Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant suffered conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on being tried by Shri Jai Kishore Narayan, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1991 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Factual matrix.It was alleged that at about 3 p.m. on 18th March, 1990, while Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (P.W. 4) was getting his paddy thrashed in a mill of Sukhdeo Sah, he was informed by one Shobha Singh about appellant having dealt several blows with dab (a sharp edged instrument) on his brother Uma Shankar Singh, who dropped unconscious. He rushed to the place of occurrence and noticed his brother with multiple injuries on his person. A good number of persons came and they too narrated the incident to him about the appellant having dealt blows with sharp edged weapon on Uma Shankar Singh, and with these accusations, fardbeyan of Sunil Kumar Singh was recorded in Emergency outdoor of Sadar hospital, Chapra at 10.30 p.m. on the same day, pursuant to which investigation commenced. In course of investigation, the Police officer recorded statement of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence, secured injury report of Uma Shankar Singh and on his eventual death in the Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna, where he was carried from Sadar Hospital, Chapra, got autopsy held by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court to put the appellant on trial. In the trial that commenced against the appellant, the State examined altogether 12 witnesses and they include Sunil Kumar Singh (P.W. 4), Krishna Nandan Singh (P.W. 1), Sheoji Singh (P.W. 3) and Lalit Mohan Singh (P.W. 6) who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the incident. The State also examined host of other witnesses and also the doctor who clinically examined the injured before he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 3. The defence of the appellant before the trial court and also this Court had been plain denial of entire allegations and he ascribed his false implication by the prosecution. The State also examined host of other witnesses and also the doctor who clinically examined the injured before he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 3. The defence of the appellant before the trial court and also this Court had been plain denial of entire allegations and he ascribed his false implication by the prosecution. The explicit defence of the appellant was that as the appellant was residing in the land of Sunil Kumar Singh, for which he was issued parcha by the Government of Bihar, the said Sunil Kumar Singh getting offended by issuance of parcha in the name of appellant, got him falsely roped in a case, and the trial court while negativing contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant, placed implicit reliance on the testimony of the ocular witnesses and also others examined by the State, and recorded verdict of guilt under section 302 IPC, and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 4. Volume of arguments were canvassed at Bar on behalf of the appellant, ostensibly to criticise the findings recorded by the Court below and it is sought to be urged that taking the prosecution case to be true on its face value, since no motive had been assigned by the State which persuaded the appellant to commit the alleged overt act, the bona fide of the entire prosecution was open to serious question. The contentions are raised that though Shobha Singh was shown to be the person who rendered first hand information to Sunil Kumar Singh about the overtact attributed to the appellant, non-examination of said Shobha Singh had introduced a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the learned counsel reiterating his submission would urge that if the narration made by Sheoji Singh (P.W. 3) about other witnesses having arrived at the place of occurrence in the company of Sunil Kumar Singh was to be given any credence, that would exclude the possibility of other witnesses to be ocular. Some alleged inconsistencies in the narrations made by P.Ws. 1 and 3 about possibility of the latter witness to be ocular witness, were also highlighted at Bar to treat the witnesses incredible and, yet, it is urged that since the Investigating Officer was not examined at trial, appellant on that score was seriously prejudiced. Some alleged inconsistencies in the narrations made by P.Ws. 1 and 3 about possibility of the latter witness to be ocular witness, were also highlighted at Bar to treat the witnesses incredible and, yet, it is urged that since the Investigating Officer was not examined at trial, appellant on that score was seriously prejudiced. The next limb of the argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellant was that taking the prosecution version to be true in its entirety, as some persons were chasing the appellant, he acted in exercise of private defence and in that view of the matter also, the action attributed to the appellant would come for his rescue and the last argument was that taking the circumstances of the case into consideration about chase, the appellant cannot be credited with intention to cause death of Uma Shankar Singh and hence his case would not fall within the mischief under section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for the State would draw our attention to the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 3, and 6 and it is urged that the witnesses were most coherent in their narrations for which there was positive finding of the doctor who noticed corresponding injuries on the person of the injured. 5. Now, coming to the evidences placed on record, one may find Sunil Kumar Singh (P.W. 4) reiterating his early version which he rendered before the Police. It is not in dispute that Sunil Kumar Singh was not ocular witness of the incident, as he noticed his brother with multiple injuries on his person after he rushed to the place of occurrence on receipt of information from Shobha Singh. Krishna Nandan Singh (P.W 1), who was at the door of his house, noticed Uma Shankar Singh chasing the appellant, when the appellant abruptly having turned, dealt several blows on his face with dab. on receipt of which Uma Shankar dropped in the wheat field. Similar narrations were made by Sheoji Singh (P.W. 3) who stated to have noticed Uma Shankar Singh chasing the appellant, when the latter, having turned, dealt blows on Uma Shakar Singh with dab causing several injuries on face. Narrations made by another witness Lalit Mohan Singh (P.W. 6) also was in conformity with that of P. Ws. Similar narrations were made by Sheoji Singh (P.W. 3) who stated to have noticed Uma Shankar Singh chasing the appellant, when the latter, having turned, dealt blows on Uma Shakar Singh with dab causing several injuries on face. Narrations made by another witness Lalit Mohan Singh (P.W. 6) also was in conformity with that of P. Ws. 1 and 3 who too claimed to have noticed the appellant who held dab being chased by Uma Shankar Singh, Sheoji Singh, Devendra Singh and Ram Janam Singh and it was in the process of being chased that the appellant dealt blows on Uma Shankar Singh who dropped to the ground. 6. The other witnesses examined by the State at trial were Nand Lal Singh (P.W. 5) and Sheo Nandan Prasad Singh (P.W. 9) and since both the witnesses were tendered by the State, there was nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration. Gopal Singh (P.W. 7) was a Police Officer who simply laid charge sheet before the Court without making any contribution in the investigation. Ram Janam Singh (P.W. 8) turned volte face to the State while Krishna Sharma (P.W. 11) was quite formal in nature who brought some documents on the record. There was yet another formal witness who was Ram Deep Singh (P.W. 12) who brought on record Police case diary (Exhibit 5), inquest report (Exhibit 6) and also the first information report (Exhibit 7). 7. The facts of the case are tell-e-tell and the narrations made by the ocular witnesses would manifestly suggest the appellant having dealt several blows on Uma Shankar Singh in the process of being chased by the latter. Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (P.W. 10), who examined the injured, noticed six incised injuries on his face which were caused by sharp edged weapon and though injury nos. (i) to (v) were simple in nature, injury no. (vi) was grievous. Though the doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body of Uma Shankar Singh, was not examined at trial, the State placed on the record the post mortem report with the aid of Section 294 Cr.P.C. The validity of the admissibility of a document without examination of its author cannot possibly be questioned once its genuineness has not been disputed by the appellant at trial when it was brought on the record by the State under the provisions of Section 294 Cr. PC, and it is rightly urged on behalf of the State that the corresponding injuries were noticed on the person of the deceased by the doctor who held autopsy on the dead body. The narrations made by Lalit Mohan Singh (P.W. 6) would suggest that the appellant dealt blows thrice or fourth time on the face of the deceased and this is also the finding recorded by the doctor who examined him. 8. When direct evidences were available, motive was of little significance and it remains a matter of only academic interest. Yet, one may not fail to find that P.W. 3 Sheoji Singh, on being asked by the counsel for the appellant, during cross examination, would state that as the appellant had committed theft of an ear ring of the sister of the deceased, he was being chased by him. No material contradiction appears to have emerged in the testimony of witnesses and hence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer would not prejudice the appellant. Similarly, non-examination of Shobha Singh, who rendered first hand information to Sunil Kumar Singh, brother of the deceased, too would not introduce any serious infirmity in the prosecution version. It is a matter of common experience that when the witnesses were examined after efflux of long interval, some variations were bound to occur in their evidences, though we do find that no such variations could be found which could make the witnesses incredible. Failure of the Investigating Officer to seize blood stained earth from the place of occurrence was not of vital significance, as that did not affect the broad feature of the prosecution case and also did not befog the real issue. None of the witnesses were stating at trial that Uma Shankar Singh was holding any arms with him in process of chasing the appellant, and it is well known maxim that while acting in exercise of right of private defence, the action taken recourse to, must not be disproportionate to the danger apprehended, and on this score arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant about he having acted in exercise of right of private defence was bereft of value. The evidences would unerringly suggest that the appellant dealt several blows with sharp edged weapon on vulnerable part of the person of Uma Shankar Singh when he dropped unconscious and eventually met his tragic end. The evidences would unerringly suggest that the appellant dealt several blows with sharp edged weapon on vulnerable part of the person of Uma Shankar Singh when he dropped unconscious and eventually met his tragic end. The facts of the case would strongly militate against the innocence of the appellant and we hereby hold that he acted with all intention to cause death of the deceased. 9. Having bestowed our anxious and deepest consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidences placed on the record, we find that the finding recorded by the trial court was based on meticulous appraisal of the evidences placed on the record which did not merit interference. There being no merit, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, who has been appointed as amicus curiae, shall be entitled to receive his fee from the Patna High Court Legal Services Authority. P.K.Sinha, J. 10 I agree.