Judgment Hari Shankar Prasad, -This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.6.1999 and order of sentence dated 25.6.1999 passed in Session Trial No. 195 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life and further held him guilty under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for eight years but directed both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Sakunti Devi gave a fard-beyan before D.D. Singh, officer-in-charge of. Nagpur Untari PS on 31.12.1995 at 5.00 am in the morning at Nagar Untari PS that on the previous day, her husband (deceased) had received Rupees three thousand from Nagar Untari Block for con7 struction of colony. Her husband came with the money in the evening and after giving meal to in-laws and children. she took meal with her husband. Her mother in-law slept in the room lying west and in the eastern room, she with her nanad Lalti and children and, her husband slept in with room. At about 10.00 pm in the night, there was knock at the door and at the knock of the door, she along with her husband got frightened and out of fear, did not open the door. In the meantime, there was several push with legs three or four times, as a result of which, door opened and two persons entered the room. The miscreants standing on the door flashed torch light in which she identified this appellant who was dressed in shirt and pant and had covered his body with chadar and was having pistol in his hand. The appellant asked her husband to part with the amount which he had received in the Block otherwise he will be shot at. Her husband handed over the amount to him but uttered that he recognizes him as why are you doing so, thereafter he shot one fire which hit the forehead of her husband and he fell down in the room. After firing, miscreants tied away towards river in the south; she thereafter raised alarm whereupon Sunder Uraon, Jagarnath Bhuiyan and others came and she narrated the occurrence to them and they went towards the house of this appellant. After firing, miscreants tied away towards river in the south; she thereafter raised alarm whereupon Sunder Uraon, Jagarnath Bhuiyan and others came and she narrated the occurrence to them and they went towards the house of this appellant. After sometime, they returned back and they took her husband by rickshaw to the hospital where her husband died in course of treatment. She and her nanad have seen another miscreants and she can identify that man. On this piece of fardbeyan, a case bearing Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 104 of 1995 dated 31.12.1995 under Section 396 IPC was registered against Ram Gulami Ram and police after investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 396 IPC and cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the evidence-both oral and documentary-produced on behalf of both sides and ultimately came to a finding and held the appellants• guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 3. Prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses. PW 1 is Lalti Kumari she is sister of the deceased and nanad of the informant. She was sleeping with her brother's children in the room. The appellant asked inmates of the house in the night on the alleged date of occurrence to open the door, but they did not open the door, thereafter he gave push by legs, as a result of which, the door opened and he demanded money from his brother, out of fear, his brother gave money which was relating to the construction of colony. Thereafter her brother told the appellant that he recognizes him and asked him why you do like this. Thereafter, the appellant fired from his pistol. She identifies other man who was with him. Her brother was taken to the hospital where he died. She says that she had seen the appellant from before and house of the informant and appellant lie at a distance of about 200 yards from each other. She has stated that she recognized the appellant from his voice and the miscreants had covered their body up to neck with chadar. One of the two miscreants had a pistol and he had concealed that pistol underneath chadar. She admits that there was land dispute with appellant. 4. PW 2 is Sakunti Devi. She has stated that she recognized the appellant from his voice and the miscreants had covered their body up to neck with chadar. One of the two miscreants had a pistol and he had concealed that pistol underneath chadar. She admits that there was land dispute with appellant. 4. PW 2 is Sakunti Devi. She is the wife of the deceased Sitaram Uraon as well as informant of the case. She has stated that miscreants raised alarm for opening the door but out of fear, none of them opened the door and thereafter miscreants pushed the door three to four times with leg, as a result of which, door opened. The appellant entered the room and he demanded money from her husband whereupon her husband uttered as to why he does like this and money is for construction of colony. She says that appellant was demanding money and he fired upon her husband and he was taken to the hospital where he died. She says that money was that of her Devar for construction of colony. After enquiry, payment was made to her Devar and her husband had kept the money I with him. She says that money was received on Saturday and the same day, occurrence took place. According to her, two miscreants had turned up and one remained outside and other entered the room. She says that she identifies Ram Gulami Ram, the appellant by face. On demand of money, her husband out of fear gave money to the. appellant. She admits that miscreants had covered their face with chadar but to a court question she says that miscreants had covered pistol with chadar but not face. She identifies that men were of her village. She says that she disclosed name of the appellants at the P.S. 5. P.W. 3 is Nakchhedi Ram Bhuiyan. He arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm in the house of deceased Sitaram Uraon he went there and saw family members were weeping. They disclosed name of appellant and disclosed that dacoits had come and they took away rupees three thousand and shot at deceased but he does not know as to who committed this crime. He says that he did not see as to who fired but wife of the deceased Sitaram Uraon and his sister disclosed to him that appellant had fired from his pistol. 6. He says that he did not see as to who fired but wife of the deceased Sitaram Uraon and his sister disclosed to him that appellant had fired from his pistol. 6. PW 4 is Jagarnath Bhuiyan. He says that he arrived at the place after occurrence where he was told by the mother and sister of the deceased that appellant had fired and fled away with money. 7. PW 5 is Birendra Uraon. He also arrived at the place after occurrence and saw Sitaram Uraon injured with firearm injury where his sister, mother and family members disclosed to him about the fact that appellant had fired and fled with money. 8. PW 6 has been tendered. 9. PW 7 is doctor who has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sitaram Uraon and found the following ante mortem injuries. 1. One lacerated wound with inverted margin with signs of burnt of the size 1 1/2" x 1/2" over left forehead with surrounding multiple punctured wound of about 1/4" diameter with bleeding from the wound. 2. Bruise 1" x 1/4" on right side of forehead. 3. Bruise 1 x 1/4" on the mid of forehead. 4. On dissection subcutaneous tissues & skull tally crystallized. Fracture of skull bone on the left side 11 metallic pillettes, on dissection of skull and brain matter. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injury caused by firearm and the time elapsed since death was within 12 to 48 hours. The post mortem report is Ext.-2. 10. PW 8 is a hearsay witness who has gone at the place of occurrence after hearing alarm and heard that appellant had fired. 11. PWs 9 and 10 have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. 12. PW 11 is also hearsay witness who heard the appellant had fired. 13. PW 12 is a witness of formal nature. 14. PW 13 is I.O. of the case. On 31.12.1995 he recorded fard-beyan of Sakunti Devi. He inspected the P.O. According to him, P.O. is two roomed Khapperposh house of the informant situated along with river facing north of Jamua village. He found blood stains on the spot and on bed and on pual, there was blood stains. He seized blood stained cloth, etc. 15. On 31.12.1995 he recorded fard-beyan of Sakunti Devi. He inspected the P.O. According to him, P.O. is two roomed Khapperposh house of the informant situated along with river facing north of Jamua village. He found blood stains on the spot and on bed and on pual, there was blood stains. He seized blood stained cloth, etc. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the I.O. in course of investigation of P.O. seized blood stained fallen on the surface, bed and on pual and also seized blood stained clothes of the deceased, but surprisingly those documents have not been brought on record. Further, I.O. is silent about preparation of inquest report but later on he says that he did not find blood stained on .he surface. It was also pointed out that I.O. in course of investigation did not injuries about the dispute or enmity in between the appellant and the deceased. It was pointed out that investigation has not been properly conducted and in this connection, learned counsel placed reliance upon 2003 S.A.R. (Cri) 300, wherein it has been held that non-preparation of sketch map of spot of occurrence, non-seizure of pellets, non-sending of mattresses and durries alleged to be blood stained for chemical examination created about as to the time of the incident. Reliance was also placed upon 2003 SAR. (Cri) 122, wherein also it has been held that for defective investigation, such as non-preparing of the site plan of place of occurrence samples of blood stained earth not sent for chemical examination and in such a situation, prosecution is rendered unreliable. It was also pointed out that there was no source of light and when there was no source of light, it was difficult to identify in the flash of torch, flashed by appellant while entering the room. It was also pointed out that I.O. has not found that door flanks were found damaged and all these facts point out that investigation was a poor one. Further, there are a number of discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses, while informant says that she disclosed the name of the appellants at the PS and FIR recorded next day of the occurrence. 16. Further, there are a number of discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses, while informant says that she disclosed the name of the appellants at the PS and FIR recorded next day of the occurrence. 16. It is true that from the nature of the investigation conducted by the I.O., it appears that he did not conduct the investigation properly and did not bring the seizure, stains, inquest report, etc. on record. On the other hand, wife of the deceased who is informant of the case and, sister of the deceased have stated that they identified this appellant and they have further stated that deceased was hit on his forehead by firearm only because he identified the appellant and gave suggestion to him as to why he is doing so and since he was identified, that is why he was hit by firearm. Even some of the persons who arrived on hulla also disclosed that they were told by the inmates of the house that this appellant had committed murder of the deceased. Admittedly, deceased was murdered in the room of the house where he was sleeping along with other persons such as his wife, sister, etc. and deceased was not murdered at place where nobody was there. In such a situation, in order to locate the place of occurrence, blood etc. sent for chemical examination to find out whether blood that has been seized is actually human blood or not, so that by chemical analysis it can well be determined that the 'place of occurrence is that place or not. If the blood is found to be not of human blood, then it will be deemed that the deceased was murdered somewhere else and was thrown there and blood of animals has been thrown there to show that the deceased was murdered there. Here in the instant case, deceased was murdered in his house and, therefore, there is no such discrepancy that place of occurrence is that or not, although I.O. has found place of occurrence at that very place. Since murder of deceased had been committed in presence of his wife and his sister, therefore, whatever quantity of blood fell there was that of the deceased and if I.O. commits any mistake in the investigation of the case, then also prosecution case would not suffer because for faulty investigation, prosecution case should not suffer. Since murder of deceased had been committed in presence of his wife and his sister, therefore, whatever quantity of blood fell there was that of the deceased and if I.O. commits any mistake in the investigation of the case, then also prosecution case would not suffer because for faulty investigation, prosecution case should not suffer. In this connection, 2003 Cr.L.J. 3117 may be referred wherein it has been held that error or illegality in investigation will not cause any impact on the trial unless miscarriage of justice is brought out. Further, (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 525 may also be referred, of which Para-8 is quoted herein below : "8. Before however, proceeding with the matter on the counts as above, it would be convenient to note another aspect of the matter, namely, the observations, pertaining to the investigation by the investigating agency. It is how a well-settled principle that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case and we need not dilate on the issue excepting referring to a decision of this Court (Vide State of Rajasthan V. Kishore)." Yet another citation from (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 217 may be referred on this point which further deals with the investigation in respect of bride burning which arose with omission by the I.O. to send the burnt clothes and other incriminating materials for chemical examination. It was held that mere fact that I.O. committed irregularity during the course of investigation, would not cast doubt on the prosecution case. In this connection, Para-18 of the judgment is quoted herein below : "18. It is equally true that the investigating officer PW 8 committed grave irregularity in omitting to send the burnt clothes and other incriminating material for chemical examination to lend corroboration to the evidence. Mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of the investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account. It is seen from the Panchnama recovery of the incriminating material from the scene of offence that there was an attempt to screen the offence by destroying the evidence. Others were prevented from entering the room. It is seen from the Panchnama recovery of the incriminating material from the scene of offence that there was an attempt to screen the offence by destroying the evidence. Others were prevented from entering the room. That by itself indicates an attempt on the part of the accused to destroy the incriminating evidence and to prevent others from saving the life of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of smell of kerosene on the hair sent for chemical examination does not render the dying declaration of the deceased suspect nor' would it become unbelievable. The High Court, therefore, has not considered the evidence in the proper and legal perspective but felt it doubtful like Doubting Thomas with vacillating mind to accept the prosecution case for invalid reasons and wrongly gave to the respondent the benefit of doubt." 17. There is consistent evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that they identified this appellant. Further there is consistent evidence of these two witnesses that the deceased, before he was hit on his head by firing from firearm, had uttered that he identified the appellant and asked as to why he is doing so. Further, PW 4 is Jagarnath Bhuiyan who after alarm went to the residence of the deceased where he was told by the inmates of the house that this appellant had committed murder of the deceased. PW 5, Birendra Uraon is another witness who has arrived on the place of occurrence soon after hearing hulla in the night and he was also told that this appellant has committed •murder. Further, medical evidence also corroborates ocular evidence. However, not proper investigation as discussed will not affect the prosecution case. 18. Considering the submission and evidence on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the manner of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any material to interfere with the finding of the learned court below. 19. In the result, this appeal is dismissed Lakshman Uraon, J.-I agree.