JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 5/4/1999 and 7/4/1999 respectively by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 51 of 1997, where by the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, convicted him there under the sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that the informant Saryu Ram lodged FIR alleging therein that on 9.11.1996 at around 5,30 a.m. his wife Meena Devi (the deceased) had gone to daily morning walk towards Kalimanda situated at Hizla Road. Around about 6.00 a.m. there was a hulla that a woman was assaulted and injured near Kalimanda. At this the informant went there and saw that his wife Meena Devi was lying there in pool of blood having grievous injuries on her face. Thereafter, the informant with the help of some other people took her to the hospital on a Rickshaw in unconscious state. In the hospital he came to know that one person by name Pagla had assaulted and injured his wife. The case was initially lodged under Sections 323, 324 and 307, IPC but, since, the victim died in the hospital then Section 302, IPC was added. 3. The case of the appellant was of total denial of the charges. 4. In order to establish the prosecution case altogether 10 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in course of the trial. Out of them, PW 2 Fulki Devi, DW 3 Jageshwari Devi and PW 4 Champa Devi are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW 1 Gokul Keot, PW 5 Saryu Ram, PW 6 Renu Kumari and PW 7 Punam Kumari are the hear say witnesses. PW 8 Kartik Manjhi is a formal witness on the point of inquest. PW 9 Sita Ram Sah is the Doctor, who held postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased whereas PW 10 Upendra Prasad Yadav is the Investigating Officer. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the prosecution during the trial, held the appellant guilty for committing the murder of the deceased Meena Devi. 6. Challenging the impugned judgment convicting the appellant and sentencing him for the offence under Section 302, IPC, Mr. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the prosecution during the trial, held the appellant guilty for committing the murder of the deceased Meena Devi. 6. Challenging the impugned judgment convicting the appellant and sentencing him for the offence under Section 302, IPC, Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant relying on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4, the so-called eye-witnesses, as a matter of fact the evidence of the aforesaid eye- witnesses, i.e. PWs 2, 3 and 4 are not reliable rather they are contradictory to each other. He further submitted that none of the three eye-witnesses have stated a word about the weapon used by the appellant for assaulting the deceased. He submitted that if, in fact, those three witnesses would have actually seen the occurrence then they also must have seen as to from which weapon the deceased was being assaulted but since nothing has been said in this regard, the evidence of the eye-witnesses become doubtful and it can be said that they, in fact, are not eye-witnesses. It has further been submitted that according to the prosecution the occurrence took place in the month of November, which is Winter season and in the early hours at about 6.00 a.m. it is of common knowledge that during the Winter season at about 6.00 a.m. morning generally remains dark and, therefore, it is very much doubtful as to whether the three eye-witnesses, in fact, could have seen the actual assault. 7. PW 2 Fulki Devi, in her evidence, has stated that at about 6.00 a.m. she, along with two other female, had gone to attend the call of the nature and at that time there she saw that this appellant was assaulting one woman on her face due to which she received bleeding injuries and, thereafter, the said injured was taken to the hospital where she died. In Para 10 of her cross-examination she was stated about the presence of the other two females, i.e. PW 3 and PW 4. In her cross-examination she has specifically stated that the place of occurrence was clearly visible. 8. In Para 10 of her cross-examination she was stated about the presence of the other two females, i.e. PW 3 and PW 4. In her cross-examination she has specifically stated that the place of occurrence was clearly visible. 8. PW 3 Jageshwari Devi has also stated in the same line to that of the PW 2 and she has denied that she has any enmity with the appellant. 9. PW 4 Champa Devi has also clearly stated that the appellant did assault the deceased on her face due to which blood was coming out and then she was removed free there and subsequently she came to know that the said injured woman died. In her cross-examination she has further stated that all the three, meaning thereby PWs 2, 3 and 4, were attending the call of the nature at one place at some distance and the place of occurrence from there was about 50 cubits. 10. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidences of these three eye-witnesses, Le. PWs 2, 3 and 4. They had no enmity with the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason as to why they would falsely implicate this appellant in this case. Only because the eye-witnesses did not state in their evidence about the weapon used it cannot be said that their evidence became unreliable. If they would have any intention to falsely implicate then they could have very easily stated that the appellant was assaulting the deceased by a particular weapon. We find that what they actually saw at the place of occurrence, they narrated those facts in Court. They did not try to develop or exaggerate the story. Therefore, in our view, only because these three eye-witnesses did not speak about the weapon used for commission of the crime by the appellant cannot go against them. We find their testimony to be wholly reliable and truthful. 11. The evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4, Le. the eye-witnesses is fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor, who held the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries all on the face of the deceased: (i) Stitched wound over upper lip and lower lip, on removal of stitched, there was incised wound 1-1/4" x 1/2" x mucosa deep over the upper lip. Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep over lower lip. (ii) Stitched wound 2-1/2" x 1/2" bond deep over left side of face, on removal of stitches cutting of mandibles on left side. (iii) Stitched wound 2" x 1" long, the wound was sharp cut. (iv) Stitched wound 2-1/2" x long over left side of forehead which was sharp cut. (v) Stitched wound 4" long right of the face extending up to neck, on removal of stitch. 12. In view of the discussions and findings above, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Modi cannot be accepted and, hence, it is rejected. Consequently, we hold that the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of the deceased Meena Devi and he has rightly been convicted and sentenced there under. 13. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, we dismiss this appeal.