Judgment 1. The sole appellant in this appeal has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC by the District & Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1994 by judgment and order dated 29th April, 1994. The appellant is charged of having murdered his wife Pramila Devi at about 7 a.m. on 23.8.1993 by causing stabbing wounds as a result of which she died soon thereafter. 2. The informant in this case is Tilasara Devi P.W. 6 who is no other than Nani mothers mother of the appellant. The another eye-witness is Ram Akhtiyar Singh, P.W. 5 who is the brother of the appellant. Three other eye-witnesses are P.W. 2 Baikunth Singh, P.W. 3 Adalat Singh and P.W. 4 Tukar Singh who are co-villagers and who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence while they were having tea at a tea-stop which is situate at a distance of 15-20 steps from the Darwaja of the appellant. 3. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 7 a.m. on 23.8.1993 at village Sadhpur Chhatar within the jurisdiction of police station Daudpur. The fardbeyan was made by Tilasara Devi, P.W. 6, the Nani of the appellant at the place of occurrence itself to the Investigating Officer P.W. 8 who had reached the village on hearing a rumour that a murder had taken place in the village. In her fardbeyan, Tilasara Devi stated that on 22.8.1993 after taking food she had gone to sleep. In the morning at about 7 a.m., she asked Pramila Devi, deceased, wife of the appellant, to lit chulha for preparing food. Pramila Devi (deceased) lit the chulha and put it outside. After some time, her grand on Ramadhar Singh, appellant, herein, came and called for from outside and said that the Chulha has been property lit, and should be taken inside. Hearing this, Pramila Devi, the wife of the appellant went out to bring the Chulha. When she went out, Ramadhar Singh, appellant, took out a churra from his pocket and ran to attach Pramila Devi. With a view to save herself, Pramila Devi ran towards the house of Rameshwar Singh, but Ramadhar Singh, appellant, fell upon her and caught her. Thereafter, he inflicted several churra blows on the chest, stomach, hand and other parts of the body of the deceased. With a view to save herself, Pramila Devi ran towards the house of Rameshwar Singh, but Ramadhar Singh, appellant, fell upon her and caught her. Thereafter, he inflicted several churra blows on the chest, stomach, hand and other parts of the body of the deceased. Seeing this occurrence, the informant came raising an alarm and tried to protect Pramila Devi, but the appellant pushed her as a result of which she fell down. Seeing the villagers coming, Ramadhar Singh, appellant, entered the house while throwing away the churra. The villagers also entered the house and tried to catch him, but the appellant jumped from the roof. In that process, he injured his legs and hands and fell down. Several villagers caught hold of the appellant and out of anger, some of them assaulted him also. Soon after Ramadhar Singh was caught by the villagers, Pramila Devi died. The informant stated that Ramadhar Singh was addicted to liquor, Tari, Ganja, Bhang, etc. and for this, frequently he was selling movable and immovable properties which was protested by his wife Pramila Devi. This was the reason why she was murdered by the appellant. She stated that in the course of the occurrence, the respectable persons of the village such as Tukar Singh, P.W. 4, Adalat Singh, P.W. 3, Manan Singh, Prabhu Nath Singh, etc. came and apprehended Ramadhar Singh and caught him near the Darwaja and handed him over to the Investigating Officer when he came. The informant had put her thump impression on the report after she was read over and understood the same in the presence of her grand son Ram Akhtiyar Singh, the brother of the appellant. 4. Since this appeal was received from the jail, Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha was appointed as an amicus curie to assist the Court and he has taken pains to go through the record and has rendered useful assistance to us. 5. P.W. 6 is the informant. In the course of her deposition, she has supported the case put forward in the first information report. In the course of her cross-examination, she has stated that she had not given any other property to the appellant Ramadhar Singh, but her husband had gifted some land to the father of the appellant. She also stated that her husband had given some land to Pramila Devi (deceased). In the course of her cross-examination, she has stated that she had not given any other property to the appellant Ramadhar Singh, but her husband had gifted some land to the father of the appellant. She also stated that her husband had given some land to Pramila Devi (deceased). From the tenor of the evidence, it appears that the appellant was not trusted by his family members on account of his bad habits. She has further stated that on the night preceding the occurrence, there was some quarrel between the appellant and his wife in connection with documents relating to land, and the appellant was demanding those papers from his wife Pramila Devi, deceased. 6. The witness has stood the test of cross-examination and there is hardly anything in her cross-examination which may create a doubt about the truthfulness of her statement. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that she is the Nani of the appellant and there appears to be no reason for her to falsely implicate her own grand son. She is also a natural witness as she was residing with the appellant and the deceased and since the occurrence took place just outside the house, she was in a position to witness the occurrence. From her deposition, it appears that the deceased first attempted to run away with a view to save herself and raised an alarm. She was chased by the appellant and thereafter several stab injuries were inflicted upon her. All this would have taken a little time, and therefore, the witness had ample opportunity of witnessing the occurrence. 7. P.W. 5 Ram Akhtiyar Singh is no other than the brother of the appellant. He has also supported the prosecution case in its entirety, and there is nothing in his cross-examination which may discredit him. He is also a natural witness being a member of the family. At the time of occurrence, he claimed that he was at a tea-shop just near his house and he had witnessed the occurrence. He also appears to have been present when the fardbeyen was recorded as his name finds mention in the fardbeyen. 8. P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 are co-villagers and they claim that in the morning they were having tea at a tea-shop which is situate at a distance of 15-20 steps from the Darwaja of the appellant. He also appears to have been present when the fardbeyen was recorded as his name finds mention in the fardbeyen. 8. P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 are co-villagers and they claim that in the morning they were having tea at a tea-shop which is situate at a distance of 15-20 steps from the Darwaja of the appellant. On hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, they rushed to the place of occurrence, and they were also amongst those villagers who apprehended the appellant and produced him before the police. Nothing has been pointed out in their deposition which may discredit their testimony. 9. The evidence on record is, therefore, consistent and comes from untainted source. All the witnesses have consistently deposed against the appellant. 10. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC has stated that he was staying at village Sadhpur Chatar along with the family members. Tilesara Devi was the Saroj of his grand father and had no issue. She had given 10 acres of her land to his father and five acres to his sons and three acres to his wife, Pramila Devi (deceased). Later on, his father had transferred five acres of land to his wife and he was cultivating those lands. His brother Ram Akhtiyar Singh, P.W. 5, however wanted to oust him from those lands. Out of the lands, the appellant had sold four Kathas land to Bhuneshwar Singh. Ram Akhtiyar Singh his brother, P.W. 5 had got half of the lands from his wife recorded in the name of his wife and similarly he had got half of the land given to his son recorded in the names of his sons. On 23.8.1993, he was sitting near his wife and his wife suggested to him that he should go away from there. In the meantime, Ram Akhtiyar Singh, P.W. 5 along with 4-5 others came there and assaulted him in such a manner that his leg and his right hand got fractured. He started raising an alarm. His wife came and tried to protect him, but in the meantime, Ram Akhtiyar Singh attempted to stab him, but actually injured his wife Pramila Devi resulting in her death. He has been falsely implicated by his brother RW. 5. 11. He started raising an alarm. His wife came and tried to protect him, but in the meantime, Ram Akhtiyar Singh attempted to stab him, but actually injured his wife Pramila Devi resulting in her death. He has been falsely implicated by his brother RW. 5. 11. From the statement of the appellant, it appears that he was not on good terms with his brother Ram Akhtiyar Singh, P.W. 5 because the said Ram Akhtiyar Singh had got some land transferred in favour of his own wife and children which had originally been transferred in favour of the wife of the appellant and his children. There is nothing to support the version put forward by the appellant that it was Ram Akhtiyar Singh who attempted to assault the appellant, but in the process actually caused stab injuries to his wife Pramila Devi. Moreover, this is not a cause of single assault because as many as six incised injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon have been found on the person of the deceased. This version has not been supported by any of the witnesses and not even by Tilesara Devi, the informant, P.W. 6. The medical evidence clearly discloses that repeated injuries were inflicted upon the deceased which is inconsistent with the version put forward by the appellant that the knife blow aimed at him struck his wife Pramila Devi. We are, therefore, not impressed by the defence taken by the appellant. 12. It was then submitted by Counsel for the appellant that in the inquest report the first column contains blank so far as the case number is concerned and Section of the IPC is concerned, and the time given is about 8 a.m. He submits that this would show that the inquest report was recorded at 8 a.m. i.e., even before the fardbeyen of P.W. 6 which was recorded at 8.20 a.m. He, therefore, submits that the first information report is hit by Section 162, Cr. PC. 13. We have perused the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 8. From his evidence, it would be apparent that he first recorded the fardbeyan of Tilesara Devi P.W. 6 and thereafter took up the investigation and proceeded to prepare the inquest report. PC. 13. We have perused the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 8. From his evidence, it would be apparent that he first recorded the fardbeyan of Tilesara Devi P.W. 6 and thereafter took up the investigation and proceeded to prepare the inquest report. Since he had recorded the fardbeyan at the place of occurrence and he was preparing the inquest report before the formal F.I.R. was registered, he obviously could not give the number of the Police Station case. He has mentioned the time at about 8 a.m. The mere fact that time has been recorded at about 8 a.m. will not lead to the conclusion that the inquest report was prepared even before the fardbeyan was recorded because then is a clear statement of the Investigating Officer to the contrary. The I.O. has stated that he had heard a rumour about the commission of murder at village Sadhpur Chhatar at about 7.20 a.m. and after making a diary entry, he proceeded to the village at 7.40 a.m. He reached the village and recorded the statement of the informant at 8.20 a.m. He was, thereafter, shown the place of occurrence by the witness and thereafter, he took up the investigation and prepared the inquest report. We are of the view that he did not take proper care in mentioning the time when the inquest report was prepared. However, in view of the deposition of as many as five witnesses who are consistent, the first information report even if excluded, would not make any difference to the result of the case. 14. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.