JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal arises against the judgment dated 20th December 1994 passed by the 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 428 of 1993, whereby he convicted the appellant finding him guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that one Sahdeo Kachap gave a fardbeyan to Argora Police on 13.7.1992 stating therein that he alongwith his sons Silas Kachap (deceased) and Mahali Kachap (PW 2) were sitting on his Chabutara in front of his house on the alleged date of occurrence at about 8.30 A.M., at that time this appellant Amrus Lakra @ Joseph Lakra having knife in his hand, came there and assaulted his son Silas Kachap on his abdomen by giving three 'Chhura' blows, due to which his son Silas Kachap fell down and then before he could try to save his son, the appellant Amrus Lakra fled away from the place of occurrence. The injured was thereafter, taken to Chandrawati Hospital where the Doctor referred him to Sadar Hospital but on the way to Sadar Hospital he succumbed to the injuries. 3. The defence of the accused/appellant is total denial of the occurrence and of false implication. 4. In course of trial altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution particularly relying on the evidence of the sole eye witness PW 2 held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.1. for life as already been stated above. 6. Mr. Jawahar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the whole case of the prosecution is based on the solitary evidence of the eyewitness PW 2, who is a child witness and from his evidence it would appear that in fact, he did not see the occurrence himself and, as such, he has wrongly been treated as an eye-witness. Accordingly, he submitted that the evidence of the said PW 2 should not be relied upon. 7. In order to test the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have minutely examined and- scrutinized the evidence of PW 2 the solitary eyewitness of the case. Accordingly, he submitted that the evidence of the said PW 2 should not be relied upon. 7. In order to test the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have minutely examined and- scrutinized the evidence of PW 2 the solitary eyewitness of the case. Though at the time of deposition PW 2 was aged about 8 years but as it appears from his evidence that the trial court, firstly tested his memory and power of understanding and then after being satisfied that he has good understanding, he was examined and his evidence was recorded. From perusal of the evidence of PW 2 it appears that he has specifically stated in clear terms that on the date and time of occurrence he alongwith his brother Silas Kachap and his father was sitting on the 'Pinda' outside his house and at that time this appellant came and called his brother and thereafter, stabbed him on his abdomen by means of 'Chhura', which he was holding. He further stated that he protested as to why he was assaulting his brother, then he was also slapped by the accused. He also stated- that he saw the occurrence with his own eyes, his brother after receiving injuries he fell down and then he was taken to the hospital but he died. He also identified the appellant in the dock. Though he was cross-examined by the defence at length but we find that he stood well though at one or two places he deviated from the case of the prosecution but those minor deviations do not make any difference so far as the veracity of his evidence is concerned. 8. The evidence of PW 2 is fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor A.K.Choudhary, PW 1, who found three incised wound on the abdomen of the deceased, which are as follows:- (i) 2 x 1 cm. x cavity deep situated 12 cm. right to midline and 1 cm. below the level of right nipple. The weapon passed through right 7th intercostals space perforates the diaphragm and inter into the liver, (ii) 2 x 1 cm. x cavity deep on the front part of the abdomen over the epigastic region. The weapon passes through abdominal wall and injures the omentum. (iii) 2 x 1 cm. x cavity deep over front of left chest. situated 3 cm. left midline and 3 cm. x cavity deep on the front part of the abdomen over the epigastic region. The weapon passes through abdominal wall and injures the omentum. (iii) 2 x 1 cm. x cavity deep over front of left chest. situated 3 cm. left midline and 3 cm. above the left nipple. The weapon pass through the left 3rd intercostals space perforated the left lung pericardium and inters into the heart. There was presence of blood and blood clots in the thoracic abdominal cavity. According to the doctor, All the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by sharp cutting/pointed weapon such as Chhura. 11. The Investigating Officer, i.e. PW5 S.K.Pathak has also fully corroborated the statement of PW 2 the eye-witness and he also stated that Mahali Kachap PW 2 did state before him that he had seen the occurrence and also saw the accused giving 'Chhura' blows on the abqomen of his brother. 12. The informant of the case could not be examined as he died before the commencement of the trial. It appears that though the blood stained 'Chhura' was recovered by the police but the same was not produced in the Court, but in our view the. same does not affect the case of the prosecution in view of the clear and unambiguous statements of the eye-witness PW 2. We do not find any vital contradiction in the evidence of PW 2 so as to make his evidence unreliable rather on the other hand we find his evidence to be trustworthy and reliable. 13. In view of the discussions and findings above, in our view, the learned trial court rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. 14. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant is hereby affirmed and having found no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.