Judgment CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, J. 1. The appellant Kishore Sharma @ Braj Kishore Sharma stands convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and R.I. for 5 years. The sentence are to run concurrently. 2. The informant Ram Narayan Sharma (PW 7) is a teacher working in Middle School, Nayagaon (Sonpur). The deceased Amrendra Kumar Ojha was his (informants) nati (daughters son) and injured Amod Kumar Sharma (PW 1) is his (informants ) son. The fardbeyan of the case was recorded by SI R.N. Yadav on 4th December 98 at 4.15 3p.m. at Primary Health Centre, Dighwara where he had brought his deceased nati and injured son Amod Kumar Sharma for treatment. The informant stated that day (04.12.1998), his school was closed due to it being holiday on the occasion of sabe barat, hence, he was at his house. His nati (the deceased was living with him and was reading in Class-IX in the High School. At about 3.45 p.m., he (the informant) gave Rs. 500/- (five hundred) to the deceased who set out for Shitalpur Bazar for purchasing fertilizers and appellant had seen handing over of money to the deceased. As soon as the deceased had proceeded 50 yards south of his house, the appellant following him, went there and demanded and money from the deceased. The deceased did not part with the money whereupon the appellant tried to forcibly snatch the money, hence, the deceased cried that the appellant was snatching money. Hearing the cry, the informant and his son (PW 1) rushed to the spot but, in the mean time, the appellant took out a dagger and pierced it into deceaseds chest. Receiving the blow, the deceased fell down. Then the appellant gave next blow on the deceased which hit near the right knee. When Amod Kumar (PW 1) reached close to the spot, the appellant also assaulted him (PW 1) with knife on his neck but the blow hit PW 1 near his right hand elbow causing injury there. The appellant tried to give second blow on PW 1, but, in the mean time, the informant reached there. Seeing the informant, the appellant left PW 1 and rushed towards the informant for assaulting him with knife. He (the informant) ran away crying "bachao-bachao". The appellant tried to give second blow on PW 1, but, in the mean time, the informant reached there. Seeing the informant, the appellant left PW 1 and rushed towards the informant for assaulting him with knife. He (the informant) ran away crying "bachao-bachao". In the mean time, villagers Binay Kumar Sharma, Ram Naresh Sharma, Chhotan Sharma and others came there. Then the appellant fled away saying that he would finish the whole family. The occurrence was witnessed by informants wife and Mrityunjay Kumar Singh who had come to the informants house. Taking his injured nati (the deceased) and son (PW 1), the informant proceeded for Dighwara Hospital, but the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the way and in the Hospital, he was declared dead. PW 1 was treated in the Hospital. The fardbeyan (Ext-4) was read over to the informant and then he signed the same. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Saran P.S. Case No. 163 of 1998 was instituted and then, after invcr ligation, the appellant was tried by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra under Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1999 and vide judgment dated 21st/22nd September, 2000, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as stated above. 3. As many as nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW 7 Ram Narayan Sharma is the informant himself. PW 1 Amod Kumar Sharma is informants son who is said to have received injures during the occurrence. PW 3 is the elder brother of the informant. PW 2 Sarita Devi is the daughter of the informant and mother of the deceased. PW 4 Ram Singh is a witness on the point of preparation of inquest report of the deceased at the Hospital. The signature of this witness on the inquest report has been marked as Ext-1, PW 6 Dr. Raj Kishore Singh is the doctor who had examined the injuries on PW 1. PW 8 Dr. Sanat Kumar Singh is another Doctor who had conducted the post mortem examihation on the dead body of the deceased. PW 9 Ram Nath Yadav is the I.O. of the case. 4. The doctor (PW 6) deposed that on 4.12.1999 at 4.30 p.m., he had examined Amod Sharma (PW/1) and found the following injuries on his person : (i) incised wound on lateral side of right forearm with bleeding3" x 1" x muscle deep. PW 9 Ram Nath Yadav is the I.O. of the case. 4. The doctor (PW 6) deposed that on 4.12.1999 at 4.30 p.m., he had examined Amod Sharma (PW/1) and found the following injuries on his person : (i) incised wound on lateral side of right forearm with bleeding3" x 1" x muscle deep. Theinjury was caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as, chaku and as simple in nature. The age of the injury was within six hours. The doctor proved the injury report as Ext-2. 5. The doctor (PW 8} who held the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 5.12.1998 at 11.55 a.m., found the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) One penetrating wound on the chest on sternum lower part, size about 1" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep left to sternum. (ii) One incised wound on right elbow. Size about 1" 1/2" x skin deep. On Dissection.The mediastinal cavity contained clotted blood. One penetrating wound on right ventricle, size about 3/4" x 1/2" x thickness of the wall of the ventricle. The prostrocondrol parting the seventh rib. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock and injury to the vital organ like heart caused by sharp penetrating weapon, like knife. Time elapsed since death was within 12 to 18 hours. The P.M. Report prepared by the doctor was marked Ext-3. 6 The I.O. PW 9 deposed that on 4th December, 1998, while he was Officer-in-charge of Dighwara Police Station, he received one O.D.Slip from the State Dispensary, Dighwara and, thereafter, he reached the Hospital and recorded the Jardbeyan of the informant (PW 7). The Jardbeyan has already been marked Ext.-4. He further deposed that he also prepared the inquest report. The inquest report is Ext-5. He also states to have sent the dead body for P.M. examination and to have lodged the FIR the FIR is Ext-6. 7. The I.O. further deposed that he inspected the P.O. The P.O. was a foot-path situated in front of informants house and running from north to south. Near the P.O., there was a sahjan tree situated on the western side of the foot-path. There was mark of blood on the P.O. The I.O. further deposed at para-5 that after recording the Jardbeyan in the Hospital, he, alongwith Police force went to the house of the appellant. Near the P.O., there was a sahjan tree situated on the western side of the foot-path. There was mark of blood on the P.O. The I.O. further deposed at para-5 that after recording the Jardbeyan in the Hospital, he, alongwith Police force went to the house of the appellant. Seeing the Police, the appellant tried to flee away but he was chased and with the help of villagers he was captured and arrested. A search of appellants body was conducted and as a result of search, one knife was recovered from his waist. In the cross-examination at para-9 he deposed that he had not seized any blood soaked soil from the P.O. He further deposed that he had not seen any blood stain on the knife recovered from the appellants possession. At para-18 of his cross-examination, he has also deposed that any money was not recovered from the appellants possession. 8. The informant (PW 7) deposed about the occurrence practically on the similar line as in the Jardbeyan. He deposed that on 4th December, 1998 at about 3.45 p.m. at his darwaja he handed over Rs. 500/- to his nati Amrendra Kumar (deceased) for purchasing fertilizers and that at that time the appellant, a resident of the village had seen the handing over of money to the deceased. The deceased proceeded to Shitalpur Bazar for the purchase. The informant further deposed that when the deceased had proceeded 50 yards south of the house near a sahjan tree, the appellant came there and he demanded money from the deceased. The deceased did not give the money to the appellant due to which the appellant started scuffling with the deceased as a result of which the deceased cried "dauro paisa cheen raha hat. On the cry of the deceased, he (the informant), his son (PW 1), wife (PW 5), daughter (PW 2), brother Jagat Narayan Sharma (PW 5) and villagers Ram Naresh Sharma, Chhotan Sharma, Mrityunjay Kumar Singh and Binay Kumar Singh rushed towards the spot. The informant further deposed that the appellant took out a knife from his waist and he pierced the knife into deceaseds chest due to which the deceased fell down. Thereafter, the appellant gave another knife blow causing injury on deceaseds right arm below elbow. The informant further deposed that the appellant took out a knife from his waist and he pierced the knife into deceaseds chest due to which the deceased fell down. Thereafter, the appellant gave another knife blow causing injury on deceaseds right arm below elbow. He (the informant) further deposed that his son (PW 1) proceeded towards the deceased, then the appellant left the deceased turned towards him (PW 1) and attempted a knife blow on the neck of PW 1 but the blow did hit on the right hand of PW 1 causing injury there. The appellant tried to cause another knife blow on PW 1, hence, the informant rushed to save PW 1 but the appellant again left PW 1, ran towards the informant with his knife. Seeing this, the informant fled away from there, crying for safety of his life. Then the informant further deposed that the appellant fled away saying that he would finish the whole family. 9. At para-3 of his evidence, the informant deposed that he, taking Amrendra (the deceased) and Amod (PW 1) proceeded for Dighwara Hospital. The deceased succumbed to the injuries in the way. On reaching the Hospital, the doctor declared the deceased dead. At para-4, the informant deposed that the police had come in the Hospital and recorded his fardbeyan. His signature on the fardbeyan is Ext-1/1. He had identified the appellant during trial in the dock. At para-7 of his evidence, he said that during the time of occurrence, he was working as a teacher in a school and on the day of occurrence, the School was closed on the occasion of sabe-barat, hence, he was at his house. The informant has deposed in his examination-in-chief at para-1 and cross-examination at para-16 that the witnesses Binay Sharma, Chhotan Sharma, Ram Naresh Sharma and Mrityunjay Sharma had come under the influence of the appellant and that the appellants brother had threatened the witnesses. At para- 12 of his cross-examination, the informant deposed that while crying for safety of his life, he had ran towards his house from the P.O. and he had seen his wife (PW 5), brother (PW 3) and daughter, i.e. deceaseds mother (PW 2) in the way. At para- 12 of his cross-examination, the informant deposed that while crying for safety of his life, he had ran towards his house from the P.O. and he had seen his wife (PW 5), brother (PW 3) and daughter, i.e. deceaseds mother (PW 2) in the way. This very evidence of the informant shows that these witnesses were also close to the P.O. due to having rushed towards that on the cry of the deceased regarding snatching of money by the appellant. Thus, considering the evidence of the informant, he appears to be a fully reliable, trustworthy and natural witness on the point of occurrence. He corroborates the prosecution case, on all material points. 10. PW 1 who is mama of the deceased and son of the informant and who received injury at the hands of appellant, while he rushed for help of the deceased, had deposed that on 4th December, 1998, while he was sitting on sahan land in front of his house, his father (the informant) handed over Rs. 500/- to his bhagina Amrendra (the deceased) for bringing fertilizers from market. Like the informant, this witness has deposed about the occurrence in the similar manner saying that shortly after the deceased had proceeded for going towards Shitalpur his (deceaseds) cry "dauro rupya cheen raha hat was heard and hearing this cry, he (PW 1) and his father (the informant),; rushed towards the place and saw that the appellant was snatching money from the deceased and the deceased was resisting to it. He further deposed that due to the resistence, the ap- pellant took out a knife from his waist and gave a knife blow on deceaseds chest. Receiving the blow, the deceased fell down. After falling down, the appellant gave another blow hitting on deceaseds right elbow. The witness further deposed at para-2 that when he tried to save the deceased, the appellant gave a knife blow on his neck and that he tried to ward-off the blow by his right hand as a result of which he received knife injury on his right hand. He further deposed that the appellant tried to give another knife blow to him but, in the mean time, his father (the informant) came there and tried to save him. He further deposed that the appellant tried to give another knife blow to him but, in the mean time, his father (the informant) came there and tried to save him. Due to his father (the informant) attempting to save him (PW 1), the appellant turned to the informant with the knife for assaulting him with the same. The father (the informant) fled away from there crying for safety of his life. This witness further deposes that on the hulla raised by his father, several persons assembled and then the appellant fled away from there saying that he would finish the whole family. 11. PW 1 further deposed that he and the deceased both proceeded for Dighwara Hospital but the deceased did in the way and in the Hospital, the doctor declared him dead and that he (PW 1) was treated in the Hospital. At para-5 of his evidence he stated that the P.O. situated at a distance of 50 yards from his house and that the P.O. was foot-path and there was a sahjan tree situated towards the west of the P.O. This witness has also identified the appellant in the dock during the trial. At para-7 of his cross examination, he deposed that the deceased was his bhagina who was living at his (PW 1s) house and reading in Class-IX. At para-9 of his cross examination, he deposed that when he had reached the P.O., no villager had come there and that they had come after the occurrence and that the villagers who came after the occurrence were Chhotan Sharma, Binay Sharma. Jagat Narayan Sharma and Ram Naresh Sharma. It is natural that the villagers had come after the occurrence on hulla, particularly the hulla raised by the informant who had fled away from the P.O. crying for safety of his life. PW 1 further deposed that when he had reached the P.O., the deceased" had already fallen after receiving the knife blow. It is the very case of the prosecution that when the deceased had raised hulla regarding snatching of money by the appellant from him, the witness (PW 1) had rushed towards the P.O. It is also the prosecution case that on deceaseds resistence in handing over the money to the appellant, the appellant gave a knife blow on the deceaseds chest. So it was quite possible for the PW 1 to witness the occurrence of knife blow on deceaseds chest from a short distance before his ar- rival to the P.O. and that by the time when PW 1 reached the P.O., the deceased had fallen down receiving injury on his chest. PW 1 has also deposed that when his family members came to the deceased at the P.O., the deceased was conscious and he had stated that he (the appellant) fled away after giving knife blow. Thus, there is also statement of the deceased in the form of dying declaration that the appellant had stabbed him. At para-12 of his evidence, PW 1 stated that when he and others had reached the P.O., the appellant had fled away by that time. Referring this statement, appellants counsel argued that since the appellant had already fled away before the arrival of this witness and others, the witnesses cannot be believed as eye-witnesses to the occurrence alleged. But this submission of appellants counsel is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is clear from the evidence that the witnesses, the informant and other family members of the informant were at the darwaja of the house situated at a very close distance, i.e., 50 yards from the P.O. It is also in the evidence of PW 1, the informant, wife and daughter of the informant, that all had rushed towards the deceased on his cry. PW 1 has received injury at the hands of appellant at the P.O., hence, he is a very probable and natural witness to the occurrence. Therefore, the statement of this witness that the accused had fled away by the time he reached the P.O. is a statement which has been taken under stress of cross-examination. In such view of the matters, this does not affect the testimony of PW 1, in any manner. PW 1 is a trustworthy witness who had received injury at the hands of appellant, while the witness had tried to save the deceased. 12. PW 5 Shanti Devi, nani of the deceased and wife of the informant says to have seen the occurrence on rushing towards the P.O. on hearing the cry of the deceased. She gives a detailed narration of the occurrence mentioning all the material points as deposed by the informant and PW 1. 12. PW 5 Shanti Devi, nani of the deceased and wife of the informant says to have seen the occurrence on rushing towards the P.O. on hearing the cry of the deceased. She gives a detailed narration of the occurrence mentioning all the material points as deposed by the informant and PW 1. She says that she was sitting at the darwaja of her house at which time, the deceased had cried and that hearing the cry her son PW 1 had rushed towards the P.O. and that following the son, her husband (the informant) had also rushed to the P.O. and that after the husband, she (PW 5) herself and that behind her, her daughter (PW 2) had rushed to the P.O. She has stated about the appellants attempt to snatch the money and on deceaseds protest, the appellant stabbing the deceased and also causing injury to her son (PW 1) and the appellants act of chasing the informant for assaulting him. She has said that the deceased and PW 1 both were taken to the Hospital but the deceased died in the way. She says that she and her daughter (PW 2) had also gone to the Hospital. She has deposed that her nati Amrendra (the deceased) lived at her house and he was reading in Class-IX. She further deposed that her daughter, i.e. mother of the deceased was also at her house. At para-9 of her cross-examination, she stated that when she had come to the P.O., she had seen Amrendra (the deceased) in standing position. Thus, it is clear that this witness had seen the occurrence from the very beginning when the appellant was trying to snatch money and the deceased was resisting to it. At para-18 of her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant is a resident of the same tola i.e. close residential area. She has identified the appellant in the dock during the trial. Thus, PW 5 is a reliable and trustworthy witness and there is nothing to discredit her testimony on any point. 13. PW 2 Sarita Devi is the mother of the deceased and daughter of the informant. She is a widow lady who, at the relevant time, was at the house of her father, i.e. the informant. Thus, PW 5 is a reliable and trustworthy witness and there is nothing to discredit her testimony on any point. 13. PW 2 Sarita Devi is the mother of the deceased and daughter of the informant. She is a widow lady who, at the relevant time, was at the house of her father, i.e. the informant. She says that her husband died 8-9 years ago and the deceased was her only issue and that he (the deceased) was living with his nana (maternal grand-father) and was reading in Class-IX. She deposed giving the details of the occurrence in similar manner, as that of the informant and other witnesses. She said that while the deceased resisted the appellant in snatching of money and cried for help, the appellant gave a knife blow on deceaseds chest and that when her brother Amod (PW 1) tried to help, he was also assaulted and that when her father (the informant) tried to help, the appellant ran to assault him with dagger hence, the father (the informant) fled away crying for safety of his life. At para-11 of her cross- examination, she deposed that usually she lives at her sasural for two years and then at her maika for six months. It is natural for this witness due to she being a widow lady that she occasionally lives at her parents house. It also appears natural that since PW 2 was a widow lady her son (the deceased) was living with the informant who was a teacher and reading there. At para-5 of her cross-examination, she deposed that when she had reached the P.O., she had seen the deceased in standing position. She says that the appellant had given the knife blow in her presence. Thus, this witness had seen the occurrence and she is a competent and reliable witness. She has also deposed at para-15 that she had talked to the deceased at the P.O. The deceased was not in a position to speak fully, but he (the deceased) had stated that Kishore Sharma (the appellant) had assaulted him. Thus, the dying declaration about the assault caused at the hands of appellant is also being proved through the evidence of this witness. 14. PW 3, the elder brother of the informant has deposed as an eye-witness to the occurrence giving the details of the occurrence on all the material points. Thus, the dying declaration about the assault caused at the hands of appellant is also being proved through the evidence of this witness. 14. PW 3, the elder brother of the informant has deposed as an eye-witness to the occurrence giving the details of the occurrence on all the material points. At para-7 of his cross-examination, he stated that he limps due to his one leg being defective and that his family members had rushed to the P.O. and that behind them, he had also gone to the P.O. with the help of a lathi. This witness says to have gone to the P.O. with the help of a lathi. No doubt, when the witness says to have gone to the P.O. with the help of a lathi he cannot be expected to have immediately reached the P.O. and seen the occurrence, but in view of the very close distance, i.e. of 50 yards between the P.O. and the darwaja of the house where the witness was sitting, it can be accepted that it was possible for the witness to have seen the occurrence from such distance also. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is not affected, in any manner, and he has to be considered to be a reliable and trustworthy witness on the point of occurrence. 15. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant argued that all the witnesses examined in this case are family members and that no independent witness has been examined. But, from the circumstances of the case it appears that the occurrence had taken place in a very short time at a place situated on a foot-path at a distance of 50 yards from the darwaja of the informant. It has come in evidence that the informant and his family members were present at the darwaja where the informant had handed over the money to the deceased who proceeded with the money for going to the market. It has also come in evidence that on cry of the deceased, the family members had rushed to help and save the deceased. It has further come in evidence that when the deceased and deceaseds mama (PW I) were assaulted by the appellant and thereafter when the informant went to help PW 1, the informant was also chased by the appellant with the dagger and the informant ran away crying for help. It has further come in evidence that when the deceased and deceaseds mama (PW I) were assaulted by the appellant and thereafter when the informant went to help PW 1, the informant was also chased by the appellant with the dagger and the informant ran away crying for help. The informant says that on hulla, the villagers had also come. From the sequence of the occurrence, as above, it appears that the villagers had come to the P.O. but it further appears that the villagers assembled when the assault on the deceased and PW 1 had already taken place. The informant and his family members appear to be the natural and probable witness who saw the occurrence from the very beginning. Under the circumstances, the non-examination of witnesses other than the family members of the informant does not affect the case of prosecution adversely in any manner. Besides this, there is evidence on the record to show that the appellants brother had threatened the villagers for not giving evidence in the case. The informant (PW 1) at paras-1 and 16 deposed that the appellants brother had threatened the villagers and that due to this, the villagers had come under their influence. From the circumstances in which the offence of murder has been committed on a simple matter of resistence in snatching of money amounting to Rs. 500/-, it is clear that the appellant is a desparate criminal. Therefore, it is quite natural that villagers refrained from taking wrath of such desparate criminal and they did not choose to depose about the incident, whatsoever they had seen on coming to the P.O. 16. The appellants counsel also argued that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are family members, hence, they are interested witnesses. No doubt, the witnesses are family members, hence, they can be said to be interested due to this reason, but they also appear to be natural and probable witnesses to the occurrence. Moreover, the evidence of any witness can not be discredited solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. Whatever is required under the circumstances is that the evidence of these witnesses has to be examined with care and caution. On examining the evidence of these witnesses with such care and caution, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the evidence of witnesses so as to discredit their testimony in any manner. 17. Whatever is required under the circumstances is that the evidence of these witnesses has to be examined with care and caution. On examining the evidence of these witnesses with such care and caution, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the evidence of witnesses so as to discredit their testimony in any manner. 17. The I.O. (PW9) has said that he had not seized any blood stained earth from the P.O. He also stated that he had not seen any blood stain on the knife recovered from the appellant. At para-18, the I.O. also deposed that he had not recovered any money from the appellant. Referring to this evidence of the I.O the appellants counsel argued that any blood soaked soil was not seized nor sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. No doubt, any blood soaked soil has not been seized and sent for chemical examination, and this is a lecuna in the investigation. In view of the consistent and categorical evidence of the witnesses, the occurrence is proved beyond doubt. In such circumstances, the simple lecuna that any blood soaked soil was not seized from the P.O., cannot be considered as a material to dislodge the case of the prosecution. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that any blood mark was not found on the knife recovered from appellants possession. From the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the I.O. first of all went to the Hospital where he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and then he came to the P.O., village and on going to the appellants house found the appellant there and the appellant was apprehended and the knife was recovered from his possession. It appears that the knife has been recovered after several hours of the occurrence from the appellant who was at his house and who had tried to flee away but he was apprehended. Under the circumstances, it is quite possible that the appellant had washed the blood on the knife and then he had kept the same again with him. Appellants counsel also argued that any money was not recovered from appellants possession. This is also possible that after snatching the money, the appellant had concealed or kept the money at some place or he spent the same as hours had passed between the time of occurrence and the time of apprehension of the appellant. Appellants counsel also argued that any money was not recovered from appellants possession. This is also possible that after snatching the money, the appellant had concealed or kept the money at some place or he spent the same as hours had passed between the time of occurrence and the time of apprehension of the appellant. Therefore, there does not appear to be any vital infirmity to affect the case of prosecution adversely. 19. The appellants counsel, referred to some omissions, as taken in the evidence of PW 1 (Para-14), PW 2 (Para-15) and PW 3 (Para-11). On considering the manner in which the omissions have been brought on the record it appears that some portions of evidence as adduced by the witness before the Court was directly put to the witness by the defence counsel before the trial Court and the witness was asked to say whether he had stated such facts in his statement before the I.O. or not to which the witness replied that he had given such statement before the I.O. Subsequently, when the I.O. appeared, he was confronted with that portion of the evidence of witness and he was asked to say whether the witness had given such statement before him to which the I.O. replied in negative. Thus, the defence counsel brought some omissions in the aforesaid manner and he tried to argue that there were some omissions in the evidence of the witnesses as against the statement of such witnesses before the I.O. It has to be mentioned here that in such process of bringing on the record the omission, the defence counsel did not confront the witness any statement given before the I.O. and this was only the correct procedure to bring any omission or contradiction. In the case of Binay Kumar Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) East Cr C 309 (SC) : (1997) 1 SCC 283 , the Apex Court has categorically laid down that an omission or contradiction has to be brought on the record only under the procedure laid down in Section 145 and 155(3) of the Evidence Act. These provisions categorically laid down that an omission or contradiction has to be brought on the record only under the procedure laid down in Sections 145 and 155(3) of the Evidence Act. These provisions categorically laid down that an omission or contradiction has to be brought on the record only under the procedure laid down in Sections 145 and 155(3) of the Evidence Act. These provisions categorically provide that an omission and contradiction can be brought only in a manner when the statement of any witness given before the police is confronted to him and when such statement is denied by the witness, the same is proved by examining the I.O. The defence counsel has not followed this provision. Therefore, whatever omission is pointed out by the defence counsel on the record, cannot be considered under the law. Moreover, the omissions, even if taking on face value are not of substantial nature, therefore, under the circumstances, there is no vital omission or contradiction brought on record which may discredit the testimony of any witness on any point. 20. Thus, considering the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove it beyond doubt that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by piercing knife into the chest of the deceased. The prosecution has also been able to prove that appellant had attempted to kill the informants son (PW 1) who was saved due to the informants intervesion and that when all the family members and villagers assembled, the appellant went away saying that he would finish the whole family. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307, IPC is quite justified and the sentence as passed by the learned trial Court is also proper. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence, as passed by the learned trial Court is hereby confirmed. AFTAB ALAM, J. 22 I agree.