she saw the appellant running away towards north after assaulting the deceased with chhura. She has also stated that her husband and appellant by monthly rotation used to give food to her father-in-law and on the day of occurrence it was the turn of appellant to provide food to his father. According to her, the deceased died in the angan itself. 9. Hamid Ali (PW 7) is the son of deceased and nephew of appellant. According to her, the deceased died in the angan itself. 9. Hamid Ali (PW 7) is the son of deceased and nephew of appellant. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his room and at that time an altercation between his father and appellant on the point of providing food to his grandfather was going on and the appellant did not want to provide food to his father and thereafter the appellant brought a chhura from his room and assaulted his father. When he went to rescue his father, the appellant fled away through the northern door of the house and his mother was also given a push by the appellant when she went to rescue his father as a result of which she fell down. After receiving injury his father was telling that appellant had assaulted him with chhura and his father after sometime died in the angan. 10. Gopal Prasad (PW 10), in his evidence, has stated that on 24-9-87 he was posted as Officer-in-charge of Madhaura Police Station and on that day at about 6 A.M. while he was on patrolling duty he reached the house of informant and recorded the fardbeyan of informant at her darwaja. He found the dead body of the deceased lying in the angan and also found blood fallen there and he seized the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, prepared seizure list (Ext. 5), also prepared inquest report (Ext. 6) of the dead body of the deceased and sent it for post mortem examination, recorded statements of witnesses and after completing investigation submitted charge sheet. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that informant Amna Khatoon (PW 3), in her evidence, has stated that when she went in the angan of her house she found her husband fallen and this suggests that she could not have seen the occurrence. We are unable to accept this argument because it is not the case of prosecution that after the deceased fell down in the angan, no further chhura blow was given to him. We are unable to accept this argument because it is not the case of prosecution that after the deceased fell down in the angan, no further chhura blow was given to him. This is also supported from the statements of informant made in her fardbeyan where she has stated that first, the appellant gave a chhura blow on the right side of chest of the deceased as a result of which he fell down in the angan and thereafter the appellant again gave a number of chhura blows causing injuries on different parts of his body. So, if the informant, when she went in the angan found her husband fallen on the ground, it does not mean that she did not see the occurrence. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Anbari Begum (PW 4) in her cross examination has stated that the deceased was found dead by her and she has further submitted that the appellant had fled away. On scrutinising the aforesaid statements of PW 4, in her cross-examination, we do not find that she has stated that when she went in the angan the deceased had already died by that time. She has simply stated that the deceased died. It has also been argued on behalf of appellant that all the witnesses examined in this case are closely related to each other and no independent witness has been examined. No doubt the informant (PW 3), Anbari Begum (PW 4), Barkat Ali (PW 6) and Hamid Ali (PW 7) who are eye witnesses to the occurrence are none-else but the own relations of the appellant. Barkat Ali (PW 6) is the own brother of the appellant and Anbari Begum (PW 4) is the wife of Barkat Ali. But then all these witnesses along with appellant, at the time of occurrence, were living in the same house, according to the case of the prosecution, which has not been disputed by the appellant. Under these circumstances, when the occurrence took place in their own house, they would be the natural witnesses. Besides this, the prosecution has also examined Md. Zakaria (PW 5) and Md. Under these circumstances, when the occurrence took place in their own house, they would be the natural witnesses. Besides this, the prosecution has also examined Md. Zakaria (PW 5) and Md. Ekbal (PW 8) who are independent witnesses and who had reached the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and had seen the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries in the angan of his house and they were told by Barkat Ali (PW 6) that appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. It is true that Md. Zakaria (PW 5), in his cross-examination, has stated that he was not examined by the I.O. but then there is nothing like such in the cross-examination of Md. Ekbal (PW 8). So the evidence of PW 8 also supports the case of the prosecution to the extent that deceased was found lying dead in his angan and Barkat Ali (PW 6) told him that appellanthad killed the deceased. 12. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Hamid Ali (PW 7), the son of the deceased, does not appear to be eye witness to the occurrence because in his cross-examination he has admitted that his uncle Barkat Ali (PW 6) had told him about fleeing away of the appellant from the place of occurrence. It is true that this witness, in his cross examination has given the aforesaid statements but at the same time we find that he has also stated that Barkat Ali did not tell this at the time of occurrence and later on, this was told by Barkat Ali to him. We further find that a suggestion to this witness on behalf of defence was given that before the police he had stated that at the time of occurrence he was not living in his house and he had simply heard about the occurrence. This witness has denied the suggestion. When the I.O. (PW 10) was examined this fact was not corroborated by the defence from the I.O. In view of these facts, merely because the aforesaid suggestion was given to PW 7 it cannot be considered to be a ground for disbelieving his evidence when it has been denied by the prosecution and it has not been corroborated by I.O. 13. From the entire evidence on record, we find that the eye witnesses to the occurrence, who are, as stated, close relations of the appellant have given the consistent evidence that it was the appellant who gave a number of chhura blows to the deceased resulting into his death. From the perusal of materials on record we find that Anbari Begum (PW 4) in para 6 of her evidence has stated that she did not see any injury on the person of Rahmat. No doubt the name of deceased was Rahmat but then PW 4 in her evidence, right from the beginning, has given a vivid description of the occurrence and has said that appellant gave chhura blows to the deceased which resulted into his death. To us it appears that perhaps she wanted to say that she did not see any injury on appellant and the name of deceased in her evidence has either been inadvertently stated or it is the result of slip of pen. Be what it may, if her evidence is considered in its entirety it fully supports the case of the prosecution. Besides this, apart from her evidence the case of the prosecution is also supported by the evidence of other witnesses to the occurrence. 14. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant and the Court below has rightly found the appellant guilty under Sec. 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. 15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life is hereby confirmed.Appeal dismissed.