Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The sole appellant has been convicted under Secs. 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 and for default in payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 31.10.1989 at about it is hours P.W. 8 Manohar Prasad recorded the fardbeyan of the informant P.W. 5 Mangari Mundain where she stated that at about 5 p.m. on 30th October, 1989 while she was in her house, her mother was engaged in some work in the western lane (Gali) with her younger brother Samu Mundain in her lap arm. She heard a cry of her mother and no sooner she went near her mother, she found her mother and her younger brother aged about one year lying on the ground and there the appellant Dago Munda was seen assaulting her mother and brother with a farsa. When she questioned the appellant, she was chased and was assaulted with farsa on her left arm and out of fear, she went inside her house and informed her father P.W. 6 who was ill from before. On getting information, her father P.W. 6 also came out from the house and he was chased by the appellant. At the same time, P.W. 2 Hathi Ram Munda came there and he also saw her father being chased by the appellant and thereafter Dago Munda fled away. The information was given to the village Chaukidar who in turn informed the police on the next day and the police recorded the statement of the informant. On the basis of the fardbeyan, a formal First Information Report was drawn up and a case under Sec. 302 read with other ancillary Sections of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the appellant. 4. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he was sent up for trial wherein he was ultimately found guilty and was sentenced as referred to above. The defence of the appellant is the plea of innocence and false implication. 5. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. 4. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he was sent up for trial wherein he was ultimately found guilty and was sentenced as referred to above. The defence of the appellant is the plea of innocence and false implication. 5. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 5 Mangari Mundain, the informant and P.W. 6 Baliya Munda are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 6 is a witness on the point that on the information, he went outside the house and he found her wife and his son lying on the ground and saw the appellant with farsa in his hand and he was chased by the appellant. P.Ws. 3 and 4, namely, Birsa Munda and Shiv Ram Munda, are seizure-list witnesses. However, P.W. 4 is also a witness on the point that he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. P.W. 1, Dr. Umesh Chandra Sinha is the Medical Officer who examined injuries on the person of the informant, P.W. 5 P.W. 7 is Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta who held autopsy over the dead body. P.W. 8 Manohar Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and time of occurrence being evening hours of 30th October, 1989, it was not probable for the witnesses to identify the appellant as no source of identification has been disclosed. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that injuries found on the persons of the deceased do not correspond to the injuries caused by the weapon allegedly used by the appellant. 7. P.W. 5 in her evidence has Supported the prosecution version of the case as disclosed in the fardbeyan. She has categorically stated in her evidence that in the evening hours of 30th October, 1989, she heard cry of her mother and immediately thereafter, she came out of her house and saw her mother and younger brother aged about one year lying on the ground and had seen the appellant assaulting them with farsa. When she protested, she was also assaulted by the appellant as a result of which she sustained injuries on her left arm. When she protested, she was also assaulted by the appellant as a result of which she sustained injuries on her left arm. She has also stated in her evidence that she informed her father about the occurrence and when his father came out from his house, he was also chased by the appellant. She has also stated that P.W. 2 Hathi Ram Munda, who had come at the place of occurrence at that time, had seen her father being chased by the appellant. P.W. 5 has been cross-examined at length but she could not be dislodged from her testimony. 8. P.W. 6, Baliya Munda, husband of the deceased Birsi Mudain, in his evidence has stated that he was suffering from ailment and he was inside his house and he was informed by his daughter P.W. 5 about the factum of assault and immediately thereafter, he came out of his house and saw his wife and younger son lying on the ground and the appellant was present with farsa in his hand and he started chasing him but somehow or the other he escaped from there and entered into his house. PWs. 2 and 4 in his evidence has stated about the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence. 9. P.W. 7, Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, who held autopsy over the dead body of Sonu Munda, had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) A cut injury near the forehand measuring about 3" × 2" ×5 1" (ii) A deep cut injury present on the base of posterior part of the skull measuring 2" × 1 1/2." ×5 1" (iii) Cervical bones like frontal temporal and occipital bones were fractured all round. (iv) On the middle of the skull a circular fracture measuring 8" × 2" × 1 P.W. 7, who also held autopsy over the dead body of Birsi Mundain, had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) Intestinal parts had come out from the central part lepisgastry cut injury measuring 3" × 2" × 2" (ii) Deep cut injury near lower part of the mandible. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as farsa and tangi and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as farsa and tangi and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The evidence of the doctor P.W. 7 corroborates the prosecution version of the case to the extent that deceased-persons were assaulted with sharp-cutting weapon. 10 P.W. 1, Dr. Umesh Chandra Sinha, in his evidence has stated that on 31.12.1989 he had examined injuries on the person of P.W. 5 Mangari Mundain aged about 15 years and he had found sharp-cutting injury on her left arm. The weapon used was a sharp-cutting weapon and the age of injury was within 48 hours from time of examination. 11. P.W. 8, Manohar Prasad, Investigating Officer of the case, in his evidence has stated that on receiving information about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence on the next day and there he recorded the statement of the informant P.W. 5 and held inquest of the deceased-persons and prepared the inquest report. His evidence shows that he had found blood on the place of occurrence and he had also seized blood stained farsa from the house of the appellant and the appellant was arrested from his house. The evidence of the Investigating Officer fully corroborates the prosecution version of the case. 12. On scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, it appears to us that the prosecution has been able to prove the manner and genesis of the occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts. We find overwhelming evidence to sustain the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. It is true that there are minor contradictions about the weapon used by the appellant but evidence of the doctor P.W. 7 is very clear on the point that injuries were caused by sharp-cutting weapon. It is a case where mother of the informant along with a boy aged about one year was killed at a time at the hands of the appellant. We have scrutinised the evidence with all objectivity. On reading the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as a whole, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has spelt out the truth and thus, the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. Mr. We have scrutinised the evidence with all objectivity. On reading the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as a whole, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has spelt out the truth and thus, the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant, lastly submitted that the occurrence had taken place on account of the witchcraft and there was no due deliberation on the part of the appellant in committing the offence and, therefore, his conviction should be altered under Sec. 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. At the face of the evidence and the circumstances leading to the occurrence, we are hesitant in taking another view by altering conviction of the appellant from Secs. 302 to 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 14. In the result, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It I is accordingly, dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are hereby maintained.