Judgment Hari Shankar Prasad, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.1996 and order of sentence dated 19.12.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 169/95/67/95, whereby and whereunder the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Godda held the appellants guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for life. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that Ashok Kumar Jha (PW 8), informant, gave a written report to the Officer-in-Charge on 6.7.95 stating therein that on 5.7.95 on Wednesday at about 8.30 A.M. tie along with his brother Shayama Kant Jha (deceased) went to Jara Tikar Bahiar of village Jogwadih Dikwani to see his field. His brother Shayama Kant Jha proceeded ahead and he stayed there to answer the call of the nature and when he became free after answering the call of nature, he saw that in the east of the Gochar land, Biro Hazari, Sinod Hazari, Shital Hazari and Hemlal Hazari have surrounded his brother armed with lethal weapons and were assaulting him. His brother fled away from there and reached the Gochar land but he was followed by Binod Hazari, armed with Farsa and others, armed with Lathi & Bhala. Binod Hazari gave a Farsa blow on the head of his brother with force and others assaulted with lath; on the palm of right hand, left leg and back. His brother fell down on the Gochar land. Ramdeo Mandai loudly spoke to them to finish him as enemy should never be left and such an occasion will never come again. Hemlal Hazari and Shital Hazari picked up a branch of Babul tree and kept the same on the neck of his brother and Biro Hazari, Binod Hazari, Shital Hazari and Hemlal Hazari standing on the branch so kept on the neck of his brother and pressed this way or thatway. The informant raised alarm seeing the bad condition of his brother and on his alarm Govind Jha, Mritunjay Hazari, Anil Kumar Jha, Bechan Hazari and Sudin Manjhi came to the P.O. and others also, turned up and seeing them all the accused persons fled away towards south. When he reached along with villagers to the Gochar land, his brother was lying injured. He moved his body this way or that way but he could not utter anything. Huge quantity of blood was oozing out from his head. He was dead. When he reached along with villagers to the Gochar land, his brother was lying injured. He moved his body this way or that way but he could not utter anything. Huge quantity of blood was oozing out from his head. He was dead. Land dispute is main reason for such an occurrence, which is coming for last some years. On this piece of written information Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 76/95 dated 6.7.95 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 302 IPC was registered I.O. after investigation submitted chargesheet in the case. Cognizance in the case was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, after re: cording evidence both oral and documentary produced by both the sides, came to a. finding and found the appellants guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them for life. 3. The case of defence is total denial of occurrence and false implication by the informant as a result of land dispute pending between the parties for the last some years. 4. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. PW 1 is Amir Hazari. PW 2 is Madan Rabidas. PW 3 is Gobind Jha. PW 4 is Dr. Narendra Kumar, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shayama Kant Jha. PW 5 is Mritunjay Hazari. PW 6 is Sudin Manjhi. PW 7 is Kamta Prasad Singh, who is the I.O. of the case and PW 8 is the informant himself. 5. PW 1 is Amir Hazari. He says that he was ploughing field of Madan Rabidas (PW 2) at the relevant time of occurrence and the deceased Shyama Kant Jha had gone to see his field in Tintara Tikar, Shyama Kant Jha was at a distance of about 10 yards away from this witness who was ploughing field and there was a bush and from there Shyama Kant Jha raised alarm requesting others to come to his rescue as he was being assaulted. He rushed to the place and saw four or five persons running away and identifies them as Binod Hazari, Hemlal Hazari, Biro Hazari, Ramdeo Mandal. He further deposes that Binod Hazari armed with Pharsa and others were armed with lathi. When he went near Shyama Kant Jha, he saw branch of Babbool tree kept on the neck of the deceased. 6. PW 2 is Madan Rabidas. He further deposes that Binod Hazari armed with Pharsa and others were armed with lathi. When he went near Shyama Kant Jha, he saw branch of Babbool tree kept on the neck of the deceased. 6. PW 2 is Madan Rabidas. He says that when he was ploughing field at the relevant time of occurrence he saw Shyama Kant Jha (deceased) going and when he reached near Tikar, there was a bush where four or five persons who were sitting there concealing themselves allowed Shyama Kant Jha to proceed ahead. Soon thereafter appellants assaulted Shyama Kant Jha on his head, as a result of which, he fell on the ground, thereafter three feet long lathl of Babool tree was kept on the neck of Shyama Kant Jha and all the appellants pressed lathi, as a result of which, Shyama Kant Jha died. This witness has named Biro Hazari, Binod Hazari, Hemlal Hazari, Sheetal Hazari and Ramdeo Mandai as assailants and stated that they were five in number. He identified the appellants standing there and he named all the f1ve persons. He says that he was ploughing field of Bhagwan Ojha and admits that five to six bighas away from the place of occurrence is the field of Bhagwan Ojha and he moved only after Shyama Kant Jha had fallen on the ground and it took about 1520 minutes in reaching there and when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw Shyama Kant Jha dead. He says that when Shyama Kant Jha was going, just behind him was Ashok Kumar Jha who is informant of the case. He has stated that PW 8 had raised alarm. 7. PW 3 is Gobind Jha. He says that at about 8.30-9.00 AM he was getting his field ploughed by Amir Hazari (PW1). He further deposed that Ashok Kumar Jha (PW8) raised alarm that his brother has been killed and on this alarm, he went there where he saw Shyama Kant Jha dead. He saw all the appellants had put a danda of Babbool tree on the neck of Shyama Kant Jha and pressed the same. He further deposes that Ramdeo Mandai had instigated others not to leave him otherwise he will give trouble in future. Others also came on the alarm of PW 8 and appellants fled away towards south. He saw all the appellants had put a danda of Babbool tree on the neck of Shyama Kant Jha and pressed the same. He further deposes that Ramdeo Mandai had instigated others not to leave him otherwise he will give trouble in future. Others also came on the alarm of PW 8 and appellants fled away towards south. There was land dispute in between the parties, as a result of which this occurrence has taken place. He says that he arrived at the place of occurrence prior to PW8 (informant) and Amir Hazari (PW1). But he further deposes that within five minutes of alarm, he had reached at the P.O. He further deposes that persons who were ploughing field in the nearby area were Madan Rabidas (PW 2) and, others fled away. He further deposes that he saw Shyama Kant Jha fallen on the ground and appellants were pressing his neck with lathi. He admits that the deceased is his own brother. 8. PW 5 is Mirtunjay Hazari. His name has come in the written report of P.W.8. This witness deposed that on hulla when he went to the place of occurrence, appellants had fled away and PW2 and PW8 were there. He saw the dead body of Shyama Kant Jha and he also saw injury on the head of deceased. He also found sign of lathi of Babbool tree. He further deposes that he had not seen any appellant running away from the place of occurrence and he heard that appellants had fled away. 9. PW 6 is Sudin Manjhi, who, has come to say that he was working in Bahiyar when there was alarm near Tintara Tikar and he went there and saw the dead body of Shyama Kant Jha and blood was oozing out from the head and he saw PW8 and PW4 there, but he did not inquire about the occurrence. He has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. 10. PW 8 is Ashok Kumar Jha, who is informant as well as eye witness of the case. He has come to depose that on the alleged date of occurrence, both he and his brother Shyama Kant Jha were going to their field at about 9.30 am. He has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. 10. PW 8 is Ashok Kumar Jha, who is informant as well as eye witness of the case. He has come to depose that on the alleged date of occurrence, both he and his brother Shyama Kant Jha were going to their field at about 9.30 am. He sat at the place for answering the call of nature, but his brother Shyama Kant Jha (deceased) went ahead where work of cutting tree was going on. When his brother was about 200 yards away from him where he was sitting, the appellants Binod Hazari armed with Pharsa without saying anything gave Pharsa blow on the head of Shyama Kant Jha, as a result of which, he fell down and thereafter Binod Hazari, Sheetal Hazari, Hernial Hazari assaulted his brother with lathi and appellant Ramdeo Mandai instigated from the distance •in loud voice not to leave Shyama Kant Jha and instigated them to commit his murder. Thereafter they brought lathi of Babbool tree and kept on the neck of Shyama Kant Jha and pressed the same and seeing this state of affairs, this witness raised alarm in loud voice and on his hulla, persons who were ploughing field rushed and among them Amir Hazari (PW1), Madan Rabidas (PW2) rushed to him and thereafter Mirtunjay Hazari (PW5) and also turned up and thereafter Gobind Jha (PW3) also came there. Appellants then fled away towards south and when he reached near Shyama Kant Jha, by the time he had died. He thereafter sent choukidarto Godda PS and from there, he went to the school of his elder brother and informed him and called him and he returned back from there, till then officer-in-charge had not come. Then he proceeded to Poraiyahat PS in the evening but officer-in-charge refused to come to P.O. saying that he does not go out in the night. In the morning, officer-in-charge came to the P.O. and seized lathi as well as blood stained soil. He handed over written report about the occurrence to the officer-in-charge at the PS (Ext. 1). 11. PW4 is Dr. Narendra Kumar. He has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shyama Kant Jha. According to him, on 6.7.1995 he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shyama Kant Jha and found the following ante mortem injuries. He handed over written report about the occurrence to the officer-in-charge at the PS (Ext. 1). 11. PW4 is Dr. Narendra Kumar. He has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shyama Kant Jha. According to him, on 6.7.1995 he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shyama Kant Jha and found the following ante mortem injuries. a. A bruise 3”x2" over lower part of the neck below the yorid cartilage. That was mainly on the left side going hormonal to right and crossing the midline. This was caused by strangulation. b. Incised wound 2”x1" bone deep over the vertex 'of the skull. c. An incised wound 1”x1”x3" over right hand between thumb and index finger. These were caused by, sharp weapons. Nature-simple injury No. 1 was grievous. d. Diffused swelling 3”x3" over lower part of the left forearm with factum of both radius and alma caused by hard and blunt substance grievous. e. Besides two abrasions one abrasion 3"x1" one upper part of the front of left leg. Another abrasion 1"x1” over inner side of lover lower part of the left leg caused by hard and blunt substance and are simple. 3. On dissection, the brain has congested. 4. On dissection of neck, there was, extra vexation of blood into the Shubuta moustissues urea. The bruise mark Adjacent muscle of neck lacerated. Laceration of sheath (core) of carotid aided ruptured. 5. Larynx and trachea was congested and contained, frothy mucus. 6. On examination of thorax NAD the larynx was congested with haemorrhagic patches and pastiche. (small haemorrhage). 7. On dissection of lung dark fluid blood carve out. Heart right side full of dark fluid blood. Left side empty. 8. Abdomen, Liver Splenava, Kidneys, were coughed. 9. Stomach bauhially digested food mixed with gestic juice. 10. Urinary bladder about 30 ML of urine. 11. Zenelaia NAD. 12. Time since death within 48 hours. 13. Cause of death-in my opinion, asphyxia a result of strangulation. According to him cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. 12. While assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that not a single independent witness has been examined in the case and all the witnesses who have been examined in this case are interested ones. It was also pointed out that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence correctly and has come to a wrong finding. While assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that not a single independent witness has been examined in the case and all the witnesses who have been examined in this case are interested ones. It was also pointed out that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence correctly and has come to a wrong finding. It was further pointed out that not a single eyewitness has seen that occurrence and all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses and they have not seen the occurrence. It was also pointed out that there is delay in lodging of the FIR and in order to falsely implicate the appellants and to make out a case against them, delay was made in lodging of the FIR before PS and the informant instead of going to the PS went to Godda to inform his elder brother and there, he has hatched up conspiracy with brother and then came and gave his fardbeyan. 13. On the other hand, PW3 was getting his land ploughed by PW1 and PW1 has also given similar evidence. PWs 1,2,3 and 4 have fully supported the prosecution case, though there is some contradiction in the evidence of PWs 3, 1 and a but PW3 says that he arrived at the spot and saw the deceased dead and soon thereafter PW8 arrived there. PW 1 has also stated that he was ploughing the field and on the alarm he went there and saw the deceased lying dead there. Similar is the evidence of PW2 whereas PW 2 says that he saw the deceased going and just before him PW8 was following the deceased and he had raised alarm. PW4 has found the cause of death as Asphyxia caused by strangulation and from the evidence of PWs 1,2,3 and a, it is clear that neck of the deceased Shyama Kant Jha was pressed by keeping the branch of Babbool tree on his neck and the same was pressed by the appellants, as a result of which Shyama Kant Jha died immediately. Thus, there is legal piece of evidence of cause of death, besides witnesses with minor contradiction have fully supported the prosecution case. 14. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned court below and it is accordingly dismissed.