Judgment Lakshman Uraon, J.- Both the criminal appeals arise out of the conviction and sentence dated 9.1.1998 and 12.1.1998 respectively passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II. Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1997 (G.R. No. 149 of 1996). Hence both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment of this Court. 2. All the five appellants of both the appeals were convicted by the learned Court below under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred these appeals. 3. The case of the prosecution has arisen on the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of informant Churamani Devi (P.W. 1) who is wife of deceased Dalgovind Singh Munda, recorded on 15.3.1996 at 14 hours at village Jojohatu, District-Ranchi by S.I. D.N. Saha, 1.0. (P.W. 9), Officer-in-Charge, Arki PS. Informant Churamani Devi and her mother PW 4 Samualla Devi were sleeping at home in the night of 14.3.1996. Her son PW 2 Birendra @ Devendra Munda and her husband Dalgovind Singh Munda had gone to sleep at Khalihan in a hut made of straws (Kumba) to watch Mahua and Pulse lying on the Khalihan. Father of informant Churamani Devi, namely, Sukhlal Munda had died 25 years ago leaving her as the only issue. Even after her marriage, she and her husband were living with her mother Samualla Devi at Village Jojohatu. In the night of 14.3.1996 (Thursday), her husband and son Birendra Singh Munda had gone to sleep on the Khalihan in a straw-made hut. At about 11.30 p.m. night, Birendra Singh Munda rushed to his home in a perplexed condition who on query by the informant, informed that while he was sleeping inside the straw-made hut along with his father, the gate covered with Bamboo Chachri was removed by the appellants. Then he woke up and saw 4-5 persons dragging his father by catching hold of him outside the bamboo fence. Outside the straw-made hut, all of them gave Daun blows to his father. He informed the appellants Mahendra Singh Munda, Rajendra Singh Munda, Fagu Singh Munda, Gurwa Singh Munda and Jiv Lal Singh Munda were the assailants. Informant (PW. 1) and her mother (PW 4) rushed to their Khalihan and saw all the five appellants fleeing away towards north. Outside the straw-made hut, all of them gave Daun blows to his father. He informed the appellants Mahendra Singh Munda, Rajendra Singh Munda, Fagu Singh Munda, Gurwa Singh Munda and Jiv Lal Singh Munda were the assailants. Informant (PW. 1) and her mother (PW 4) rushed to their Khalihan and saw all the five appellants fleeing away towards north. They saw Dalgovind Singh Munda injured seriously and was struggling for life with blood oozing out. Dalgovind Singh Munda informed his wife (PW 1) and her mother (P.W 4) that appellants Mahendra Singh Munda, Rajendra Singh Munda, Fagu Singh Munda, Gurwa Sigh Munda and Jiv Lal Singh Munda injured him with Dalvi and now he would not survive. Sometimes thereafter he breathed his last. The alleged occurrence took place only because mother of the informant. PW 4, had filed a petition for permission to transfer her entire lands in favour of the informant (her daughter) and deceased Dalgovind Singh Munda (her son-in-law) which was objected by these appellants. The appellants were threatening that they would not allow possessing the lands rather they will cultivate all the lands belonging to PW 4 which was left by her husband situated at village Jojohatu. They had threatened the informant and her husband to leave the village and go to her matrimonial village Sinduari. On the basis of the fardbeyan, formal FIR (Ext. 4) was drawn and chargesheet was submitted against all these appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. 4. All the appellants were charged under Section 302/34 IPC. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellants. PW. 1 (informant) and her mother Samualla Devi (PW 4) rushed to the Khalihan when informed by PW 2 Birendra @ Devendra Munda that his father was dragged out of the straw-made hut on the Khalihan and outside the straw made hut, he was given Dauli blows. They rushed there and saw all the appellants fleeing away towards north. PW 2 Birendra @ Devendra Munda is the son of the deceased and the only eyewitness. PW 5 Jagarnath Mahto of village Jojohatu is tendered witness. PW 6 Mahesh Mahato of Jojohatu on 14.3.1996 when called by Pw. 4 Samualla Devi went to her house and saw the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. pw. PW 5 Jagarnath Mahto of village Jojohatu is tendered witness. PW 6 Mahesh Mahato of Jojohatu on 14.3.1996 when called by Pw. 4 Samualla Devi went to her house and saw the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. pw. 7 Dubraj Singh Munda of the same village has deposed that PW 4 Samualla Devi had no son except the only daughter Churamani Devi (PW. 1). So she had kept her daughter (PW-1) and son-in-law (deceased) in her house as Gharjamai. He was looking all the agricultural works of PW. 4. Appellants Mahendra Singh Munda, Rajendra Munda, Gurwa Munda, Jiv Lal Singh Munda and Fagu Singh Munda were threatening Dalgovind Singh Munda to kill him so that Samualla Devi may not transfer her lands to him and his wife (the informant). This witness pw. 7 was informed by pw. 4 that the appellants murdered Dalgovind Singh Munda on the Khalihan When he went there, he saw the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda in front of the gate of hutment on the Khalihan. pw. 8 Budhan Lal Singh Munda of Sinduari village is the brother-in law of the informant. On information on 15.3.1996 he went to village Jojohatu and thereafter he went to Police Station and took the police to village Jojohatu. He saw the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda where the police prepared inquest report on which he signed (Ext. 2/1). He was informed by Samualla Devi (Pw. 4) that due to enmity, these appellants murdered Dalgovind Singh Munda. pw. 9 is D.N. Saha, I.O. of this case, who after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti relied the evidence of pw. 2 Birendra @ Devendra Munda which was corroborated by pw. 1, his mother, and pw. 4, his grand mother, before whom deceased Dalgovind Singh Munda had made extra-judicial confession that these appellants injured him with Daun and on being convicted on the testimony of sole eyewitness pw. 2, disbelieved minor contradictions which were found in the evidence of pw. 3 Dr. Lalita Verma who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda and the evidence of pw. 9 D.N. Saha, I.O. who was virtually gained over by the defence, convicted these appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. 5. 3 Dr. Lalita Verma who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda and the evidence of pw. 9 D.N. Saha, I.O. who was virtually gained over by the defence, convicted these appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. 5. Assailing the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the criminal appeals have submitted that the alleged eyewitness pw. 2 Birendra is not the eyewitness as he is not a charge-sheet witness. His identity appears to be doubtful. He claims to have fled away from the straw-made hut by breaking open its back, but the 1.0. (Pw.9) did not find the straw-made hut (Kumba) broken. The I.O. has also not found any Mahua and Pulse on the Khalihan. Hence the statement that the deceased and his son had gone to watch Pulse and Mahua and were sleeping on the Khalihan inside the Kumba is also falsified. pw. 2, who claims to be the eyewitness, would not have been spared by these appellants and would have been eliminated along with his father to screen themselves from legal punishment. There was no source of identification of the appellants at the Khalihan. Hence, making identification of these appellants at night is doubtful. pw. 1 and pw. 2 have deposed that when they rushed to the P/O, then injured Dalgovind Singh Munda made extra-judicial confession that these appellants injured him by causing injuries with Dauli, but the doctor (Pw. 3) has deposed that when such grievous injuries were found on the person of Dalgovind Singh Munda then it was not possible for him to talk in view of the nature of injuries and there might have been his instantaneous death. The I.O. (P.w. 9) did not find any lantern at the Khalihan, nor he seized any materials including bloodstained soil at the P/O. The inquest report (Ext. 5) belies the statement of PWs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 that the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda was found at home; rather it was in front of straw-made Kumba on the Khalihan. pw. 1 has not stated before the I.O. (Pw. 5) belies the statement of PWs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 that the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda was found at home; rather it was in front of straw-made Kumba on the Khalihan. pw. 1 has not stated before the I.O. (Pw. 9) that her hushand disclosed the names of the assailants in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Although there were other villagers available at night, who had assembled there, but they have not been• examined by the prosecution. It was further argued that there is delay in receiving the FIR in the Court only to avail the opportunity to concoct and embellish the prosecution case. pw. 1 and pw. 2 Mahendra Singh and Moti Chand Choudhary have deposed that G.R. Clerk Mahendra Singh received FIR on 18.3.1996 from the A.P.P. Office, Khunti. pw. 2 Moti Chand Choudhary has proved the signature and endorsement of the A.P.P. (Ext. A) dated 16.3.1996 on the FIR, whereas the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 14.3.1996. The fardbeyan was recorded on 15.3.1996 at 14.00 hours and the FIR was also registered at 23.00•hours on 15.3.1996. It was sent to the Court on 16.3.1996, but it was received in the Court after one-day delay i.e. on 18.3.1996. On these grounds, it was submitted that the appellants deserve acquittal giving benefits of doubts to them. 6. Learned A.P.P. in both the criminal appeal has submitted that the learned Court below has meticulously considering all the eventualities of the prosecution case had valued the evidence of interested only eyewitness pw. 2 Birendra @ Devendra Munda. The identification of Birendra @ Devendra Munda is not doubted only because his alias name is Devendra Munda. The I.O. purposely did not mention his alias name who had slept along with his father at night and saw the occurrence that two appellants Gurwa Singh Munda and Fagu Singh Munda dragged his father out of the straw-made hut (Kumba). Thereafter all the appellants, 5 in number, assaulted with Dauli on the person of Dalgovind Singh Munda causing grievous injuries and subsequently he succumbed to those injuries. pw. 2 managed to escape from the back portion of straw made Kumba and rushed to his home and informed his mother pw. 1 and grand mother PW 4. pw. 1 and pw. 4 rushed there taking lantern. pw. 2 managed to escape from the back portion of straw made Kumba and rushed to his home and informed his mother pw. 1 and grand mother PW 4. pw. 1 and pw. 4 rushed there taking lantern. On the Khalihan also a lantern was burning outside the gate of straw-made hut (Kumba). They saw all the appellants fleeing away from the Khali17an towards north. They took the injured to their home. Before them injured Dalgovind Singh Munda made extra-judicial confession that all these appellants injured him with Oauli. A village nurse, Shanti Kujur, was called who bandaged the injured Dalgovind Singh Munda. Thereafter he succumbed to his injuries. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that virtually the I.O. (p.w. 9) has supported the appellants and has done investigation in a very perfunctory manner. He found the bloodstained soil outside the gate of Kumba on the Khalihan, but he did not seize any materials there, rather he has deposed that there was no pulse or Mahua on the Khalihan whereas all the other witnesses, PWs. 1, 2 and 4, have deposed that P.W. 2 and his father Dalgovind Singh Munda had gone to sleep on the Khalihan in a hut made of straw only to watch Mahua and Pulse which was on the Khalihan where a lantern was burning. It was further submitted that the dead body was lying at the door of the house of the informant as the injured Dalgovind Singh Munda was taken there from the Khalihan, where nurse was called who bandaged on the injuries of Dalgovind Singh Munda. The 1.0. in the inquest report (Ext. 5) has mentioned that the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda was lying in front of the straw-made hut (Kumba) on the Khalihan. The evidence of Pw. 3 Dr. Lalita Verma to the extent that as a total result of all the injuries the injured might have died instantaneously, is also not in conformity with the evidence of pw. 1, pw. 2 and pw. 4 who have deposed that Dalgovind Singh Munda was alive and was struggling for his life at Khalihan who was taken to his home and nurse Shanti Kujur was called who bandaged the injured Dalgovind Singh Munda and not the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda. pw. 3 Dr. 1, pw. 2 and pw. 4 who have deposed that Dalgovind Singh Munda was alive and was struggling for his life at Khalihan who was taken to his home and nurse Shanti Kujur was called who bandaged the injured Dalgovind Singh Munda and not the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda. pw. 3 Dr. Lalita Verma who conducted autopsy on the dead body, has found all the injuries of the deceased covered with bandage. This shows that Dalgovind Singh Munda had not died instantaneously. The injuries were on the back side of his neck. It was only linear injury cutting 3/4th on the back portion of the neck leaving the vocal cord unhurt. So he was in a position to speak and to disclose the name of all the appellants as assailants on his person. On these grounds, it was submitted that the learned Court below has rightly convicted all these appellants and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. 7. In this present case, no village independent eyewitness has come forward to corroborate the prosecution case. The genesis of the alleged occurrence has been stated by PWs 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 that husband of pw. 4 died 25 years prior to the date of the alleged occurrence leaving his widow and the informant as the only daughter. After marriage, pw. 1 Churamani Devi was living in the village of her mother along with her husband Dalgovind Singh Munda who were cultivating her lands PW. 4 Samualla Devi had filed permission petition to transfer the entire lands left by her husband in favour of her daughter (PW. 1) and son-in law Dalgovind Singh Munda, now deceased, which was objected by these appellants being agnates of late Sukhlal Munda, deceased husband of PW. 4 Samaulla Devi. Due to that enmity, the alleged occurrence took place. The prosecution witnesses have proved the motive of the alleged murder of Dalgovind Singh Munda. The only eyewitness PW. 2, aged about 12 years on the day of his deposition on 24th April, 1997, was studying in Class III and was fully competent to understand the question when tested by the Court before which he was examined as a witness. The prosecution witnesses have proved the motive of the alleged murder of Dalgovind Singh Munda. The only eyewitness PW. 2, aged about 12 years on the day of his deposition on 24th April, 1997, was studying in Class III and was fully competent to understand the question when tested by the Court before which he was examined as a witness. He has deposed that he and his father Dalgovind Singh Munda had gone to watch Mahua and Pulse lying on the Khalihan They were sleeping in a straw made hut (Kumba) and there was bamboo fence on the gate. At that night, he woke up on the sound of opening bamboo fence. He saw appellants Gurwa Munda and Fagu Munda dragging his father by catching hold of his legs. Outside of the Kumba, appellant Mahendra Singh Munda, Rajendra Singh Munda and Jiv Lal Singh Munda were standing. A lantern was burning outside the straw-made hut (Kumba) on the Khalihan. In that light of the burning lantern, he saw and identified all the five appellants who had Dault in their hands. They started assaulting his father with Dauli. Then through the back portion of straw-made hut (Kumba) he managed to escape and went home and awakened his mother (Pw. 1) and grand-mother (Pw. 4). In the fardbeyan and evidence, informant pw. 1 has deposed that she and her mother (Pw. 4) were awakened by pw. 2 who saw pw. 2 in a perplexed condition. PW. 2 informed that all the five appellants after dragging his father out of the straw made hut, started giving Dauli blows on the Khalihan. Both pw. 1 and pw. 4 rushed to the P/O Khalihan and this witness remained at home which is quite natural that he might have been frightened by the scene he had seen. After sometimes, his injured father was take to home. Then pw. 2 saw that there was injury on the back portion of neck, left hand, abdomen, back and chest of his father. At that time his father was alive and after sometimes, he died. This witness was cross-examined at length, but the defence could not get any credit in course of lengthy cross-examination, rather in his cross-examination, he has confirmed the prosecution case by answering all the questions put to him. He was deposed that at school, his name has been entered as 'Birendra'. This witness was cross-examined at length, but the defence could not get any credit in course of lengthy cross-examination, rather in his cross-examination, he has confirmed the prosecution case by answering all the questions put to him. He was deposed that at school, his name has been entered as 'Birendra'. He had informed the police both his names 'Birendra alias Devendra', but the police did not record his alias name 'Devendra'. He has also stated before the I.O. (Pw. 9) that there was Mahua and Pulse on the Khalihan which they had gone to watch at night. He has also stated before the I.O. that when his father was brought to home, he was alive. His uncle Budhan Munda had gone to village Sinduari and came back on 15.3.1996. PW. 1 Churamani Devi (informant) and her mother (Pw. 4) when informed by PW. 2, rushed there and saw these appellants fleeing away. The deceased had disclosed the names of the assailants who are all these appellants. She has deposed that her husband was struggling for life outside the kumba on the Khalihan. A lantern was there burning and they had also rushed taking a lantern and saw all these appellants fleeing away. The police did not seize the bloodstained clothes and bloodstained soils, although they were shown to the police. She called village nurse Shanti Kujur who bandaged on all his injuries. The nurse is not at village as she has been transferred somewhere else. The I.O. did not try to search out that Nurse Shanti Kujur. PW 8 Budhan Lal Singh, uncle of the PW 2 was sent by this witness PW 1, to the police station who brought the police on the next day i.e. on 15.3.1996 and the police saw the dead body at home and prepared inquest report on •which PW 8 Budhan Lal Singh Munda signed (Ext. 2/1 ). Villagers Jagarnath and Mahesh brought the injured Dalgovind Singh Munda to home, but PW 5 Jagarnath Mahto is a tendered witness and PW 6 Mahesh Mahto is a hostile witness. Mahesh Mahto has deposed that when he went to the house of the deceased, he saw the dead body at home. PW 1 tried to improve the prosecution case by stating that while she was two-step away from the P/O, she saw these appellants cutting her husband. PW 3 Dr. Mahesh Mahto has deposed that when he went to the house of the deceased, he saw the dead body at home. PW 1 tried to improve the prosecution case by stating that while she was two-step away from the P/O, she saw these appellants cutting her husband. PW 3 Dr. Lalita Verma on 16th March, 1997 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person: (i) Sharp cut on left side of anterior chest valve about 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" sternum 2nd and 3rd ribs were cut. There was old blood clot present. (ii) Lacerated injuries on the neck at several places cutting about 3/4th of the neck from right to left, all short tissues, vertebra and trachea. (iii) Just below the second injury, there was lacerated injury about 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of left shoulder. (iv) Lacerated injury about 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1" on the right arm, bone underneath was cut. (v) In right side of abdomen above iliac rest sharp cut (superficial) about 1" x 1/2" x 1". This witness found all the above injuries covered with bandage caused by sharp cutting weapons, such as, Dauli: Injury Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by hard & blunt substance and the death was due to haemorrhage and shock, cutting the vital portion of body, since about 25 hours from the time of post mortem examination. Ext. 1 is the post mortem report in the pen & signature of this witness. She has deposed that injured, if his neck is cut 3/4th portion, then he cannot be in a position to talk or give statement, rather the total result of all these injuries might have caused instantaneous death. 8. Pw. 7 Dubraj Singh Munda and the I.O. (PW. 9) have deposed that the Khalihan is situated at a distance of 50 yards from the house of the informant. PW. 7 Dubraj Singh Munda is a village independent witness. He has deposed that these appellants had threatened deceased Dalgovind Singh Munda to cause his murder' only because his mother-in-law (PW. 4) Samaulla Devi had filed petition for permission to transfer the entire lands in favour of deceased and his wife PW. 1. This witness was informed by Pw. 4 that all these appellants murdered her son-in law Dalgovind Singh Munda. 4) Samaulla Devi had filed petition for permission to transfer the entire lands in favour of deceased and his wife PW. 1. This witness was informed by Pw. 4 that all these appellants murdered her son-in law Dalgovind Singh Munda. He went to the house of Pw. 4 where inquest report was prepared by the police on which he signed (Ext. 2). He also affirmed that village nurse Shanti Kujur had treated the injuries of Dalgovind Singh Munda. When he went to the house of the informant, at that time Dalgovind Singh Munda was alive. Pw. 8 Budhan Lal Singh Munda is also a witness who signed on the inquest report (Ext. 1/2) prepared at the house of the deceased itself by the police. Pw. 9 D.N. Saha, I.O. recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of the informant and formal FIR (Ext. 4) was drawn. He also prepared inquest report (Ext. 5) in presence of the witnesses who signed on it. He went to the Khalihan and saw blood in abundance outside the straw-made hut (Kumba), but he did not seize bloodstained soil. He did not find paddy on the khalihan only because the witnesses have not deposed that there was paddy in the khalihan, rather there was Mahua and pulse on it. He did not find the straw-made hut broken on its back portion. But he had found the straws removed which also supports the statement of PW. 2 that he managed to escape through the back portion of the straw-made but removing the straws. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants have much stressed by submitting that there is delay of sending the FIR to the nearest Court of learned A.C.J.M., Khunti which was received there on 18.3.1996 and has examined D.W. 1, a staff of G.R. Office, and• D.W. 2, the Court A.S.1. On perusal of the evidence of these witnesses, the delay in receiving the FIR in the Court of A.C.J.M. has been explained. D.W. 1 has deposed that first it was sent to the office of A.P.P. who has endorsed on it on 18.3.1996 (Ext. A). Then it was sent to the office of A.C.J.M. which was also received on the same day i.e. 18.3.1996. D.W. 1 has deposed that first it was sent to the office of A.P.P. who has endorsed on it on 18.3.1996 (Ext. A). Then it was sent to the office of A.C.J.M. which was also received on the same day i.e. 18.3.1996. The I.O. has tried to help the defence and instead of sending the police papers, FIR to the office of the A.C.J.M., he has sent it to the Office of A.P.P. who had kept in his office and sent it on 18.3.1996, although the FIR and the fardbeyan was despatched on 16.3.1996. Thus, there was no hand of the informant or the prosecution witnesses to concoct or embellish the prosecution case. The informant (PW. 1) and her mother (PW. 4) are not the eyewitnesses of the alleged manner of the occurrence. Only Pw. 2 is the eyewitness who saw his father dragging out of the straw-made hut and being assaulted with Dauli by all these appellants on the person of his father. He did not thereafter see as to how many assaults were made by each of the appellants as he managed to escape through s the back portion of the straw-made hut by If removing straw which was also found by the I.O. (PW. 9) and went to inform his mother and grand-mother in a preplexed Ii condition. The minor boy (PW. 2) has stood firm to his cross-examination. The prosecution witnesses, PWs. 1, 2 and 4 have deposed that there was Mahua and s pulse on the khalihan, but the I.O. has stated that he did not find paddy on the Khalihan. Thus it is not a contradiction that there was no Mahua and pulse on the Khalihan which was being watched by the deceased and his son (PW. 2) by sleeping in a straw-made hut. The lantern was burning but the I.O. did not seize it. He found bloodstains on the khalihan in abundance, but he did not seize bloodstained soil. He prepared inquest report at the house of the deceased who was taken from khalihan to his house, but the inquest report shows that he found the dead body outside kumba on the Khalihan. Doctor (PW. 3) found the back portion of neck cut to the extent of it 3/4th and has deposed that if any injured sustains such Injury, he would not be in a position to speak and would have died instantaneously. Doctor (PW. 3) found the back portion of neck cut to the extent of it 3/4th and has deposed that if any injured sustains such Injury, he would not be in a position to speak and would have died instantaneously. PWs. 1, E 2 and 4 have deposed that village nurse Shanti Kujur was called who bandaged all the injuries found on the person of Dalgovind Singh Munda. This has also been mentioned in the post mortem report (Ext. 1) by doctor (PW. 3). This shows that injured Dalgovind Singh Munda was alive even at home for sometimes, who was bandaged and was able to speak. Thus, I find that the evidence of PW. 3 that injured might have died instantaneously is only to help the appellants. So also Pw. 9 that he found the dead body on the Khalihan is only to shift the P/O to help the appellants. Enmity is there as these appellants were aggrieverd only because pw. 4 Samualla Devi had filed petition to seek permission to transfer the entire lands left by her husband in favour of her daughter (PW. 1) and son-in-law Dalgovind Singh Munda (since murdered). These appellants had filed objection. Till the day of alleged occurrence, no permission was granted by the learned S.D.O., Khunti and the case was still pending. The motive is so strong that the appellants had threatened Dalgovind Singh Munda to cause his murder and asked him to leave village Jojohatu and shift to his village Sinduari. Injured Dalgovind Singh Munda was alive and struggling for his life outside the straw made hut on the khalihan. When informed by pw. 2, her mother pw. 1 and grandmother (Pw. 4) rushed there taking lantern. They saw the appellants fleeing away from the Pia khalihan. pw. 5 Jagarnath Mahto and pw. 6 Mahesh Mahto took the injured to his house, although they are either tendered or hostile witnesses. Village nurse Shanti Kujur was called who bandaged the injuries. The injured was alive and he named these appellants who assaulted him. Thus, it is an extra-judicial confession made by the deceased which cannot be discarded in view of the helping evidence of pw. 3 and pw. 4 against the appellants. pw. 2 is a child witness. He was sleeping at night along with his father Dalgovind Singh Munda on the Khalihan in a straw-made hut. Thus, it is an extra-judicial confession made by the deceased which cannot be discarded in view of the helping evidence of pw. 3 and pw. 4 against the appellants. pw. 2 is a child witness. He was sleeping at night along with his father Dalgovind Singh Munda on the Khalihan in a straw-made hut. A lantern was burning on the Khalihan as they had come to watch Mahua and Pulse lying on it. When the appellants dragged Dalgovind Singh Munda outside straw-made hut they started assaulting with Dauli on his person on the Khalihan. Then pw. 2 managed to escape by removing the straws on the back portion of straw-made hut and rushed to his home in a perplexed condition and awakened his mother and grandmother and informed that his father Dalgovind Singh Munda was being assaulted with Dauli by all these appellants. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses is quite natural. The distance of Khalihan is not so far as it is hardly at 50 yards from the house of the informant, although pw. 1 has deposed that it is at a distance of 200 yards. The evidence of I.O. is also to this effect that the Khalihan is at a distance of 50 yards from the house of the informant. One child witness, although closely related to the deceased, is a natural witness. At night, there were none else to see the alleged occurrence. Hence the village independent witnesses were not cited as witnesses. The others, who are closely related, have also deposed that they had not seen the alleged assault, rather they only saw the dead body of Dalgovind Singh Munda who were informed by pw. 1, pw. 2 and pw. 4 that these appellants Mahendra Singh Munda, Rajendra Singh Munda, Fagu Singh Munda, Jiv Lal Singh Munda and Gurwa Singh Munda assaulted Dalgovind Singh Munda with Dauli causing serious bleeding injuries who succumbed to those injuries. The evidence of village rustic witnesses that the injured died soon thereafter does not mean that he died instantaneously at the khalihan itself in view of the specific evidence that Dalgovind Singh Munda was alive and struggling for life on the Khalihan who was taken to his house and the village nurse Shanti Kujur was called who bandaged the injuries. At that time also he was alive and disclosed the names of these appellants as assailants. 10. At that time also he was alive and disclosed the names of these appellants as assailants. 10. When considered all the pros and cons of the prosecution case and the evidence, oral and documentary, and also the defence witnesses examined by the appellants, I find that the place of occurrence is the Khalihan of the deceased. After being injured, Dalgovind Singh Munda was taken to his house where he succumbed to his injuries after some treatment and bandage. He has disclosed names of all these live appellants who assaulted him with Dauli. PWs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 have proved the genesis of the alleged occurrence which was the case filed by PW 4 Samaulla Devi for seeking permission to transfer the entire lands left by her husband in favour of her daughter (Pw. 1) and son-in-law (since murdered). These appellants, who are agnates, had filed objection in the permission case. They had also threatened deceased not to claim the lands of his father-in-law. They had threatened to kill him if he does not leave village Jojohatu and shift to his village Sinduari. The child witness (Pw. 2) just after the alleged manner of the occurrence, rushed to his house, awakened his mother and grand-mother and named these appellants, who are 5 in numbers, that they were assaulting with Dauli to his father Dalgovind Singh Munda. Although this child witness had stood firm to his test even in course of his cross-examination, rather he has also fully corroborated the prosecution case whose evidence cannot be discarded only because he is son of the deceased. There is no confusion that he is the son of the deceased Dalgovind Singh Munda named Birendra Singh alias Devendra Singh and the only eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. Non-examination of any independent witness would not give any discredit only because it was night time and no independent witness of the village were available there to witness to manner of the alleged occurrence. The learned Court below has considered all these evidence and has found the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and convicted each of them imprisonment for life. The judgment of the learned Court below is well discussed in all the points and there is no any legal infirmity in it. On the other hand, I do not find any merit in these criminal appeals which fail. 11. The judgment of the learned Court below is well discussed in all the points and there is no any legal infirmity in it. On the other hand, I do not find any merit in these criminal appeals which fail. 11. In the result both the criminal appeals, nos. 16 to 1998 (R) and 36 of 1998 (R) are devoid of any merit which are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed. All the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 1998 (R) are in custody and appellant no. 2 Gurwa Singh Munda in Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 1998 (R) is in custody. They will serve the sentences of imprisonment for life. As the appellant no. 1 Jiv Lal Singh Munda in Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 1998 (R) is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below to serve his sentences. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti is also directed to take all coercive steps to apprehend appellant No. 1 Jiv Lal Singh Munda in Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 1998 (R) to serve his sentences. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-I agree.