Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The sole appellant before this Court Satya Narain Mahto stands convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It is an unfortunate case of fratricide in which the younger brother Basant Mahto was killed at the hands of the elder brother, the appellant. The offence took place over something which appears to us quite trivial and almost ridiculous as the cause for someone getting killed. The crime appears to emanate from poverty and illiteracy. Both the appellant and the victim belonged to a family to toddy tappers (Pasi) who managed to take out a living by selling toddy on the road-side. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the statement (recorded as Jardbeuan) of Manoj Mahto, the son of the deceased. His statement was taken down by the Sub- Inspector, Binod Narayan of Mufassil Police Station at the emergency ward of Sadar Hospital, Samastipur on 8.11.1995 at 4.30 p.m. A formal First Information Report (Ext. 1) was later drawn up on the following day. The First Information Report was received in Court and it was seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on 10.11.1995, as appearing from the rubber stamp over it. 3. In the fardbeyan Manoj Kumar Mahto stated that about two months prior to the occurrence his eldest aunt (Barichachi) Kranti Devi, the wife of the appellant Satya Narain Mahto had taken the watch of his younger uncle Akloo Mahto and she would not return it on demand. This had led to recurring quarrels between his father Basant Mahto, the deceased and his eldest uncle Satya Narain Mahto. On the date of occurrence at about 2 p.m., Satya Narain Mahto started abusing his father on which his father asked him not to do so. On this Satya Narain Mahto came to their house and started quarreling with his father. When one of his other uncles Suresh Mahto tried to intervene, Satya Narain Mahto bit him on the chin (Dadhi par). On this his father Basant Mahto separated them and removed Satya Narain Mahto from him. At this stage Satya Narain Mahto went to his house and came back carrying a spear (bhala). Seeing Satya Narain Mahto armed with spear his father fled away towards east and Satya Narain Mahto went after him. On this his father Basant Mahto separated them and removed Satya Narain Mahto from him. At this stage Satya Narain Mahto went to his house and came back carrying a spear (bhala). Seeing Satya Narain Mahto armed with spear his father fled away towards east and Satya Narain Mahto went after him. While fleeing away his father fell down at the doors of Kamal Paswan. Satya Narain Mahto who was coming after caught up with him and gave him three spear blows that hit his father on his chest, right scapular region and on the left side of the rib-cage (JO HAMARE P1TAJI KE CHHATI. DAHINA PAKHURA AUR BAYA PANJARA MAIN LAGA). Following closely the informant himself his mother Foolpari Devi (PW 4), younger brother Binod Kumar Mahto (not examined) and many other women and children reached there. From there they lifted his father in injured condition and brought him to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur for treatment and there in course of treatment his father died. The informant concluded by saying that Satya Narain Mahto had killed his father by giving him spear blows and had fled away towards east. he once again repeated this allegation against Satya Narain Mahto before closing his statement. The recorded statement was read out to him and on finding it correct the informant put his signature on it which was marked as Ext. 2 before the trial Court. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW 1 Sunil Choudhary is an Advocates Clerk. He was examined to prove the hand writing of Sub-Inspector, N.N. Thakur, who had drawn up the First Information Report and this witness formally proved the First Information report which was marked as Ext. 1. PW 2 is Kamal Paswan at whose doors the assault took place. PWs 2 and 4 are the informant and his mother Foolpari Devi, the wife of the deceased. PW 5 is the doctor who held post-mortem over the body of the deceased. PW 6 Ram Bilash Sah and PW 8 Narayan Mahto are co-villagers and PW 7 Suresh Mahto is another brother of the appellant and the deceased. 5. PWs 2 and 4 are the informant and his mother Foolpari Devi, the wife of the deceased. PW 5 is the doctor who held post-mortem over the body of the deceased. PW 6 Ram Bilash Sah and PW 8 Narayan Mahto are co-villagers and PW 7 Suresh Mahto is another brother of the appellant and the deceased. 5. PWs 3 and 4 (the son and the wife of the deceased respectively) are the two eye-witnesses and in their depositions before the Court they fully supported the prosecution case; PW 4 in fact presented a graphic picture of the entire episode and her evidence appears to be quite convincing. Apart from PW 3 and 4, Kamal Paswan (PW 2) and Suresh Mahto (PW 7) were also examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. In Court, however, they resiled from their earlier position and denied to have witnessed the occurrence. Suresh Mahto PW 7 was declared hostile and he was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. 6. Though both PWs 2 and 7 denied to have themselves witnessed the occurrence, nevertheless their statements before the Court corroborate the eye-witness account of the prosecution case. PW 2 Kamal Paswan stated that on the date and time of occurrence he had gone out for relieving himself when he returned he saw a number of children collected at the door and some hulla taking place there. Basant Pasi (the deceased) lay there being held by his wife. On his asking she said that Basant was stabbed by spear by Satya Narain Mahto. He (the witness) then told her to take him quickly to the hospital. He further said that she was holding the abdomen of her husband. Her son was also present there. 7. Similarly PW 7, though denying to have witnessed the occurrence, stated that later he came to know that Satya Narain Mahto had killed Basant. 8. The other two prosecution witnesses PWs 6 and 8 too were declared hostile. 9. The most emphatic corroboration of the prosecution case comes from the medical evidence. The Doctor who held post-mortem over the body of the deceased was examined as PW 5. He proved the postmortem report which was marked as Ext. 3. From the Doctors evidence and the postmortem report it appears that there were the following anti-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. The Doctor who held post-mortem over the body of the deceased was examined as PW 5. He proved the postmortem report which was marked as Ext. 3. From the Doctors evidence and the postmortem report it appears that there were the following anti-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. (i) One sharp cutting stab injury on the left side of chest 1/2" below and 1-1/2" lateral to the left nipple Size. 1-1/2" x 1/2" x chest deep. (ii) One sharp cutting stab injury on the left flank of the abdomen 2" x 3/4" x abdomen deep. (iii) One sharp cutting stab injury 1" x 1/2 " x bone deep on the right scapular region. (iv) Abrasion 2" x 1/2" near right knee. On deep dissection the doctor was able to find as follows : (i) the left lung and the left side of heart i.e. left ventricle were punctured. This injury was in continuation to external injury No. 1. (ii) The chest cavity was full of blood and blood clots. (iii) Omentum (sic) and peritoneum and the small intestine were punctured and the abdominal cavity was full of blood and blood-clots. This injury was in continuation to external injury No. ii. The doctor further opined that the injuries were caused by some sharp penetrating weapon and death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the above injuries. 10 The medical evidence thus not only corroborates that the deceased received three spear blows but also confirms the parts of the body where he was hit. 11. In the face of such overwhelming evidence it was an uphill task to assail the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, clutching at the straws, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that neither the informant PW 3 nor his mother PW 4 had actually witnessed the occurrence. Counsel suggested that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence and the two witnesses had deposed falsely before the Court. The submission was based on an isolated statement of PW 4 (para 17) where she said that her son raised bulla calling MAI RE BABU KO BHALA MAAR DEL KEY on which she went to the place of occurrence and saw Satya Narain Mahto fleeing away after giving spear blow(s) to her husband. The submission was based on an isolated statement of PW 4 (para 17) where she said that her son raised bulla calling MAI RE BABU KO BHALA MAAR DEL KEY on which she went to the place of occurrence and saw Satya Narain Mahto fleeing away after giving spear blow(s) to her husband. On the basis of this statement it was contended that neither PW 3 nor PW 4 had actually witnessed the assault and they had arrived at the place of occurrence only after the assault had taken place and what they actually saw was Satya Narain fleeing away from that spot. 12. I am unable to accept the submission. This isolated statement in paragraph 17 cannot brush aside the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. The evidence of any witness must be taken and appreciated in totality. Any one having some experience of how depositions are taken and witnesses are subjected to cross- examination in the trial Courts, in this State, must learn to discern between the witnesses main deposition in which he means what he speaks and portion (s) of his deposition where statements are put into his mouth or snatched out of his mouth even without his realising that the ordinary meaning of the words recorded as his deposition conveyed a different or even opposite meaning from what he intended to say. The latter is the result of a combination of factors. 13. In the case in hand, from the deposition of PW 4 we find that she gave the details of the earlier quarrel among the brothers. She then said that Satya Narain went to his house and came back armed with a spear. Seeing him with the spear her husband fled away and he was pursued by Satya Narain. While fleeing, her husband fell down near the doors of Kamal Paswan; there Satya Narain Mahto climbed over the fallen down body of her husband and gave him three spear blows. Satya Narain gave spear blows to her husband on his pakhura, chest and abdomen as a result of which his entrails came out. Her husband cried out with folded hands brother-oh-brother please spare me; even then Satya Narain stabbed him with the spear. Satya Narain gave spear blows to her husband on his pakhura, chest and abdomen as a result of which his entrails came out. Her husband cried out with folded hands brother-oh-brother please spare me; even then Satya Narain stabbed him with the spear. She further stated that her house was at a distance of 7 to 8 laggis from the house of Kamal Paswan and the house of Satya Narain was adjacent to their own house. She further said that while Satya Narain Mahto gave bhala blows to her husband she was at a distance of 6-7 steps and that she and her two sons Manoj PW 4 and Binod (not examined) were following the two. The also said that from her door the door of Kamal Paswan was clearly visible. 14. Coming now to her statement in paragraph 17, in that paragraph she first denied the suggestion by the defence that she had heard that her husband was hit by bhala. She added that on the contrary she had herself witnessed her husband being assaulted by bhala. It was then that she said that on hearing hulla her son went there and then he called her out whereupon she went to the place of occurrence. 15. On a perusal of the entire deposition of PW 4 we are fully convinced that she not only witnessed the occurrence but she is a reliable witness and worthy of reliance by the Court. PW 3, the informant also fully supported the prosecution case and his own earlier statement made before the police in the fardbeyan and there is nothing in his deposition to detract from the prosecution case. 16. Counsel for the appellant then submitted that there was inordinate delay in drawing up the formal First Information Report and sending it to the Court and he went on to suggest that the fardbeyan and the First Information Report produced in Court were not the earliest statement made before the police. The earliest statement made before the police was destroyed/held back and later on Ext. 1 was drawn up on a got-up story. The fantastic suggestion is made on the ground that though the fardbeyan was recorded at 4.30 at the hospital, the First Information Report was drawn up on the following day at 12.45 p.m. and it was sent to the Court on 10.11.1995. 17. 1 was drawn up on a got-up story. The fantastic suggestion is made on the ground that though the fardbeyan was recorded at 4.30 at the hospital, the First Information Report was drawn up on the following day at 12.45 p.m. and it was sent to the Court on 10.11.1995. 17. According to us, there was hardly any delay much less any Inordinate delay in receipt of the First Information Report before the Court and on that basis it can hardly be argued that it was a manufactured First Information Report on a got-up story. 18. Lastly counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence took place over something very trivial and it was the result of a quarrel among the brothers, that the appellant clearly did not intend to kill his younger brother and at best it may be a case under Section 304(ii) of the Penal Code. 19. Regretfully, we are unable to accept even this contenuon. It is true that the quarrel took place over a trivial matter but it cannot be overlooked that the appellant went to his house and brought out a spear and when the victim tried to flee away he chased him and when the victim fell down on the ground he gave as many as three blows, every single blow on some vital part of the body. Any one of the three blows might have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill the victim. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the case does not fall under Section 302 of the Penal Code. 20. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the records of the case. We find no merits in this appeal. We are satisfied that this case does not warrant any interference in appeal. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.