JUDGMENT Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. The sole appellant Jafar Khan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18th March, 1997, passed by Smt. Shakuntla Sinha, learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi), in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 1994/ Tr. No. 59 of 1996, whereby and where-under, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, based on the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of Tua Munda (Pahan), recorded on 23.3,1994 at 21.30 hours at Village-Tapeshra, is that on 23.3.1994 he along with Mahmood Khan alias Tena (deceased) was returning from Jaltanda Market on their respective bicycles and reached Village-Tapeshra at about 5.00 p.m. The villager Jafar Khan (appellant), younger brother of Mahmood Khan, along with his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan followed them on their respective bicycles. They caught the collar of Mahmood Khan and dashed him down. Both of them assaulted him in the field by the side of the road. When Mahmood Khan fell down, then appellant Jafar Khan took the big chhura from the hand of his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan and assaulted several times on the back and abdomen of Mahmood Khan alias Tena. When the informant tried to rescue, he was threatened to be killed. When he raised alarm, the villagers of Tapeshra assembled there and chased both the assailants. Jafar Khan was apprehended along with blood stained Chhura whereas his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan managed to escape. Mahmood Khan alias Tena died at the spot as there was grievous injuries on his abdomen. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 4), recorded by S.I. B.P. Sharma of Karra Police Station. Karra P.S. Case No. 12 of 1994 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the assailants. As Mumtaz Khan absconded, hence charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code only against Jafar Khan, showing his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan absconder. Learned Court below framed the charge against the sole appellant Jafar Khan under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and recorded the evidence of altogether nine witnesses, produced by the prosecution, to prove the charge. 3. Learned Court below framed the charge against the sole appellant Jafar Khan under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and recorded the evidence of altogether nine witnesses, produced by the prosecution, to prove the charge. 3. PW 1 Shairun Khatoon is the widow of the deceased and is a hearsay witness. PW 2 Kalyan Sanga is a witness on the inquest report. He has proved his signature and the signature of another witness on the inquest report (Exts. 1 and 1/1 respectively), PW 3 Salem Khan is the witness, who carried the dead body from the place of occurrence to Khunti. PW 4 Ismail Khan is the father of the deceased, who is also a hearsay witness. PW 5 Lalwa Munda did not support the prosecution case and hence has been declared hostile. PW 6 Dr. B. Ekka has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Mahmood Khan alias Tena. PW 7 Tua Pahan is the informant of the case, who is the only eye witness of the alleged occurrence, who was returning home along with the deceased on their respective bicycles from bazar. PW 8 Debo Pahan is the only witness of Village-Tapesh-ra, which is near the place of occurrence. He was returning to his village from the same bazar Jaltanda. He had gone to the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and chased the assailants along with other villagers of Tapeshra and caught this appellant Jafar Khan with blood stained big chhura (dagger) in his hand along with the bicycle. PW 9 Banwari Lal Jaiswal, a formal witness, has proved the formal First Information Report, fardbeyan and the inquest report (Exts. 3, 4 and 5 respectively), which are in the pen and signature of B.P. Sharma, the then Officer-in-charge, Karra Police Station. 4. The learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, on the basis of the sole eye witness PW 7 Tua Pahan, corroborated by PW 8 Debo Pahan and the evidence of PW 6 Dr. B. Ekka, found the prosecution case proved under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole appellant, resulting his conviction and sentence thereunder. 5. The defence case is simply denial of the commission of the alleged occurrence and false implication of this appellant. B. Ekka, found the prosecution case proved under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole appellant, resulting his conviction and sentence thereunder. 5. The defence case is simply denial of the commission of the alleged occurrence and false implication of this appellant. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has taken the plea that he and his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan along with his brother Mahmood Khan (deceased) had gone market to sell goats. His brother Mahmood was murdered by Tua Munda. However, he has declined to examine any defence witness to substantiate his allegation that Tua Munda (Pahan) murdered his brother Mahmood. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not examined any eye witness of Village-Tapeshra and the conviction and sentence, passed by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, based only on the basis of sole eye witness Tua Munda (Pahan) is not reliable and has relied upon a case, reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 613: 1999 (2) East Cr C 131 (Pat), Sonu Sao and Ors. v. The State of Bihar. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that in this case I.O. has not been examined, which has caused prejudice to the appellant. The seized dagger has also not been produced in course of trial in the Court below. It was also submitted that the sole eye witness PW 7 Tua Pahan in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) has not alleged that Mumtaz Khan, brother-in-law of the appellant Jafar Khan, gave dagger blows on the person of Mahmood Khan whereas he has improved his version in course of evidence in Court that Mumtaz stabbed 5 to 6 times with Chhura on the person of Mahmood and when Mahmood alias Tena fell down, then Jafar Khan fap-pellant) took Chhura from the hand of his brother-in-law Mumtaz and stabbed on the abdomen of Mahmood. 7. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is quite different in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is quite different in the facts and circumstances of this case. It was submitted that in the present case, the only eye witness Tua Pahan PW 7 has not given any contradictory statement regarding the place of occurrence and the manner of the occurrence, which was also corroborated by the doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Mahmood Khan whereas in the case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, sole eye witness had contradicted his statement, which also could not be corroborated by the medical evidence. The I.O. seized blood stained big chuura (dagger) from the place of occurrence, which is the field of Mangu Pahan at Village Tapeshra, and prepared seizure list (Ext. 6) in presence of the witnesses, who signed on It (Ext. 6/1). The evidence of the eye witness was also corroborated by PW 6 Dr. B. Ekka, who conducted post-mortem examination and prepared post-mortem Report (Ext. 2). Learned A.P.P. has relied upon a case, reported in 2002 (2) East Cr C 75 Charku Kharia and Ors. v. The State, in which the sole eye witness has not contradicted his statement, which was corroborated by the medical evidence. 8. In the present case the I.O. has not been examined but the only eye- witness PW 7 Tua Pahan has not contradicted his statement, recorded by the I.O. under Section 161. Cr PC. He was not suggested anything contrary to his statement, which may cause prejudice to the appellant. This witness PW 7 Tua Pahan is the sole eye-witness, who was returning home from Jaltanda bazar and reached Village-Tapeshra. As at that time it was 5.00 p.m. in the month of March, so there was no problem of identification of the assailants. The appellant along with his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan followed them on their respective bicycles and dashed Mahmood Khan. His collar was caught and was assaulted by both the assailants, namely, the appellant Jafar Khan and his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan. There is averment of the sole eye-witness that both the assailants assaulted Mahmood Khan and the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) is very clear in this respect. His collar was caught and was assaulted by both the assailants, namely, the appellant Jafar Khan and his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan. There is averment of the sole eye-witness that both the assailants assaulted Mahmood Khan and the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) is very clear in this respect. When Mahmood Khan fell down by the side of the road in the field, then this appellant Jafar Khan took dagger from the hand of Mumtaz Khan and stabbed in the abdomen and back of Mahmood Khan. When the Informant PW 7 raised alarms, as per his fardbeyan (Ext. 4), the villagers of Tapeshra went there and chased the assailants. PW 8 Debo Pahan is the resident of Village- Tapeshra. He was also returning home from Jaltanda bazar and heard alarms of Tua Pahan (PW 7) whereupon he went there and saw one person murdered. He also saw two persons fleeing away. He along with his villagers chased them and one of them was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Jafar Khan. He had a big blood stained Chhura. The another assailant managed to escape away, At that very place of occurrence, the police arrived to whom this appellant along with blood stained dagger was handed over. The I.O. seized two bicycles from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list (Ext. 6/1). He also seized the blood stained big dagger (Chhura) and prepared seizure list (Ext. 6). He also prepared the inquest report of deceased Mahmood Khan (Ext. 5). All these documents show that the place of occurrence was Village-Tapeshra, just by the side of clay- built road in the field of Mangu Pahan. Thus, it is evident from the evidence of PW 8 who is an independent witness of Village-Tapeshra, that on hearing alarm of PW 7 he went there, saw the dead body and also saw two persons fleeing away. He along with other villagers chased and apprehended this appellant along with his bicycle as also blood stained chhura and brought him to the place of occurrence. He also saw the dead body at the place of occurrence with bleeding injuries on the back and abdomen of the deceased. The injuries, as deposed by PW 7 that the assailants stabbed the deceased on the back and abdomen and the bleeding injuries seen by PW 8 have been corroborated by Dr. He also saw the dead body at the place of occurrence with bleeding injuries on the back and abdomen of the deceased. The injuries, as deposed by PW 7 that the assailants stabbed the deceased on the back and abdomen and the bleeding injuries seen by PW 8 have been corroborated by Dr. B. Ekka PW 6, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mahmood Khan on 24.3.1994 at 11.45 a.m. and found the following injuries : (i) Punctured wound over abdomen 2" above and lateral (left) to the umbilicus 3/4" x 1/4" x 1". The omentum was cut. (ii) Stab wound on the abdpmen 2" above and right to the umbilicus 3/4" x 1/4" x 1" (deep). Skin and omentum were cut. (iii) Incised wound on the middle of the back over thoracic area 2" x 1/2" x 1" cutting the 12th thoracic vertebra. (iv) Incised wound on medial border of scapula (left) 1" x 1/4" x 1/2". (v) Incised wound over the nape of neck 1-1/2" x 1/2" x 1" cutting the muscles and adjoining vertebra. (vi) Puncutured wound over right side of abdomen 3/4" x 1/4" x 1-1/2" cutting the omentum and small intestines. The doctor also found abdominal cavity full of blood and blood mixed fluid and small intestine cut. The cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to the above injuries, which were ante-mortem in nature caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon and sharp cutting heavy weapon, such as, dagger and axe, within 36 hours. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Ext. 2 is the post-mortem report in the pen and signature of Dr. B. Ekka PW 6. 9. Ext 4 and Ext. 3 show that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.3.1994 at 5.00 p.m. The doctor PW 6 conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Mahmood Khan on 24.3.1994 at 11.45 a.m. He opined that the time elapsed since death was within 36 hours, which corroborates the time of the occurrence, as alleged in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4). In the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) the informant has stated that both the assailants assaulted Mahmood Khan (deceased) with big chhura on his back and abdomen, 5 to 6 times, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW 6 Dr. B. Ekka. 4). In the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) the informant has stated that both the assailants assaulted Mahmood Khan (deceased) with big chhura on his back and abdomen, 5 to 6 times, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW 6 Dr. B. Ekka. The independent witness PW 8 Debo Pahan went there along with other villagers on alarms and saw the dead body with bleeding injuries on his back and abdomen. They chased and apprehended this appellant along with his bicycle and blood stained big chhura The I.O. seized all these articles at the spot itself, which are Exts. 6 and 6/1 and also prepared the inquest report (Ext. 5) at the spot in presence of the witnesses. Thus, the non-examination of the I.O. has not left any doubt regarding the place of occurrence, seizure of blood stained big Chhura (dagger) and two old bicycles. PW 7 the informant in his fardbeyan and also in course of his evidence has deposed that he and the deceased were on their respective bicycles and so also both the assailants were on their respective bicycles. One bicycle must be of the deceased and the another one belongs to this appellant, who was caught by the villagers of Tapeshra. Thus, the seizure list (Ext. 6/2) showing seizure of two old bicycles by the I.O. at the place of occurrence is well established. The informant PW 7, who is of Village-Padampur, the village of the deceased and the appellant, is independent, reliable and truthful eye-witness. He had no enmity with the appellant and so also PW 8 Debo Pahan is the independent witness of Village-Tapeshra. Although he had not seen the appellant causing any stab injury on the person of Mahmood Khan, but on the alarm raised by PW 7 Tua Munda, he went there and saw the dead body of Mahmood Khan. He along with other villagers of Tapeshra also saw two person fleeing away from the place of occurrence. They chased and apprehended this appellant along with blood stained dagger and bicycle. This supports the case of the prosecution, as alleged by PW 7 Tua Munda in his fardbeyan. His evidence stands corroborated in this respect. PW 7 has no animus to depose falsely. Hence, I do not find any cogent reason to disbelieve the evidence of these independent witnesses i.e. PW 7 and PW 8, whose evidence stands corroborated by PW 6 Dr. His evidence stands corroborated in this respect. PW 7 has no animus to depose falsely. Hence, I do not find any cogent reason to disbelieve the evidence of these independent witnesses i.e. PW 7 and PW 8, whose evidence stands corroborated by PW 6 Dr. B. Ekka. 10. The informant in his fardbeyan (Ext. 4) has not alleged any motive for the alleged commission of murder of Mahmood Khan alias Tena by his brother Jafar Khan and his brother-in-law Mumtaz Khan. PW 4 Ismail Khan is the father of the deceased and the appellant. He was informed in the village by Tua Munda (Pahan) about the alleged occurrence. He also informed Shairun Khatoon, widow of Mahmood Khan. Both these witnesses are hearsay witness and deposed as informed by PW 7 Tua Munda. PW 1 Shairum Khatoon has disclosed in her evidence the motive for the commission of murder by this appellant which is to the effect that the appellant used to take loan from the deceased and when he was asked to return the said loan, he used to pick up quarrel. However, in her cross-examination, she has deposed that the deceased has left demanding the return of the loan from the appellant. She has admitted that her husband had no enmity with the brother-in- law of appellant Jafar Khan. PW 4 Ismail Khan, father of the deceased and the appellant, has also stated that they all were living separately from each other. He had never seen differences in between the deceased and the appellant. In a murder case, where motive and genesis of the alleged occurrence has not been mentioned, it need not required to be proved by any evidence, specially when there is direct ocular evidence on the record of reliable independent and natural witnesses regarding the commission of the murder. On the other hand, the plea of the defence that the informant Tua Pahan (Munda) himself murderd Mahmood Khan, can not be believed without any supporting and reliable evidence. The appellant has simply taken a plea without any proof that Tua Munda (Pahan) himself murdered Mahmood Khan while they were returning from bazar. Therefore the defence version is not at all probable, 11. The appellant has simply taken a plea without any proof that Tua Munda (Pahan) himself murdered Mahmood Khan while they were returning from bazar. Therefore the defence version is not at all probable, 11. In view of these considered facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, I find that the learned Court below has arrived at a correct finding while convicting the sole appellant and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 12. In the result, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi), In Sessions Trial No. 501 of 1994 are hereby affirmed and this Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. Vishnudeo Narayan, J. I agree. .