JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.- The sole appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 17.4.1995 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1993, whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant finding him guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 of the In• dian Penal Code and, thereby, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The informant Lobin Singh Ganjhu (PW 4) submitted a fardbeyan on 11.7.1992 at about 10.30 A.M. at his residence alleging therein that on the previous day, i.e. 10.7.1992 at about 5.30 P.M. when he and his wife Lakhi Mani Devi (PW 6) returned to their house. they saw that the appellant coming out from •their house and running away from the back side holding a blood stained 'Chhura' in his hand and when the informant entered into his house, he found his daughter Sahchari Kumari aged about 15 years lying unconscious in pool of blood. The informant and his wife came out and started raising hulla then co-villagers Shanku Singh Ganjhu (PW 5), Kapildeo Singh Ganjhu (PW 7), Shim Singh Ganjhu (PW 2) chased the appellant but he managed to flee away. Those villagers told the informant that the appellant had a blood stained 'Chhura' in his hand while he was running away. The informant came back to his house and saw his daughter lying dead in pool of blood. The informant alleged that the appellant Pitamber Singh Ganjhu was of bad character and on earlier occasion also he had tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter, which was protested and, therefore, he killed her by means of dagger. 3. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case. 4. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. PW 1 Saijnath Singh, is a hearsay witness but is also a witness on seizure of blood stained earth, blood stained Dhoti having red border, seized by the police from the house of the appellant. PW 2 Shim Singh Ganjhu, was declared hostile though according to the prosecution he was one of the persons, who arrived on hulla of the informant and thereafter, chased the appellant. PW 3 Ghuran Singh Ganjhu is also a hearsay witness as well as the witness on inquest report. PW 2 Shim Singh Ganjhu, was declared hostile though according to the prosecution he was one of the persons, who arrived on hulla of the informant and thereafter, chased the appellant. PW 3 Ghuran Singh Ganjhu is also a hearsay witness as well as the witness on inquest report. PW 4 Lobin Singh Ganjhu is the informant of this case and he is not an eye-witness to the incident of assault. He proved his fardbeyan (Ext. 2/5). PW 5 is Shanku Singh Ganjhu, who according to the prosecution had chased the appellant on hulla, raised by the informant and his wife. PW6 Lakhi Mani Devi is the mother of the deceased Sahchari Kumari. PW 7 Kapildeo Singh Ganjhu is a witness, who was named in the FIR and who had reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and he had also chased the accused. PW 8 Capt. Niranjan Minz is the Medical Officer, who held the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW 9 Loha Singh Ganjhu has been declared hostile whereas PW 10 Nilmohan Singh was ended and PW 11 is a formal witness. 5. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence on record both oral and documentary held the appellant guilty fer the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life as already been stated above. 6. Mr. A.S.Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence against the appellant, submitted that the trial court has committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence of murder of Sahchari Kumari though there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not been able to bring on record the circumstances of such nature from which it can be said that evidence on record clearly points out against the guilt of the accused/appellant. He further submitted that the chain of circumstances are not complete so as to come to the conclusion that it was the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased. 7. In order to test the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant let us examine the evidence of PW 4, i.e. the informant and his wife (PW 6), who are the main witnesses of the prosecution. The informant (PW 4) in his fardbeyan (Ext. 7. In order to test the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant let us examine the evidence of PW 4, i.e. the informant and his wife (PW 6), who are the main witnesses of the prosecution. The informant (PW 4) in his fardbeyan (Ext. 2/5) stated that when he and his wife Lakhi Mani'Devi (PW 6) returned to their house they saw the appellant Pitamber Singh Ganjhu was fleeing away from the back side of their house towards north and at that time he was holding a blood stained Chhura in his hand. Thereafter, the informant entered in his house and then he found his daughter Sahchari Kumari aged about 15 years lying in a pool of blood and she was fighting for life. On their hulla, the villagers namely, Shanku Singh Ganjhu (PW 5), Kapildeo Singh Ganjhu (PW 7), Bhim Singh Ganjhu (PW 2), chased the appellant to catch hold but he managed to escape. Both PW 4 and PW-6 further stated that Pitamber Singh was fleeing having blood stained Chhura in his hand and when the informant again entered into his house he found his daughter lying dead in a pool of blood. He further stated that the appellant was of bad character and on earlier occasion also he had tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter, which was protested and, therefore, the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. In his evidence, PW 4, i.e. the informant stated that on the date and time of occurrence he had gone to Bundu in the early morning and his wife had gone to graze the cattle. His daughter was alone in the house. At about 5.30 P.M. when he returned to his house from Bundu at that very time his wife also arrived there and they saw the accused, having blood stained Chhura in his hand and he was fleeing away towards north through his" Baari" (Kitchen Garden) and at that time he was wearing a white Dhoti having red border, which was also having blood stains. He also raised hulla and on his hulla witnesses, Bhim Singh, Kapildeo Singh came there and chased the accused but he could not be apprehended and, thereafter, when he entered inside the house he found his daughter dead having injuries on her neck, Cheek and Little Finger. He also raised hulla and on his hulla witnesses, Bhim Singh, Kapildeo Singh came there and chased the accused but he could not be apprehended and, thereafter, when he entered inside the house he found his daughter dead having injuries on her neck, Cheek and Little Finger. In cross examination he stated that his daughter was a school going student and she was not having love affairs with the appellant. He also stated that he went to the house of the accused alongwith the Police and blood stained cloth, i.e. white Dhoti having red border was recovered from there, however, Chhura could not be recovered from there. From the evidence of the informant it is clear that according to him he and his wife saw the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence having Chhura in his hand and at that time he was wearing a white Dhoti having red border and his Dhoti was stained with blood. The said red bordered Dhoti was recovered by the police from the house of this appellant. 8. PW 6 has also fully corroborated the statements of PW 4 the informant and stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence she had gone to graze cattle and her husband had gone to Bundu whereas her daughter was alone in the house. When they came back their house at about 5.30 P.M. she as well as her husband saw the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence having a blood stained Chhura in his hand. She also corroborated the fact that on hulla the witnesses Kapildeo Singh, Bhim Singh and Shanku Singh arrived there and also chased the appellant but he could not be apprehended. 9. She also corroborated the fact that on hulla the witnesses Kapildeo Singh, Bhim Singh and Shanku Singh arrived there and also chased the appellant but he could not be apprehended. 9. PW 5 Shanku Singh Ganjhu and PW 7 Kapildeo Singh Ganjhu, whose names were stated by PW 4 and PW 6 that they had arrived at the place of occurrence on their hulla and these two witnesses also saw this appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence having dagger in his hand and at that time he was wearing a Dhoti having blood stains, have also corroborated the statements of PW 4 and PW 6 and categorically terms they stated that PW 6 was crying taking the name of the appellant that he was fleeing away after killing her daughter and then they came out from their house and chased the appellant but he could not be apprehended and these two witnesses also saw the injuries on the person of the daughter .of the informant. The appellant was identified by PWs. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the dock who was seen by them when he was fleeing away from the place of occurrence having a 'Chhura' (dagger) in his hand and he was wearing a red bordered Dhoti which was subsequently recovered by the police from the house of the appellant. 10. PW 8 is the Doctor, who held the I Post Mortem examination of the body of the deceased and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Sahchari Kumari:(i) 4 x 1 cm x bone deep situated obliquely on the chin cutting the underlying bone partially, (ii) 7 x 1 cm x soft tissues on the mandible region right side. (iii) 13 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the front part of the neck situated transversally, the weapon cut the soft tissues, the blood vessels, the nerves, the trachea and esophagus completely and the VI survical vertebrae partially. (iv) 12 x 2 cm. x bone deep on the front part of the neck situated transversely overlapping the injury no. III. The weapon cut the soft tissues, the blood vessels, the traches, the oeropleagus completely and the 3rd survical vertebrae partially, (v) 5 x 1 cm. x soft tissues on the left lateral neck (vi) 3 x 1 cm. soft tissues on the left cheek, (vii) 3 x 1 em. III. The weapon cut the soft tissues, the blood vessels, the traches, the oeropleagus completely and the 3rd survical vertebrae partially, (v) 5 x 1 cm. x soft tissues on the left lateral neck (vi) 3 x 1 cm. soft tissues on the left cheek, (vii) 3 x 1 em. soft tissues on the top of right shoulder. (viii) 2 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x soft tissues on left middle finger back side. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and death was due to the injury on neck. 11. On perusal of the injuries, found on the person of the deceased, it appears that the statements of PWs. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have fully been corroborated by the Medical evidence. 12. Considering the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses discussed above, coupled with the nature of the injuries as found on the person of the deceased, in our view the chain of circumstances are such which clearly and in unequivocal terms establishes that it was this appellant, who was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence at the relevant time and date of occurrence having blood stained Chhura in his hand and at that time he was wearing red bordered Dhoti with blood stains, committed the murder of the deceased Sahchari Kumari. The circumstances are such which clearly points out toward guilt of the appellant. 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 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.