Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary and M.L.Visa JJ. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Secs. 364 and 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life respectively, by the 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger, vide his order dated 11th January, 1996, in Sessions case No. 383/91. Accused-appellant Medo Manjhi and co-accused Tejo Manjhi were facing trial before the Court below, but subsequently, since Tajo Manjhi absconded, his trial was separated. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that the informant Babulal Manjhi, P.W. 1, in his fardbeyan, Ext. 2, recorded on 21-1-90, at 12 noon by the Officer-Incharge, Dharahra Police Station, district Munger, -stated that on 20/21-1-90, at about 12 in the night, while he was sleeping in his house, appellant Medo Manjhi and accused Tejo Manjhi came to the house and started awakening his son Suresh Manjhi, the deceased. They asked his son to return back the wrist watch, which he had stolen earlier. Suresh Manjhi denied and stated that he had not stolen any wrist watch. Thereupon, an altercation took place and the informant intervened and defended his son. Thereafter, both the accused-persons left the place after threatening him. It is the further case of the prosecution that both the accused immediately returned back armed with Tengari and Farsa and again demanded wrist watch from the deceased Suresh Manjhi. Both of them dragged the deceased towards the village. The informant then raised hulla, but none of the villager turned up. However, the informant and the family members did not follow the accused-persons out of fear. In the morning at about 4 a.m., the informant along with the village Chowkidar enquired from the accused-persons the whereabouts of his son Suresh Manjhi. They replied that they had left his son in Bilokhar. On further query, appellant Medo Manjhi told the informant that his son, Suresh Manjhi, has been cut to death. The informant with the help of the Chowkidar made search of his son and recovered his dead-body in the field of Nepali Singh in mouza Sikranpur. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Dharahra P.S. case No. 4/90 was registered and after submission of the charge-sheet the trial proceeded in the Court below. The defence case is the denial of the involvement of the appellant. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Dharahra P.S. case No. 4/90 was registered and after submission of the charge-sheet the trial proceeded in the Court below. The defence case is the denial of the involvement of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant has been falsely implicated because of the enmity and the son of the informant, Suresh Manjhi, being a criminal was killed by some one else. 3. The prosecution, in all examined, 6 witnesses; out of which, Babulal Manjhi, P.W. 1, the informant is father of the deceased. Gogni Devi, P.W. 2, is the grand-mother of the deceased. P.W. 3, Bansi Manjhi, is another family member of the deceased, who was sleeping along with the deceased in the same house in that night. P.W. 4, Bhamo Devi is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 5, Indradeo Pd. Singh is a formal witness, who has proved, fardbeyan Ext. 2, and the inquest report, Ext. 4 P.W. 6, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 4. The Doctor, P.W. 6, performed the autopsy on 22-1-90 at 6.30 a.m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries: (I) Incised wound 2 1/2" x 1/2" Cartilage deep running longitudely over the right side of the none cutting the upper lip also. (II) Incised wound 4" x 1" x occipital bone but just above the pinna horizontally from the left temple to the left occipital region. (III) Incised wound 4 1/2"x 1" x survical vertebrae deep including soft tissues of the posterior aspect of the neck. (IV) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x. bone deep overlying the left knee. (V) 4 incised wounds 1" x 1 1/2" lying apart from each other from left scapulla to left shoulder varing in size 3", 4", 4 1/2", 2" depth, left scapulla cut at places. In the opinion of the doctor, time elapsed since death was about 36 hours and the cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above injuries caused by means of sharp-cutting weapons, like Farsa. He has proved the post-mortem report, Ext. 5. From the post-mortem report, it appears that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 5 The above-named witnesses are the family members of the deceased. He has proved the post-mortem report, Ext. 5. From the post-mortem report, it appears that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 5 The above-named witnesses are the family members of the deceased. They were sleeping in the same house when the appellant and the co-accused Tejo Manjhi came to their house and awakened deceased, Suresh Manjhi. The informant, P.W. 1 stated that his son was sleeping along with his grand-mother in the adjacent room. Both the rooms were without doors. He woke up on hearing the hulla of the appellant and the co-accused Tejo Manjhi, who were demanding wrist-watch from his son. He further stated that his son denied of having taken the wrist watch and thereupon they threatened him and left the house, but immediately, both of the them returned back armed with Farsa and Tengari. The informant further stated that both the accused, including the appellant, dragged his son towards the village, but out of fear, he did not follow them. In the morning at about 4 a.m. along with the Chowkidar, he went to search his son and enquired from the accused-persons the whereabouto of his son. The appellant told him that he has been cut and done to death. He found the dead body of his son lying in the field of Nepali Singh. In his cross-examination, he stated that the house of the appellant and the co-accused Tejo Manjhi is a situated very close to his house. There are 60-70 houses in. that Tola, but out of fear none turned up on hulla, in the night, 6. Learned appellants lawyer has submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of the informant and his earlier statement made in the Fardbeyan, where he has not stated that he was also assaulted at the hands of the accused-persons. In his evidence, he has not stated that appellant Medo Manjhi had told him that he had cut to death his son, as alleged in the fardbeyan. We have carefully analysed his evidence and come to the conclusion that there is no vital contradiction in between his evidence and the fardbeyan. In his evidence, he has not stated that appellant Medo Manjhi had told him that he had cut to death his son, as alleged in the fardbeyan. We have carefully analysed his evidence and come to the conclusion that there is no vital contradiction in between his evidence and the fardbeyan. The minor contradictions are bound to occur when a witness is examined after several years, and such contradictions have not touched the merit of the prosecution case, nor it is on ground to discredit the testimony of the informant, who has deposed as an eye-witness to the first part of the occurrence. 7. The evidence of the informant finds full corroboration from the remaining witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4. They were all sleeping in the house when the appellant and the co-accused Tejo Manjhi arrived there and demanded wrist watch from the deceased, Suresh Manjhi, They had seen both the accused dragging the deceased towards the village. They further stated that in the morning, they found the dead body of the deceased lying in the field of Nepali Singh. Learned appellants lawyer could not point any vital contradictions in the evidence of these P.Ws. who are competent witnesses being the family members. Therefore, presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural because the alleged occurrence took place in the night and inside the house. 8. Learned appellants lawyer submitted that there is no eye-witness on the point of murder of the deceased. It is a case of circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances do not conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant. The chain of circumstances is not complete to rule out all the hypothesis, nor it conclusively proves that the appellant and the co-accused have committed the murder of Suresh Manjhi. He submitted that since the witnesses are interested and family members of the deceased, no reliance should be placed on their testimony, unless corroborated by independent witnesses. 9. Learned A.P.P. submitted that it is true that it is a case of circumstantial evidence but all the circumstances conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The motive as alleged in the fardbeyan has been proved by all the witnesses including the informant. P.Ws. 9. Learned A.P.P. submitted that it is true that it is a case of circumstantial evidence but all the circumstances conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The motive as alleged in the fardbeyan has been proved by all the witnesses including the informant. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4, have stated that the appellant and co-accused Tejo Manjhi came to the house of the deceased and demanded wrist watch and on his refusal they threatened him of dire consequences. They further stated that the appellant and the co-accused again arrived at the house of the deceased armed with deadly weapons and dragged him towards the village and in the morning the dead body of the deceased was found. The appellant and the co-accused, Tejo Manjhi were armed with Farsa and Tengari and the doctor has also opined that the injuries on the deceased were caused by means of sharp-cutting weapons such as Farsa. Therefore, these circumstances, prove beyond all reasonable doubts, the involvement of the appellant in the murder of the deceased along with the co-accused, Tejo Manjhi. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the Supreme Court in a decision -- Gumam Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Punjab, has held that if there is proof that the accused-persons who are alleged to have kidnapped the victim were armed with deadly weapon, the medical evidence also establishes that the death of the victim had taken place within a short time after he was kidnapped, and was killed by the weapon, the accused were armed with at the time of kidnapping leads to legitimate inference that the persons who had kidnapped had killed him. The Apex Court has held that in these circumstances, the involvement of the accused-person in the murder is proved beyond doubt but since it is not proved who actually caused death, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 instead of under Sec. 302, I.P.C. is justified. 10. In this case, two persons were charged for the offence under Secs. 364 and 302/34, I.P.C. and one of them absconded during the trial and only the appellant has been convicted under Secs. 10. In this case, two persons were charged for the offence under Secs. 364 and 302/34, I.P.C. and one of them absconded during the trial and only the appellant has been convicted under Secs. 302/34, I.P.C. The Supreme Court, in a decision, in the case of Khuji @ Surendra Tiwary V/s. The State of M.P., -- , has held that conviction of a sole accused with the aid of Sec. 34, I.P.C. for the offence of murder is justified even in absence of non-proving of the fact that who has caused the fatal injury. The conviction for the substantive offence of murder can be sustained with the aid of Sec. 34, I.P.C. when the involvement of other persons in the crime is evident from the direct testimony. In the instant case, all the witnesses have stated that the appellant and co-accused Tejo Manjhi had kidnapped the deceased from his house. They were armed with farsa and Tengari and in the morning at about 4 a.m. the dead body was found in the field of Nepali Singh with multiple incised injuries caused by sharp-cutting weapons such as Farsa. The witnesses have named the appellant and the co-accused, both in their examination-in-chief and their cross-Examination and there is no vital contradiction in their evidence to discredit them on the point of identification of the accused-appellant. Admittedly, the appellant is neighbour of the informant and was closely known to all the witnesses. They have also stated that the appellant and the co-accused were making hulla when they entered the house. Therefore, it was natural for them to identify the appellant and the co-accused by their voice also. 11. In the last, it was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that non-examination of the I.O. has caused prejudice to the appellant. But he could not point out as to how no n-examination of the I.O. has caused prejudice to the appellant. He has not pointed out any contradiction in the evidence of the P.Ws. with their statement made earlier before the I.O. The attention of none of the P.Ws. In their cross-examination, an inference was drawn on the point that they had made different statement before the I.O. when examined under Sec. 161. Cr. He has not pointed out any contradiction in the evidence of the P.Ws. with their statement made earlier before the I.O. The attention of none of the P.Ws. In their cross-examination, an inference was drawn on the point that they had made different statement before the I.O. when examined under Sec. 161. Cr. P.C. Learned A. P. P. submitted that during the cross-examination of the informant and other witnesses, no question was put to any of the witnesses that they had made a different statement before the I.O. There-tore, the question of prejudice in this case, because of non-examination of the I.O., does not arise. We have carefully analysed the evidence of the P.Ws. and found substance in the above submission of the learned A. P. P. 12. Having considered the evidence on the record, facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we do not. find any ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court who has convicted the appellants and sentenced him as indicated above. 13. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which accordingly tails. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby upheld.