Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-This appeal has been preferred by appellant-Deonish Kharia from jail against conviction and sentence under section 302 of the I.P.C. passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial no. 397/87. 2. According to informant, Julia Kharian (PW. 12), on 10.12.1985, after taking meal she was sitting in her house alongwith her mother, Gangi Khariain (deceased) and the sons, namely, Anjlus Kharia, Erik Kharia, Nicholas Kharia and Ignatius. Her cousin, Deonis Kharia (Accused-appellant) entered the house (Dhaba) and asked her as to what they were doing. The informant replied that they were sitting just after taking meal. Thereafter the accused-Deonis Kharia suddenly put both his hands around the neck of her mother, Gangi Khariain and started pressing. Having seen the situation, the informant took her four sons and ran away from the house towards the west. After keeping the sons in a nearby Khalihan, she again came back to her house when she saw the accused coming out of her house and ran towards South. The Kothri (room) was bolted from inside but the door planks were separated from the lower side from where she saw her mother lying dead. She started weeping, went to her sons and due to fear remained outside in the night. In the morning, she told about -the occurrence to Reben Kharia, Makru Singh and others. As she could not open the door, she had to remain sitting in front of the house. When villagers, Josef Kharia opened the door by breaking the Sikri, they saw Gangi Khariain lying dead. The motive of offence is said to be that the accused, Deonish Kharia used to ask her mother, Gangi Khariain to marry the informant with him but her mother was not agreeing and so he killed her mother by strangulating her neck. Having come to know about the occurrence, Sub-Inspector of Kamdara P.S. reached there, recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, on investigation the case was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the Inquest Report, body was sent for postmortem and statement of witnesses were recorded wherein after on submission of chargesheet under section 302 of the I.P.C., the cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial. 3. To bring home the charge, the prosecution produced 15 witnesses out of which about six witnesses are relevant. 3. To bring home the charge, the prosecution produced 15 witnesses out of which about six witnesses are relevant. Maheshwari Prasad (P.w. 5) and Chamru Sao (P.w. 10) are formal witnesses whereas Satnarain Diwan (P.w. 8) is the witness to support Inquest Report. Two of the witnesses, namely, Balkrishna Diwan (P.w. 7) and Nicholas Kharia (P.w. 11) turned hostile but during cross-examination, a number of facts disclosed by Nicholas Kharia (P.w.11) and thus his statement is also relevant. There is another Nicholas Kharia (P.w.14), the son of the informant. He and his brothers, Anjlus Kharia (P.w. 2), Erik Kharia (P.w. 15) and the informant, Julia Kharian (P.w. 12) are the eye witnesses. The independent witnesses like Lohra Sahu (P.w.3) and Amnus Kharia (P.W. 4) whose statements are also relevant. Sukhu Sao (P.w. 9) tendered whereas Dr. S.M. Thakur (P.w. 6), conducted postmortem and Ragho Prasad Singh (P.w.13) is the Officer-in-Charge, who conducted investigation. 4. Mrs. M. Patra, the counsel appeared as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant. She assailed the judgment on the grounds that (a) the statement of witnesses are inconsistent so far as story of escape of accused from a room is concerned. It was closed from inside. There being no probability of escape from the room, the prosecution case is doubtful and (b) there being no allegation that the accused entered the house with any arm and there being no premeditation, at best part II of Section 304 of the I.P.C. can be applied in the case of accused. On the other hand, according to counsel for the State, there being consistency in the statement of two witnesses including the eye witness, the accused has been rightly convicted. 5. The question to be determined is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not. 6. Julia Kharian (P.w. 1.2), informant is the eye witness. She stated that on the day of occurrence at about 8 P.M. (night), she alongwith her sons and mother (deceased) after taking meal, were sitting in her house. The accused, Deonish Kharia came there and asked what they are doing. When she replied that they were sitting after taking meal, the accused started pressing the neck of her mother. She identified the accused being her cousin in the light of candle (Dhibri) which was burning in the room. The accused, Deonish Kharia came there and asked what they are doing. When she replied that they were sitting after taking meal, the accused started pressing the neck of her mother. She identified the accused being her cousin in the light of candle (Dhibri) which was burning in the room. After seeing the situation, she took her sons and fled away to Khalihan of Kudhu. She kept her sons in the pual and again went to her house where she found the door looked from inside. From the gap of the door in the candle (Dhibri) light, she saw her mother dead. When she was going to her house, saw the accused coming out of the house. Informant (P.w. 12) also explained the motive in her statement. The accused, Deonish Kharia wanted to marry her though the accused was cousin and she was married. Her husband had gone to Punjab for last ten years and her mother (de• ceased) did not agree and objected to such proposal of marriage. For such dispute between Gangi Khariain (deceased) and the accused, in the noon of the said date, the Panches were called to sort on the matter. On closer of meeting, the accused, the panches and others had taker local liquor (Handia). In her cross-examination, the informant (P.w. 12) further stated that she being the only daughter of her parents, inherited her father's land. There was a dispute regarding land between her father and the accused. That was the reason the accused wanted to marry her (P.w. 12) forcibly in order to grab her land Her father had five acres of land and earlier he won the cases against the accused. The informant (P.W. 12) has specifically stated that the accused came on from the room out of the space between chapter and the wall and then fled away Next day, when the police came, the door was opened by breaking it. Nicholas Kharia (P.w. 14) is the other eye witness, who was also sitting in the house after taking meal alongwith his mother (P.w. 12), grand mother Gangi Khariain (deceased) and other brothers. He also specifically stated that the accused came in their house and after asking as to what they were doing started pressing the neck of his maternal grand mother (Nani). His mother took them and fled away to Khalihan. He also specifically stated that the accused came in their house and after asking as to what they were doing started pressing the neck of his maternal grand mother (Nani). His mother took them and fled away to Khalihan. Immediately thereafter his mother (informant) went back to the house and after sometime came back and told that their maternal grand mother (Nani) was lying dead. In his cross-examination, he stated that in the morning, when he and other brothers came back to the house, found the door closed from inside which the police broke open. Erik Kharia (P.w. 15), the other eye witness also made similar statement that he alongwith his mother (informant), maternal grand mother (Nani), Gangi Khariain, Anjlus Kharia (P.w. 2) and Nicholas Kharia (P.W. 14) were sitting in the house. Their father was in Punjab for work at the relevant time. After taking meal, while they were sitting, the accused came in the night, started pressing the neck of the maternal grand mother (Nani). They alongwith their mother (informant) fled away to Khalihan. At that time the candle (Dhibri) was burning in the house so he identified the accused in the light. He also stated that his mother (informant) again came back to the house and after sometime came back near the ' Khalihan and told them that she has seen the accused, Deonish Kharia ran away from the house. The door of the house was closed from inside. Next day, the police breaking the door opened and he saw her maternal grand mother (Nani) was lying dead. Anjlus Kharia (P.W. 2) the other eye witness and son of the informant (P.W. 12) corroborated the statement as was mad P.Ws. 12, 14 & 15 that the accused cam while they were sitting after taking me with their mother and maternal grand mother, Gangi Khariain (Deceased). The accused pressed the neck of their maternal grand mother and due to fear, the alongwith their mother (informant) fled away in the Khalihan and concealed themselves in the pual. He also stated that in the southern side of Dhaba (house), wall is lower than the chhaper by 3' through the space the accused fled away after killing their maternal grand mother (deceased). They could not open the door but could saw their grand mother (Nani) lying dead through the space of the door planks. He also stated that in the southern side of Dhaba (house), wall is lower than the chhaper by 3' through the space the accused fled away after killing their maternal grand mother (deceased). They could not open the door but could saw their grand mother (Nani) lying dead through the space of the door planks. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is eldest amongst four brothers and on the day of occurrence, a panchayati of the Kharia's of the village was called by their maternal grand mother (deceased) outside the church. He had no knowledge the reason for which such meeting was called. After the meeting, local liquor (Handia) was served in to panches at about 3 P.M. in which the accused was also present. Another Nicholas Kharia (P.w. 11), was declared hostile. However, during his cross-examination, he supported the prosecution case. Initially he stated that he had not made statement before the police that in the night of occurrence he alongwith his grand mother and brothers were sitting in the house after taking meal but subsequently made similar statement as was made by the informant (P.w. 12) and other brothers (P.Ws. 2, 14 & 15) that the accused came in the house and asked his mother what they were doing then started pressing the neck of the maternal grand mother (deceased). Thereafter due to fear, their mother (informant) took them to Khalihan where they concealed themselves in the pual. His mother again went to house and on return told that the accused killed his maternal grand mother (Nani) by pressing her neck and tied away. The statement aforesaid made by P.Ws. 2, 11, 12, 14 & 15 except part of the statement of P.w. 11 supports the prosecution case that in the night of occurrence, while the informant and her sons (P.WS. 2, 11, 14 & 15) were sitting in their Dhaba (house) after taking meal, the accused came and asked, the informant (P.w.12) what she was doing. Thereafter the accused started pressing the neck of Gangi Khariain (deceased). The motive has been well explained by the informant (P.w. 12) that though the accused is her (P.w. 12) cousin but wanted to marry her which was opposed by Gangi Khariain (deceased). Thereafter the accused started pressing the neck of Gangi Khariain (deceased). The motive has been well explained by the informant (P.w. 12) that though the accused is her (P.w. 12) cousin but wanted to marry her which was opposed by Gangi Khariain (deceased). Earlier, there was a land dispute and the informant (P.w. 12) having inherited the father's land, to grab it, the accused wanted to marry the informant (P.w. 12), though she is cousin. Gangi Khariain (deceased) opposed to such proposal of the accused for which she called panchayat meeting which took place on the day of occurrence in the noon about 3 P.M. Thereafter the panches as also the accused drunk local liquor (Handia). This fact has also been supported by independent witness, Lohra Sahu (P.w. 3) and Amnus Kharia (P.w. 4). Dr. S.M. Thakur (P.w. 6) is the Medical Officer, who did postmortem, found the following injuries on the deceased: "Bruise 4 1/2" x 1 1/2" on the mid part of the neck, infront." He has further opined that the death caused by shock and asphyxia due to strangulation. The injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course and there was one bruise on the neck of the deceased. Thus, the medical' report also supports the prosecution story. 7. In the aforesaid background, the accused cannot derive any advantage of minor contradiction of the statement of one or other witness, if any, nor can derive any advantage of part-II of Section 304 of the I.P.C. From the evidence, as discussed above, it is well established that the accused, Deonish Kharia is guilty of charges u/s. 302 of the I.P.C. and has been rightly convicted by learned Sessions Court and requires no interference. 8. The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit, it is dismissed. Lakshman Uraon, J.-I agree.