JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely. Tami Juddin @ Tami Juddin Mirdha @ Tumi Juddin Mirdaha and Jainul Abdin @ Jainuddin Mirdha @ Jainul Abdtn Mirdaha against the judgment and order of conviction dated 6th September, 1993/13th September, 1993, passed by the learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranehi in Sessions Trial No. 220/91, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Before discussing the story of prosecution, it is desirable to mention the relationship between the appellants and the deceased (Raitu Nisha). Raitu Nisha (deceased) was married with Tami Juddin (A.1) and Jainul Abdin (A.2) is the father of Tami Juddin i.e. father-in-law of Raitu Nisha (deceased). Gulam Rasul (PW 7) is the informant, uncle (Phupha) of Raitu Nisha (deceased). 3. The prosecution story in short is that Raitu Nisha (deceased) was married with Tami Juddin (A. 1) about three years back from the date of occurrence. On 5th April, 1990 about 8 a.m., she reached the house of the informant but did not tell anything. On query made by the informant as to what happened to her, she did not reply. Scon thereafter Jainul Abdin (A.2) reached the house of informant and told that Raitu Nisha (deceased) is a characterless lady and will not spare her. In the meantime. Tami Juddin (A. 1) also reached there, who is her husband. Both father and the son caught hold of arm of Raitu Nisha and took her to their house along with them assaulting and dragging her. After some time, the informant learnt that the appellants have thrown Raitu Nisha in the well of Birbal Munda and when he reached there, large number of people had gathered near the well. Some people were trying to bring out Raitu Nisha from the well and others caught hold of the appellants. When Raitu Nisha was taken out of the well, she was found dead. 4. FIR was lodged on 5th April, 1990 at 11.30 a.m. and the case under Section 302/34, IPC was instituted. The Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants under the aforesaid section and finally committed the case to the Court of session for trial. 5. When Raitu Nisha was taken out of the well, she was found dead. 4. FIR was lodged on 5th April, 1990 at 11.30 a.m. and the case under Section 302/34, IPC was instituted. The Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants under the aforesaid section and finally committed the case to the Court of session for trial. 5. Before this Court, the Counsel for the appellants took main plea that the deceased Raitu Nisha committed suicide and relied on the statements of one or other witnesses, particularly, the evidence of Md. Salim Kirdaha (PW 4) ; Birbal Munda (PW 5) ; and Abdul Sajjad (PW 6). All of them were declared later on, as hostile witness. 6. Altogether, 13 (thirteen) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. Except denial, both the appellants made no specific statement under Section 313 of Cr PC. 7. Sekh Umar (PW 1), a co-villager is mainly an inquest report witness, Ramsharan Mahatha (PW 2), a co-villager, another witness. Kanshi Baraik (PW 3) and Md. Tawarakh (PW 11) while tendered, Md. Salim Kirdaha (PW 4); Birbal Munda (PW 5) and Abdul Sajjad (PW 6) were declared hostile, as referred above. Gulam Rasul (PW 7) informant and uncle of the deceased is a hearsay witness. whereas Junaw Ali (PW 8); Gulab Ali (PW 9) and Jasmuddin (PW 10) are independent eyewitnesses. Dr. Niranjan Minz (PW 12) conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, Harendra Kumar Singh (PW 13), Sub-Inspector, a formal witness and Uday Narayan Singh (PW 14) is the Officer-in- charge, who conducted the investigation of the case. 8. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable and probable doubt and the Sessions Court rightly examined the evidences or not. 9. Sekh Umar (PW 1). a co-villager signed the inquest report. He stated that while he went to the village, saw a crowd near a well where the dead-body of the wife of Tami Juddin (A. 1) was lying on a cot. He was asked by the police to sign a paper which he did not admitted his signature in the inquest report (Ext. 1). a co-villager signed the inquest report. He stated that while he went to the village, saw a crowd near a well where the dead-body of the wife of Tami Juddin (A. 1) was lying on a cot. He was asked by the police to sign a paper which he did not admitted his signature in the inquest report (Ext. 1). He further stated that Tami Juddin and his father were not there on the spot and the wife of Tami Juddin (A. 1) earlier also fallen in the well. She used to go around here and there without any reason. Ramsharan Mahatha (PW 2), a shephered stated that while returning from forest along with his goats, he found a mob near the well. He went to his house and after keeping the goats returned near the well and found that the wife of Tami Juddin (A. 1) was taken out of the well and was kept on the ground. She was dead. The mother and stepdaughter of Tami Juddin were also present. In cross-examination, he stated that the time was approximately 9.30 a.m., when the appellants were caught hold by villagers and kept them inside the room. He further stated that the wife of Tami Juddin earlier also fell in the well. P.Ws. 3 and 11 were tender witnesses. The three witnesses who were declared hostile, made statement relating to the incident but something different from the prosecution version. Md. Salim Kirdaha (PW 4) stated that at about 8.30 in the morning, he was sitting in his open Angan, when he saw that Raitu Nisha was going towards the well and jumped in the well. Her husband (A. 1) who was ploughing the field at some distance, raised hulla. Thereafter, he (PW 4) ; Abdul Sajjad (PW 6) and some villagers went near the well, put a bamboo inside the well and taken the body out of it. In cross- examination, he accepted that Jainul (A. 2) is his own uncle and stated that Raitu Nisha was mentally not fit. Birbal Munda (PW 5), the other hostile witness stated that while he was going for work, he could know on Hulla. that wife of Tamij fell in his well. Md. Salim (PW 4) and Abdul Sajjad (PW 6) took out the body out of the well. Thus. Birbal Munda (PW 5), the other hostile witness stated that while he was going for work, he could know on Hulla. that wife of Tamij fell in his well. Md. Salim (PW 4) and Abdul Sajjad (PW 6) took out the body out of the well. Thus. it will be evident that Birbal Munda (PW 5) did not claim himself as an eye-witness to the initial incident. 10. The other hostile witness. Abdul Sajjad (PW 6) stated that he was in his house and heard hulla from the side of well. When he reached near the well, he could know that the wife of Tamij (A. 1) jumped in the well. He (PW 5) and Md. Salim (PW 4) took out the body of Raitu Nisha from the well. From the aforesaid version of Abdul Sajjad (PW 6), a hostile witness, it will be evident that he also did not claim to be an eye-witness, but a hearsay witness only. 11. Gulam Rasul (PW 7) Informant corroborated his statement as made in the FIR that the occurrence took place on 5th April, 1990. On the day of occurrence at about 8 a.m. Raitu Nisha (deceased) came to his house but kept silent even on the question put to her as to what was the matter. He further stated that soon thereafter, her father-in-law, Jainul Abdin (A. 2) came there and told that the girl Raitu Nisha is characterless and will not spare her. In the meantime, Tami Juddin (A. 1), the husband of Raitu Nisha also came and both father and son caught hold of the arms of Raitu Nisha and took her to their house dragging and assaulting. After about half an hour, he could come to know that Raitu Nisha was thrown in the well of Birsa @ Birbal Munda by them (accused-appellants). Thereafter, he went near the well of Birbal Munda and saw some people trying to take out Raitu Nisha and when the body was brought out she was found dead. The informant further stated that the villagers caught both the accused (A. 1 and 2) and kept them tied with the help of rope and were guarding them. He sent the Choukidar to the police station and made his statement (Ext. 2) before the Police Officer on his arrival. The informant further stated that the villagers caught both the accused (A. 1 and 2) and kept them tied with the help of rope and were guarding them. He sent the Choukidar to the police station and made his statement (Ext. 2) before the Police Officer on his arrival. He stood to the lengthy cross- examination made on behalf of the defence and no major contradictions found in his statement. In cross-examination, he specifically stated that when the appellants dragged Raitu Nisha from his house, he requested the accused (A. 1 and 2) to take her on the next day, but the accused did not care his request and took her away on the ground that they were taking their own person. Junaw Ali (PW 8), aged about 55 years, is an independent eye-witness. He stated that he was ploughing the field of Birbal Munda at the time of occurrence, which is at a distance of 40 feet from the well. He saw Jainul Abdin (A. 2) and Tami Juddin (A 1) dragging Raitu Nisha and both of them threw her in the well. Both the accused thereafter tried to escape but villagers caught them and they were kept near the place of occurrence tied with the help of rope. In cross-Examination, he stated that Raitu Nisha when brought out of the well was found dead. Gulab Ali (PW 9) is another independent witness. He also corroborated the testimony of PW 8. On the day of occurrence, he was ploughing the field at a distance of 50 to 60 feet away from the well of Birbal Munda. He suddenly saw both the accused (A1 and 2) throwing Raitu Nisha in the well of Birbal Munda. In cross-examination, when the question put to him as to whether he was related to informant Gulab Ali or not, he stated that he was a brother by relation of the village (GAON KA BHAI). Jasmuddin (PW 10) is not an eye-witness, but an independent material witness. He had not seen the appellants throwing Raitu Nisha in the well of Birbal Munda. He stated that he saw both the accused (A1 & 2) dragging Raitu Nisha out of village and after ten minutes, he heard hulla, from the side of the well of Birbal Munda. When he reached near the well, saw Abdul Sajjad (PW 6}; Md. He had not seen the appellants throwing Raitu Nisha in the well of Birbal Munda. He stated that he saw both the accused (A1 & 2) dragging Raitu Nisha out of village and after ten minutes, he heard hulla, from the side of the well of Birbal Munda. When he reached near the well, saw Abdul Sajjad (PW 6}; Md. Salim (PW 4) and Musafir taking out the body of Raitu Nisha from the well. She was dead. He specifically stated that on 5th April, 1990, he saw both the accused (A1 & 2) dragging Raitu Nisha out of the village and on his protest, the accused told him not to mind as they were at liberty to do whatever they like with their own person. "HAMNE KAHA KI AISA KYON KAR RAHE HO TO JAINUL AUR TAMIJ KIRDAHA BOLA KI HUM APNE ADMI KO JO CHHAHE KAREN TUMKO ISSE KYA LENA DENA HAI" 12. There is nothing on the record to suggest any enmity between the appellants and the independent witnesses, namely, Junaw Ali (PW 8) ; Gulab Ali (PW 9} and Jasmuddin (PW 10). PWs 9 and 10 have corroborated the testimony of PW 8, one of the independent eye-witnesses. The appellants were caught hold by the villagers at the place of occurrence, is also evident from the evidence of Uday Narayan Singh (PW 14), the Investigating Officer. 13. The Investigating Officer (PW 14) stated that he heard rumour that some persons thrown the body of a lady in a well in village-Ghagra. On this information, the police proceeded for the village after Station Entry No. 82 dated 5th April, 1990 for verification of correctness. He reached the village- Ghagra and found crowd assembled near a well. The people caught hold of the accused-appellants and kept them confined near the well where the dead-body was kept. He recorded the statement of informant Gulam Rasul (PW 7) on the spot and FIR (Ext. 4). He (PW 14) also prepared inquest report in presence of Sekh Umar (PW 1) and Junaw Ali (PW 7) and others and forwarded the dead-body of Raitu Nisha for post-mortem to R.M.C.H., Ranchi. While the I.O. (PW 14) gave the details of the place of occurrence, he stated that the well was a Kuccha Kua of Birbal Munda with 22 feet deep with water level of 15 feet. While the I.O. (PW 14) gave the details of the place of occurrence, he stated that the well was a Kuccha Kua of Birbal Munda with 22 feet deep with water level of 15 feet. He further stated that Bamboos were found in the well which were stated to have been used to rescue Raitu Nisha (deceased). He found the dead-body kept on a cot and the accused persons were caught hold by the people. Both the accused (A1 and 2) were arrested on the spot, produced before the Court on the next day (6th April, 1990), whereinafter they were forwarded to judicial custody. 14. Dr. Niranjan Minz (PW 12) held the post-mortem on the dead- body of Raitu Nisha on 6th April. 1990 at R.M.C.H., Ranchi and found her death caused by drowning. Time elapsed since death was 18 to 36 hours and the post-mortem report was marked as Exhibit-3. 15. Thus, there being independent eyewitnesses like Junaw Ali (PW 8), Gulab Ali (PW 9), who have witnessed the incident and their evidences being corroborated by other independent witness Jasmuddin (PW 10). which clearly supports the story of prosecution, as was given by informant Gulam Rasul (PW 7). It further strengthened the credibility if read with the post-mortem report and the statement of I.O. (PW 14), who arrested the appellants from the place of occurrence. where they were caught by the people of the area. Merely, on the basis of the statement of a hostile witness Md. Salim Kirdaha (PW 4) that he saw Raitu Nisha (deceased) jumping in the well, the appellants cannot derive any advantage. 16. It has already been taken into consideration that there was no enmity between the appellants and the eye-witnesses, namely, Junaw Ali (PW 8) ; Gulab Ali (PW 9) and Jasmuddin (PW 10). The motive of the occurrence is also clear from the statement of informant (PW 7) that the Appellant No. 2, father-in-law of deceased, just before the occurrence told him that Raitu Nisha (deceased) was a characterless lady and will not spare her. Thereafter, both the accused forcibly took Raitu Nisha from his house. Thus the motive of the occurrence is very much clear from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the accused (A1 & 2) suspected Raitu Nisha, as a lady of bad character and for that they done away with her life. 17. Thereafter, both the accused forcibly took Raitu Nisha from his house. Thus the motive of the occurrence is very much clear from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the accused (A1 & 2) suspected Raitu Nisha, as a lady of bad character and for that they done away with her life. 17. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of consistent evidences, corroborated by independent witnesses, I find no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial Court, holding the appellants guilty of the charge levelled under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed.