Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. Shri Ram Mahto, the sole appellant before us in this appeal, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th July, 1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1988 convicting and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 16-6-1986 at about 5.00 p.m. the Informant Bankey Dubey (PW-6) had gone to Ekma Bazar. There he met his nephew Gautam Pandey. They both purchased vegetables in the market. The appellant, who was selling jack fruits in the market, on seeing Gautam Pandy paid respect to him and requuested him to get a case against him settled. Gautam Pandey replied that he was to stay with the Informant on that day and on the next day he would have talks on this matter. Thereafter, the Informant and his nephew Gautam Pandey took refreshment in a tea stall in the market. At about 7.30 p.m. they both started for the house of Informant. At about 8.00 p.m. after crossing Rajapur canal bridge when they had covered a distance of about 50-60 yards they found four persons sitting on the Western flank of road. One of them enquired who they were. When Gautam Pandey disclosed his name those four persons stood up. Appellant Shri Ram Mahto ordered for killing saying he is Gautam Pandey. After that the appellant and his companions surrounded them. The appellant whipped out a dagger from his pocket and started assaulting Gautam Pandey whereas his three companions dragged the Informant in a field towards west of the road. Whenever Gautam Pandey tried to raise alarm co-accused Rameshwar Mahto slapped him. Co-accused Ravindra Mahto had caught hold of Informant and co-accused Shatrughan Mahto after giving 2-4 slaps to Informant went to Gautam Pandey and pulling his leg, threw him on the ground and thereafter also appellant inflicted chhura blows on Gautam Pandey. When Gautam Pandey started grappling co-accused Ravindra Mahto left Informant and went near Gautam Pandey and caught hold of his legs. The Informant then came running to his village where he informed about the occurrence to his villagers, namely, Parmeshwar Pandey (PW-1), Rameshwar Dubey (PW-8), Awadh Bihari Pandey (PW-4), Chaukidar Ramayan Pandey (since dead) and others. (PW-1), (PW-2), (PW-4) along with Informant came to the place of occurrence where they found Gautam Pandey lying dead in the pool of blood. The Informant then came running to his village where he informed about the occurrence to his villagers, namely, Parmeshwar Pandey (PW-1), Rameshwar Dubey (PW-8), Awadh Bihari Pandey (PW-4), Chaukidar Ramayan Pandey (since dead) and others. (PW-1), (PW-2), (PW-4) along with Informant came to the place of occurrence where they found Gautam Pandey lying dead in the pool of blood. The appellant and his companions by that time had fled away. The Informant then went to the Police Station where he lodged the FIR. About the genesis of the occurrence the Informant stated that one Shanti Devi had filed a case against the appellant and others in which deceased used to take steps on behalf of Shanti Devi and for this reason the appellant and his companions committed the murder of deceased. During the course of investigation, a blood-stained shirt, a blood-stained dhoti, a pair of blood-stained shoes and a blood-stained knife were recovered from the house of appellant. After investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and Shatrughan Mahto as well as against Rameshwar Mahto and Ravindra Mahto showing both of them absconders. The case of appellant and co-accused Shatrughan Mahto was committed to the Court of Session where charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant and charge under Section 114, IPC against co-accused Shatrughan Mahto were framed. After the trial the appellant was found guilty under Section 302, IPC and was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Co-accused Shatrughan Mahto was not found guilty and he was acquitted. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses in this case. Besides this two witnesses have also been examined as Court witnesses. Bankey Dubey (PW-6) is the Informant. Sawalia Dubey (PW-3) has been tendered. Rameshwar Pandey (PW-1), Ram Ayodhya Dubey (PW-2), Awadh Bihari Pandey (PW-4), Ram Pravesh Dubey (PW-7) and Rameshwar Dubey (PW-8) are the witnesses, who after hearing about the occurrence from Informant, had gone to the place of olccurrence where they had seen the dead body of deceased lying in a pool of blood. Dr. Suresh Prasad (PW-5) is the doctor who held the autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Dr. Suresh Prasad (PW-5) is the doctor who held the autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Court witness No. 1 Chulhan Das is a formal witness who had proved three seizure lists which were prepared by I.O. after collecting blood-stained soil and a piece of blood-stained cloth from the place of occurrence, blood-stained shirt, dhoti, a pair of shoes and knife from the house of appellant and blood-stained vest, a pan, bowl and a glass tumbler from the joint house of co-accused Shatrughan Mahto, Ramesh-war Mahto and Ravindra Mahto (Ext. 4, 4/1 and 4/2). Court witness No. 2 Shri Narain Sharma is a witness who had brought blood-stained clothes, blood-stained soil, blood-stained shirt, blood-stained knife, blood-stained dhoti, blood-stained pair of shoes, blood pan bowl, tumbler and a blood-stained vest material exhibits from Malkhana marked (Material Exts. 1 to 10). The I.O. has not been examined. 4. Dr. Suresh Prasad (PW-5) in his evidence has said that on 17-6-1986, he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Chapra and on that day at about 4.00 p.m. he held autopsy on the dead body of deceased Gautam Pandey and found incised penetrating wounds all nine in number. According to him, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury which was incised penetrating wounds 3" X 2" chest cavity and abdominal cavity deep over lower and frontal part of right side of chest and by injury which was incised penetrating wound 1-1/2" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep over epigastrium. He has further stated that all the injuries found on the dead body were caused by sharp-cutting and pointed sustance and time elapsed since death and post-mortem examination was within 24 hours. He has proved post-mortem examination report (Ext. 2). From his evidence, it is established that the deceased died of injuries caused by sharp-cutting and pointed substance and his death was homicidal and time of death corresponds to the time as alleged by prosecution. Now, it has to be seen what evidence has been led by the prosecution against the appellant for holding him responsible for causing injuries to deceased which resulted into his death. 5. Bankey Dubey (PW-6) the Informant has said that on 16-6-1986 at about 5.00 p.m. he had gone to Ekma Bazar for purchasing vegetables. There he met his nephew deceased Gautam Pandey. 5. Bankey Dubey (PW-6) the Informant has said that on 16-6-1986 at about 5.00 p.m. he had gone to Ekma Bazar for purchasing vegetables. There he met his nephew deceased Gautam Pandey. Appellant was selling jack fruits in the market and when Informant and deceased crossed near him, he paid respect to deceased by touching his feet and requested him to get his matter solved. The deceased then asked him to see him on the next day in the morning. Thereafter, Informant and deceased took tea in a stall. At about 7.30 p.m., they both on foot proceeded for Bharahopur, the home village of Informant. At about 8.00 p.m., they reached near Rajapur canal where they saw four persons sitting in the western flank of road. Those four persons seeing the Informant and deceased stood up and one of them enquired who they were. The night was moonlit. The Informant identified the appellant, co-accused Shatrughan Mahto and their companions Rameshwar Mahto and Ravindra Mahto. The appellant and his aforesaid three companions surrounded the Informant and deceased and appellant took out a knife from his pocket and ordered to kill and thereafter he assaulted the deceased with knife. When deceased raised alarm Rameshwar Mahto started slapping him. Ravindra Mahto caught hold of Informant and co-accused. Shatrughan Mahto gave 2-3 slaps to the Informant and thereafter, the Informant was released. The appellant and his three companion by catching hold of feet of deceased threw him to the ground and they all started assaulting him. The Informant came running to his house and narrated the incident to Dafadar Awadh Bihari Pandey (PW-4). Informant also met (PW-1), (PW-2), (PW-3) and (PW-7) and told them about the occurrence. The Informant thereafter along with the aforesaid witnesses came to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body of the deceased lying there. Thereafter Informant went to the Police Station where he lodged the case. About the motive of occurrence the Informant has said that one Shanti Devi had filed a case against the appellant and others and in that case deceased used to make pairvi on behalf of Shanti Devi. Besides this, appellant wanted to purchase a land from a pattidar of Informant but the deceased did not want that the land be sold to appellant and he was for sale of that land in favour of Rudal Sah, husband of Shanti Devi. 6. Besides this, appellant wanted to purchase a land from a pattidar of Informant but the deceased did not want that the land be sold to appellant and he was for sale of that land in favour of Rudal Sah, husband of Shanti Devi. 6. Parmeshwar Pandey (PW-1), Ram Ayodhya Dubey (PW-2), Awadh Bihari Pandey (PW-4), Ram Pravesh Dubey (PW-7) and Rameshwar Dubey (PW-8) have said that on the date of occurrence at about 9.00 p.m. the Informant came running raising hulla that the appellant and his companions were assaulting the deceased with knife and then they all went with Informant to the place of occurrence where they found the deceased lying dead. (PW-1) has further said that the I.O. had prepared inquest report of the dead body on which he and (PW-8) put their signatures (Exts. 1 and 1/1). (PW-7) has further said that he along with Informant had gone to Police Station where the Informant lodged the FIR on which he also put his signature (Ext. 1/2). (PW-8) has further said that in his presence the I.O. had seized blood-stained soil and a piece of blood-stained cloth from place of occurrence and has prepared seizure list on which he and (PW-1) had put their signatures (Exts. 1/3 and 1/4). He has added that the I.O. had seized a blood-stained shirt, a pair of shoes, a blood-stained knife and a blood-stained dhoti from the house of appellant and had prepared a seizure list on which he and (PW-1) put their signatures (Exts. 1/5 and 1/6). 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that the Informant identified the appellant after coming from the witness box to the dock and in that process of identification, he committed mistake by identifying co-accused Shatrughan Mahto as Ravindra whereas on the day he was examined Ravindra was not facing trial and it was co-accused Shatrughan Mahto who was standing with the appellant in the dock. He has further submitted that the Informant has admitted that his eye-sight was weak. According to him, Informant is the only eye-witness to the occurrence and because of his impaired vision as admitted his identification of appellant at the time of occurrence cannot be believed. We are unable to accept this argument. He has further submitted that the Informant has admitted that his eye-sight was weak. According to him, Informant is the only eye-witness to the occurrence and because of his impaired vision as admitted his identification of appellant at the time of occurrence cannot be believed. We are unable to accept this argument. It is true that the Informant wrongly identified co-accused Shatrughan Mahto as Ravindra and the Court below considering this point allowed benefit of doubt to accused Shatrughan Mahto and acquitted him. But, so far as the question of identification of appellant is concerned, the Informant correctly identified him. No doubt, the Informant in his evidence has stated that his vision is poor but then he has clearly stated that since last 7 or 8 months his vision has become poor. The Informant was examined on 13-6-1990 whereas the occurrence took place on 16-6-1986 meaning thereby the Informant was examined in Court after about four years. Thus, in this gap of time if the vision of Informant became poor on account of his advanced age, it cannot be said that at the time of occurrence also he was not in a position to identify the assailants. The appellant belongs to his own village whereas co-accused Shatrughan Mahto and Rameshwar Mahto and Ravindra Mahto belong to another neighbouring village which is mentioned in the FIR itself. Besides this, on the same day in the evening the Informant had seen the appellant in the market and immediately after the occurrence he ran to village raising hulla that appellant and his companions were assaulting the deceased with chhura and thereafter, he went to Police Station where he lodged the FIR giving vivid description of the occurrence and stating therein that it was the appellant who inflicted chhura blows to the deceased. The evidence on the point of identification of appellant by the Informant at the time of occurrence does not suffer from any infirmity. The fact that some blood-stained clothes and a blood-stained knife were recovered from the house of appellant is an additional circumstance which lends support to the case of prosecution against the appellant. 8. It has further been submitted on behalf of appellant that the I.O. in this case has not been examined and this fact makes the case of prosecution quite doubtful. 8. It has further been submitted on behalf of appellant that the I.O. in this case has not been examined and this fact makes the case of prosecution quite doubtful. From the evidence on record, we find that except drawing attention of (PW-7) that whether he had stated before the I.O. that he was informed by the Informant that appellant and his three companions were assaulting the deceassed by chhura and suggestion to Informant that whether before I.O he had stated that the deceased had asked the appellant to see him on next day and appellant wanted to purchase land of his uncle whereas deceased wanted that the same land be sold to Rudal Sah. No suggestion of any type has been given to any other prosecution witness. For non-examination pf I.O. if, the evidence of (PW-7) that the names of appellant and his companions were told to him by Informant and the evidence of Informant that the deceased had asked the appellant in the market to see him on the next day and the appellant wanted to purchase the land of uncle of Informant which was not being agreed to by the deceased, is not taken into consideration, it is not going to affect the case of prosecution on the point of causing injuries to the deceased by the appellant. We further find that (PW-2) in his cross-examination has stated that he never met the I.O. in connection with this case. Admittedly, he is a hearsay witness and if his evidence is discarded even then there remains the evidence of other witnesses on the point that they were told about the occurrence and the names of appellant and his companions as assailants by the Informant. Considering the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellant has rightly been held guilty by the Court below. We do not get any reason for disturbing the conviction and sentence of appellant. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Court below is hereby confirmed. B.P.Sharma, J. 10 I agree.