Judgment : ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant Baleshwar Mahto against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15/02/1991, passed in Sessions Trial No. 272 of 1986, whereby and whereunder, Sri Shyama Prasad Singh, learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of deceased Pokhan Bhuiyan and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE informant Birchha Bhuiyan, who is P. W. 9 in this case, lodged and information on 7/04/1981, at about 7. 00 p. m. with the local police, alleging therein, that his younger brother Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased) has gone to collect Mahuwa at Ahariya Garha of village-Chengra, at 8. 00 a. m. on that very day. At about 9. 00 a. m. when he went to serve meal to his brother, he could not find him (deceased) or any other person there and on search, he found the dead body of his deceased brother hanging on a tree. It has been further alleged that the tree belonged to Balmiki Singh of village-Punai and the deceased and his family members used to collect Mahuwa on Batai, apart from others. Earlier one Bhuneshwar Mahto and Jhaman Sao of village-Chengra had protested the informant and deceased for collecting Mahuwa for which an arbitration had also taken place and in accordance with the agreement, the deceased brother of the informant used to collect Mahuwa. However, in spite of the aforesaid fact, the persons, named above, went on giving threats. On the fateful day, at about 8. 00 a. m. the deceased brother of the informant had gone to collect Mahuwa and at about 9. 00 a. m. the informant went near the Mahuwa tree to serve meal to his younger brother, where he found the dead body of his younger brother handing with a tree by means of Gamchha. The informant had also heard that the accused Baleshwar Mahto (appellant) and one Gangia Ghatwarin, with whom the appellant had illicit relationship, were seen near the Mahuwa tree. The informant being perplexed, ran towards the house and narrated the entire occurrence whereinafter, the villagers rushed towards the place of occurrence and subsequently, the informant went to the Police Station. The informant had also heard that the accused Baleshwar Mahto (appellant) and one Gangia Ghatwarin, with whom the appellant had illicit relationship, were seen near the Mahuwa tree. The informant being perplexed, ran towards the house and narrated the entire occurrence whereinafter, the villagers rushed towards the place of occurrence and subsequently, the informant went to the Police Station. The informant gave the names of suspects as that of Bhuneshwar Mahto and Jhaman Sao of village-Chengra as also Baleshwar Mahto of village-Karma to kill his deceased brother. ( 3 ) IN course of investigation it transpired that the appellant Baleshwar Mahto actually committed the murder of the deceased, as the deceased had seen the accused (appellant) catching hold of Sabitri Devi (P. W. 4) with an intention to outrage her modesty. The deceased, who was about 10 years old, had threatened to divulge this fact to the parents. In the aforesaid background, the police submitted chargesheet and the appellant was put on trial. ( 4 ) IN this case altogether eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of whom P. W. 2 (Jugal Kishore Verma), P. W. 5 (Baleshwar Bhuiyan) and P. W. 8 (Tilswa Devi) have been tendered. ( 5 ) P. W. 10 is Dr. M. K. Gupta, who has conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body whereas P. W. 9 (Briksha Bhuiyan) is the informant. It is the statement of an independent witness Savitri Devi (P. W. 4), which is the main basis to convict the appellant. For this reason, it will not be necessary to discuss the statement of all the witnesses, except those, which were the basis for the Court below to convict the appellant. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant while placing the First Information Report, statements of prosecution witnesses and the accused, submitted that there are contradictions in statements made by one or other witnesses, which raises doubt relating to the story, as was highlighted by P. W. 4 (Savitri Devi), which is the sole basis to convict the appellant. The statement of P. W. 4 (Savitri Devi), as made during the examination and cross-examination, was compared with the statement made by the informant (P. W. 9) to suggest the discripancies. The statement of P. W. 4 (Savitri Devi), as made during the examination and cross-examination, was compared with the statement made by the informant (P. W. 9) to suggest the discripancies. For example, Savitri Devi (P. W. 4) in her cross-examination stated that the deceased had taken break-fast whereinafter murder was committed by the appellant, whereas the informant Briksha Bhuiyan (P. W. 9) has stated that he was going to give meal to his deceased brother Pokhan Bhuiyan. ( 7 ) IT has also been submitted that the statement of the accused, as taken under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there in the Court below, had not made clear circumstances on which the prosecution intended to bring home the charges, levelled against him. ( 8 ) IN the First Information Report, the informant Briksha Bhuiyan (P. W. 9) has merely stated that he found the deceased hanging in a tree. He suspected the persons including the appellant Baleshwar Mahto for some other reason, as reiterated by P. W. 9 at the time of examination and cross-examination. ( 9 ) THE other witnesses have not seen the occurrance. It is the P. W. 4 (Savitri Devi), who disclosed the facts and background and, as such, is the eye-witness and on her statement, as corroborated with other witnesses, the appellant has been convicted. She (P. W. 4) deposed that she used to collect Mahuwa from Balmiki Singhs tree on Batai, which was situated at Ahariya Garha of Village Chengra i. e. the place where the deceased was seen hanging. She (P. W. 4) divulged that about 6-7 years ago, she had gone to collect Mahuwa along with Ugani, Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased) and Reshami. The aforesaid persons left the place whereinafter, she (P. W. 4) alone remained there to collect the Mahuwa. Appellant Baleshwar Mahto reached there and caught held of her hands with an intention to outrage her modesty. Just at that particular moment, Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased) returned to the place after taking break-fast and having seen such behaviour of the appellant, he (deceased) protested and threatened to divulge the incident to his grand-father Kartika (father-in-law of Savitri Devi ). In the aforesaid background the appellant pressed the neck of Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased) and hanged him on the Mahuwa tree. She (PW. In the aforesaid background the appellant pressed the neck of Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased) and hanged him on the Mahuwa tree. She (PW. 4) has further deposed that the appellant Baleshwar Mahto threatened her to kill, if she divulges the facts to others. For the said reason, she returned home but did not disclose the said fact to any one or other for feat till the next day when police came and she (P. W. 4) narrated the entire incident. Similar statement was also given by her (P. W. 4) before the Magistrate under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 (Narayan Bhuiyan) in his statement has stated that he had also gone to collect Mahuwa at about 4. 00 a. m. on the fateful day. Subsequently, he returned back to home and on hearing the fact relating to death of the deceased, had again gone to the place of occurrence i. e. Ahariya Garha. In his statement he has stated that the deceased Pokhan Bhuiyan had also gone to collect Mahuwa along with Savitri Devi (P. W. 4 ). P. W. 7 (Kalia Devi), who is sister-in-law of the deceased, in her statement has also stated that Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased had gone to collect Mahuwa along with Savitri Devi (P. W. 4 ). Thus, it is evident that Savitri Devi (P. W. 4) was with Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased) and, as such, her statement can be relied upon. ( 11 ) SO far as the question as to whether Pokhan Bhuiyan (deceased) had taken break-fast prior to murder or not, is not the issue. However, from the statements of his (deceased) sister-in-law Kalia Devi (P. W. 7) it will be evident that she has stated that the deceased had earlier taken break-fast before going to collect Mahuwa. Subsequently, the meal was sent to him (deceased) through his brother Briksha Bhuiyan (P. W. 9 ). Thus, the statement of Briksha Bhuiyan (P. W. 9) stands corroborated with the statement of Kalia Devi (P. W. 7), who is the sister-in-law of the deceased Pokhan Bhuiyan and the statement of Savitri Devi (P. W. 4 ). Subsequently, the meal was sent to him (deceased) through his brother Briksha Bhuiyan (P. W. 9 ). Thus, the statement of Briksha Bhuiyan (P. W. 9) stands corroborated with the statement of Kalia Devi (P. W. 7), who is the sister-in-law of the deceased Pokhan Bhuiyan and the statement of Savitri Devi (P. W. 4 ). The story, as explained by Savitri Devi (P. W. 4) in her statement is also corroborated with the post-mortem report, wherein, the doctor has opined the cause of death due to asphyxia, as a result of throttling and further opined that after death, if the dead body is hung by means of rope, there may be rope mark over the neck of the dead body. Even in dead body, if some injury is caused, that may be visible but he (doctor) did not find any rope mark or injury on the upper part of the neck but rigor mortius were present. ( 12 ) THUS, it will be evident that there is no major contradictions made by one or other witness to doubt the varacity of the statement of P. W. 4 (Savitri Devi), who also has made similar statement during the lengthy cross-examination and, as such, the appellant cannot derive any advantage of the same. ( 13 ) SO far as the issue, whether the Court below properly followed the provisions of S. 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and informed the appellant of the circumstances or not, is concerned, the appellant cannot derive any benefit of the Supreme Courts decisions in the case of S. Harnam Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.), reported in AIR 1976 SC 2140 or the case of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1622 or the judgment of this Court in the case of Mukhlal Mahto v. The State of Bihar, reported in (1997) 1 East Cr. C. 44 (Pat), as were cited by his counsel. Those are the cases where the Court took into consideration the fact that the material circumstances appearing against the accused were not put to him, which was held to be a serious irregularity. C. 44 (Pat), as were cited by his counsel. Those are the cases where the Court took into consideration the fact that the material circumstances appearing against the accused were not put to him, which was held to be a serious irregularity. ( 14 ) IN the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, reported in 1995 (Supp) 1 SCC 80 the Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, held as follows :"the provisions in S. 313, therefore, make it obligatory on the Court to question the accused on the evidence and circumstances appearing against him so as to apprise him of the exact case which he is required to meet. But it would not be enough for the accused to show that he has not been questioned or examined on particular circumstances but he must also show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice. In other words in the event of any inadvertent omission on the part of the Court to question the accused on any incriminating circumstances appearing against him the same cannot ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to him. " ( 15 ) IN the present case, the statement of accused under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the trial Court specifically asked him as to whether he heard the statements made by all the prosecution witnesses or not, to which the accused replied yes i. e. he had heard the same. It was further made clear to him by the trial Court that the witnesses have made statements that on 7/04/1981 at Mauza Chengra (Ahariya Garha), Police Station Ichak, he had killed Pokhan Bhuiyan by throttling his neck and whether the accused (appellant) has anything to state relating to the same or not whereupon the accused (appellant) merely stated that he does not know. Thereafter, the trial Court again informed the appellant that the witnesses have stated that he after killing the deceased Pokhan Bhuiyan, hanged his dead body on a Mahuwa tree and whether he had to make any statement or not but the appellant replied that he had no knowledge. Even when the appellant was given liberty to state anything in his defence,he said no to the Court below. Even when the appellant was given liberty to state anything in his defence,he said no to the Court below. ( 16 ) IN the facts and circumstances, discussed above, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the appellant and all the requirements under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were followed. The submission made by the counsel, therefore, has no merit. ( 17 ) WE, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction, in question, and, as such, the appeal is hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .