JUDGMENT M.L. VISA, J.:-Bisho Mistry, the sole appellant in this appeal before us has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.7.1997 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 227 of 1993/92 of 1997 convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, Indian Penal code. 2. The prosecution case, as stated in the written statement of informant, Sugai Mistry (P.W. 6) is that on 29.11.1992 in the evening when he was working in his field, his niece Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) came running there and informed him that appellant had assaulted her grandfather Latkan Mistry (deceased) with sickle on his neck and he was floundering and blood, in sufficient quantity, was oozing out. On this information, informant came to his house and found that his father was smeared with blood and was floundering at the Darwaza of the house and he had sickle injuries on his neck. The informant further stated that a fortnight ago, the appellant, who happens to be his son-in-law, wanted to cultivate the land which was being cultivated by informant and informant had expressed his inability to allow the appellant to cultivate the land which was being cultivated by him and for this reason, the appellant injured father of informant by inflicting cut injuries on his neck with sickle. On the basis of written statement of informant, a case under Sections 324/326/307, Indian Penal Code was registered by drawing a first information report against the appellant. When father of informant later on succumbed to injuries, Section 302, Indian Penal Code was added in the first information report. 3. The police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellant and after commitment of case to Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial and charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code was framed against him and after trial, appellant was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the appellant, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, is denial of the charge, his complete innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Altogether nine witnesses on behalf of prosecution have been examined in this case. Sugai Mistry (P.W. 6) is the informant. Bipin Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) is the doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of deceased. 4. Altogether nine witnesses on behalf of prosecution have been examined in this case. Sugai Mistry (P.W. 6) is the informant. Bipin Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) is the doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Ramphal Marandi (P.W. 9) is a formal witness who has proved the formal first information report (Exhibit-2) in the pen of Baleshwar Choudhary, the then Officer-in-charge of K. Nagar Police Station and he also proved his endorsement (Exhibit-3) on the written report of informant. He has further proved case diary (Exhibit-4) in the pen of Assistant Sub-Inspector Md. Idris. Satya Narain Mistry (P.W. 4) is a tendered witness. Gita Devi (P.W. 5) has been declared hostile by the prosecution because she has said that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Chichai Mistry (P.W. 1) and Hira Lal Sharma (P.W. 8) are hearsary witnesses. Phulia Devi (P.W. 2) and Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. 5. Dr. Bipin Kumar Singh (P.W. 7), in his evidence, has said that on 4.12.1992, he held post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found the following ante mortem injuries: (i) Stitched wound on left hand besides thumb and on opening the stitch, it was found to be an incised wound of the size 4" x 1/2" x 1/2"; (ii) Stitched wound on right side of neck and it was incised wound of the size 6" x 1/2" x 1/4", (iii) stitched wound on left side of neck and it was incised wound of the size 5" x 1/4" x 1/4", and (iv) Incised wound in front of neck, cutting the trachea of the size 4" x 1" x 1/2" and tracheostomy tube was inside the trachea. He has further said that en dissection, head and neck meningitis were found pale, rigor mortis was present on all limbs, time elapsed since death was within thirty six hours and cause of death was respiratory failure due to asphyxia caused by injury No. (iv) by sharp cutting weapon which may be a sickle. He has proved his post mortem examination report (Exhibit-1). The evidence of this witness establishes the fact that death of deceased was homicidal and it had resulted from the injury caused on his neck by a sharp edged weapon which may be a sickle. 6. He has proved his post mortem examination report (Exhibit-1). The evidence of this witness establishes the fact that death of deceased was homicidal and it had resulted from the injury caused on his neck by a sharp edged weapon which may be a sickle. 6. Rita Kumari (P.W. 3), in her evidence, has said that on the day of occurrence, she was with her deceased grandfather at the Darwaza of her house and at that time, her mother (P.W. 2) was in the courtyard of her house. The appellant came there and cut the neck of her grandfather and she started weeping and her mother came there and sent her for calling her father and she then went to Chimney Bazar and brought her father. She has further said that after cutting the neck of her grandfather, the appellant fled away and she told her father that appellant had cut the neck of deceased and when her father came to his house by that time, her grandfather had become unconscious and her father went to police station for lodging the information. In cross-examination, she has said that there were differences between informant who is elder brother of her father and appellant on the point of cultivation of potatoes and informant cultivates land of one Surya Narain on Batai. She has denied the suggestion of defence that because appellant deserted his wife, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Phulia Devi (P.W. 2), in her evidence, has said that deceased was her father-in-law and appellant is son-in-law of brother of her husband and on the day of occurrence, she was in the courtyard of her house and her deceased father-in-law and her daughter Rita Kumar (P.W. 3) were at the Dehri (front door) of house when appellant came and asked her father-in-law to permit him to grow potato crop and when her father-in-law said that he himself will grow potato crop in the land, the appellant became enraged and inflicted injuries with Chura on the neck of her father-in-law as a result of which her father-in-law fell down and started floundering and appellant fled away. According to her, at that time, her husband was not at the house and he was brought from Chimney Bazar and she told her husband that appellant had inflicted Chura injuries on the neck of her father-in-law and alongwith her husband, informant had also come to whom also she narrated the incident. She has further stated that because on that day, it had become late on right, therefore, the deceased could not be taken to hospital and on the next day, he was taken to Government hospital at Purnia. She has denied the suggestion of defence that no occurrence, as alleged, ever took place and in order to grab land, her family members got the murder of deceased committed by some miscreants. 7. Sugai Mistry (P.W. 6), the informant, in his evidence, has said that on the day of occurrence, he was in Chimney Bazar when his niece Rita Kumari (P.W.3) informed him that appellant had cut the neck of her grandfather and when he came to his house, he found that neck of his father was cut but at that time, his father was alive and some villagers were present there who also told him that appellant had cut the neck of deceased and he then went to police station alongwith his brother Chichai Mistry (P.W. 1) where his statement was recorded by police officer and he put his left thumb impression on it. He has further said that on the next day, he took his father to Purnia hospital where, after treatment for four days, his father died. About the motive of occurrence, he has said that appellant was demanding land from him for growing potato crop but because his demand was not fulfilled, therefore, he committed the murder of deceased. In cross-examination, he has said that appellant is his son-in-law. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he was not allowing Rukhsati of his daughter and Punches had told that she would have to go to her Sasural and for this reason, he has falsely implicated the appellant in this case. In cross-examination, he has said that appellant is his son-in-law. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he was not allowing Rukhsati of his daughter and Punches had told that she would have to go to her Sasural and for this reason, he has falsely implicated the appellant in this case. Chichai Mistry (P.W. 1) has said that on the day of occurrence when he returned to his house at about 4.30 p.m., he found cut injury on the neck of his father who was floundering and blood was oozing out from that injury and at that time his two daughters and some villagers were present there and his wife was also there and on being asked, his daughter told him that appellant had inflicted injury on the neck of deceased with sickle. He has further said that informant had also come there and he alongwith informant went to police station where statement of informant was recorded by police officer. He has further said that on the next day at about 8 a.m., police came to his house and at that time, his father was alive and the police, seeing the condition of deceased, sent him to hospital with Chaukidar where his father died after four days. He has said that informant was present during the treatment of deceased in hospital and police had recorded his statement there also. Gita Devi (P.W. 5) is the grand daughter of deceased and daughter of P.W. 1. She has said that appellant inflicted sickle injury on the neck and panjra of deceased and four days thereafter, her grandfather died at Purnia hospital. She has further said that at the time of inflicting injuries, her mother and her sister Rita were there and remaining persons including herself came on the spot later on and she did not witness the infliction of injuries. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution because she has not claimed herself to be an eye witness to the occurrence. Hiralal Sharma (P.W. 8) has said that on the day of occurrence, he was in Kanwa Bazar when Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) came there running and told him that appellant had cut the neck of her grandfather and when he came to the house bf deceased, he found cut injury on his neck. Hiralal Sharma (P.W. 8) has said that on the day of occurrence, he was in Kanwa Bazar when Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) came there running and told him that appellant had cut the neck of her grandfather and when he came to the house bf deceased, he found cut injury on his neck. The evidence of Phulia Devi (P.W. 2) and Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) fully supports the case of prosecution on the point of infliction of injuries to the deceased by appellant. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that Phulia Devi (P.W. 2), in her evidence, has said that at the time of occurrence, she was in the courtyard of her house and deceased and her daughter Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) were at Dehri of her house and in this view of the matter, she could not have seen the occurrence which according to the case of prosecution took place at the Dehri of the house. He has further argued that this witness has said that appellant assaulted her father-in-law on his neck with Chura whereas the case of prosecution is that appellant inflicted injury on the neck of deceased with sickle. It is true that Phulia Devi (P.W. 2) has said that at the time of occurrence, she was in the courtyard of her house and deceased alongwith her daughter Rita Kumari (PW. 3) was at Dehri. According to her evidence, she was present in her house where the occurrence is said to have taken place and only because of the fact that at that time, she was in court-yard of her house, it cannot be said that she could not have witnessed the occurrence. It is also true that this witness has said that appellant inflicted injuries on the neck of deceased with Chura whereas case of prosecution is that the weapon used by the appellant was a sickle. No doubt, Chura and sickle are two different weapons but then both the weapons are sharp edged weapons and there is no much difference between the two and besides this PW.2 is a villager and illiterate lady because while giving evidence, she has given her permanent address of a village and has put her thumb impression on her deposition and in this view of the matter if she has described the Bickle as Chura, we do not find it a material contradiction. For the sake of argument, considering the discrepancy in her evidence on the point of nature of weapon used, if it is assumed that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence even then evidence of Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) remains there who is an eye witness to the occurrence and who has fully supported the case of prosecution. We find that Rita Kumari (P.W. 3), in para-7 of her cross-examination, has said that her statement was not recorded by police and she has not even met any police officer till the date of her recording evidence in court but then she is also an illiterate girl whose age has been estimated by the Court below as ten years on the day when her evidence was recorded and it appears that either in confusion or by not understanding the nature of question put to her in cross-examination, she has replied that her statement was not recorded by police. The case of prosecution, from the beginning, is that this witness was present with deceased when the occurrence took place and the written statement of informant also mentions that this witness had informed him that appellant had cut the neck of deceased with sickle. Informant Sugai Mistry (P.W. 6), in his evidence, has said that this witness had informed him at Chimney Bazar that the appellant had cut the neck of deceased. Chichai Mistry (P.W. 1) has also said that her daughter had informed him that appellant had cut the neck of deceased with sickle. Under ail these circumstances, it cannot be said that for the first time P.W. 3 has appeared in Court as a witness and has given statement about the occurrence. The Investigating Officer in this case has not been examined but then P.W. 9 has proved the case diary in the pen of Assistant Sub-Inspector Md. Idris. This diary, as stated earlier, is marked Exhibit-4. From perusal of case diary, it appears that statement of this witness was recorded in para-14 of case diary. We are quite aware of the legal position abut use of case diary by a Court. We are not using the case diary as evidence of any fact or statement referred in it but are using it only as containing indication of sources and lines of enquiry and for suggesting the name of persons whose evidence may be material. We are quite aware of the legal position abut use of case diary by a Court. We are not using the case diary as evidence of any fact or statement referred in it but are using it only as containing indication of sources and lines of enquiry and for suggesting the name of persons whose evidence may be material. So, we find that the evidence of Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) that her statement was not recorded by police is an error on her part. But so far her evidence on the point of occurrence is concerned that remains intact and we find nothing in her evidence to disbelieve her evidence in this regard. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in written statement, the informant has stated that on the day of occurrence when he was working in his field, his niece Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) came there running and informed him about the occurrence whereas in the evidence, he has said that when he was in Chimney Bazar, Rita Kumari (P.W. 3) informed him about the occurrence. We have also noticed that informant, in his evidence, has stated that he got the information about the occurrence at Chimney Bazar through Rita Kumari (P.W.3) but Rita Kumari (P.W. 3), in her evidence, has said that after occurrence, she went to chimney Bazar where her mother had sent her and brought her father from there. In our opinion, these contradictions are not very material because they relate about the place wherein informant got the information about the occurrence and the source of information. Admittedly, informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Only on the basis of these contradictions, the entire case of prosecution cannot be disbelieved. 10. It is true that in this case, deceased is said to have died after his treatment in hospital for four days and the prosecution has not examined any doctor who first examined the injuries of deceased and provided the treatment but then evidence of Dr. Bipin Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) leaves no room for any doubt that deceased died of injuries inflicted on his neck by sharp edged weapon which may be a sickle. Bipin Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) leaves no room for any doubt that deceased died of injuries inflicted on his neck by sharp edged weapon which may be a sickle. In this case, it is true that witnesses who have deposed about the occurrence are members of one family and related to each other but at the same time, it is also true that appellant is nonetheless but the own son-in-law of informant and he is equally related to the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution deposing about the occurrence. There seems no reason why they would depose falsely against the appellant. 11. Considering the entire evidence on record, we find that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant that he inflicted injuries on the neck of deceased by a sharp edged weapon which resulted into the death of deceased. We find nothing on record to disturb the fin-dings of Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby confirmed. B.K. JHA, J.:-I agree.