JUDGMENT By Court.-Both the aforesaid appeals i,e. Cr. A. (DB) No. 168 of 2000(P) and Cr. A. (DB) No. 709 of 2008 were preferred by the same appellant Chhabi Mandal. The Cr. A. (DB) No. 709 of 2008 is jail appeal preferred by him whereas Cr. A. (DB) No. 168 of 2000(P) was also filed through his counsel. Both the appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 18.2.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.T. Nos. 267/1997/3/1998 whereby he has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 LP.C. and two years R.L under Section 201 LP.C. 3. The said case was initiated on the basis of fardbeyan of Konika Mandal (P.W.10) wife of the deceased. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1.8.1997 at about noon there was dispute of taking away 'sattu', kept in a bucket in the house of this appellant. The wife of the appellant alleged that sattu was taken away by the informant. On the said allegation, there was a quarrel between the wife of the appellant and Konika Mandal-informant. The allegation is that when the appellant returned from his work in the evening, his wife complained about the same. The appellant allegedly, thereafter, became angry and took a sabal (thick iron rod) and went to the house of the deceased. At that time Ratan Mandal was collecting biris from the labourers. The appellant allegedly went there and inflicted sabal blow on the head, shoulder and hand of the deceased Ratan Mandal. When Ratan Mandal fell down, the appellant penetrated knife and took out his eyes. It caused profuse bleeding, and the deceased became unconscious. The informant raised alarm whereupon several villagers assembled and with their help the deceased was taken to the hospital. In course of treatment he succumbed to his injuries, the next morning, i.e. on 2.8.1997. 4. On receiving such information, police went to the hospital but in the night• police did not find anybody. The police again visited the next morning and recorded fardbeyan of the informant Konika Mandal. 5. After recording the statement of informant, police took up investigation and prepared inquest report, seized 'sabal' and took statements of witnesses. 4. On receiving such information, police went to the hospital but in the night• police did not find anybody. The police again visited the next morning and recorded fardbeyan of the informant Konika Mandal. 5. After recording the statement of informant, police took up investigation and prepared inquest report, seized 'sabal' and took statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and his minor son Prashant Mandal who is aged about 12-13 years. 6. On the basis thereof charges were framed against the appellant and said Prashant Mandal under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. However, since Prashant Mandal was a juvenile, his case was separated and the appellant alone was put on trial in the instant case. 7. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution altogether examined 13 witnesses: P.W. 1, Harendra Nath Mandal, is a witness to the seizure list; P.W. 2, Dr. S.K. Malhotra, proved the post mortem. The said witness has conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and also prepared injury report of the injuries said to be inflicted on the person of the informant; P.W. 3, Subhadra Mandal, is a F.I.R. witness, who is brother-in-law of deceased; P.W. 4, Charu Mandal is a witness to the inquest report; P.W. 5, Khitish Chandra Mandal, is the brother-in law of the deceased. He is not the eye witness; P.W. 6, Bhagwati Mandal; P.W.7, Belowati Mandal; P.W. 8, Ratu Mandal; P.W. 9, Janki Mandal; P.W. 11, Chintu Mandal, are the eye witnesses in the case alongwith informant P.W. 10 Konika Mandal. P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 are 'biri labourers' and they are said to be present at the time of occurrence. The deceased Ratan Mandal was Munshi. He used to collect biris from the said witnesses. They were present at that time and witnessed the occurrence. P.W.12 Ajay Kumar Singh and P.W. 13, Arun Kumar are the investigating officers in this case. P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Singh has taken the Investigation after P.W. 13 Arun Kumar transferred from that place. Several documents were also brought as evidences and were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution Ext.-1 series, are signatures of the witnesses on the seizure list, fardbeyan and inquest report; Ext.-2 is the injury report. P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Singh has taken the Investigation after P.W. 13 Arun Kumar transferred from that place. Several documents were also brought as evidences and were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution Ext.-1 series, are signatures of the witnesses on the seizure list, fardbeyan and inquest report; Ext.-2 is the injury report. Post mortem report is marked as Ext.-3. Exts.-4 and 4/1 are station diaries whereas fardbeyan and inquest reports have been marked as Ext.-5 and Ext.-6 respectively; Ext.-7 is the formal F.I.R. and Ext.-8 is the seizure list. 8. Learned trial court, on appraisal of the evidences, particularly the testimonies of the eye witnesses P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 11, found the prosecution case fully corroborated and supported. The informant-P.W. 10, medical evidence of P.W. 2 and evidences of I.Os., P.W. 12 and P.W. 13, also proved the prosecution case. Learned court below on that basis found the appellant guilty of the charges and convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced as aforesaid. 9. In the petition of jail appeal as also in the memorandum of, appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant, the impugned judgment has been assailed mainly on the ground that there is absence of motive in the case and the appellant was falsely implicated with ulterior mala fide motive due to family dispute. P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 9 are close relatives. They are interested witnesses. The eye witnesses happened to be the labourers under the deceased and their testimonies are not free from doubt. 10. M/s Kavita Singh, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae challenged the finding and submitted that the occurrence took place on 1.8.1997. Whereas the fardbeyan was recorded on 2.8.1997 i.e. after delay of 14 hrs. There is no explanation for that delay. There is also no explanation for not recording the statement by the police in the night. It is an . admitted position that the I.O. had visited the hospital in the night but he did not find any attendant of the injured in the hospital. Learned counsel submitted that there is every possibility of false implication of the appellant after deliberation and the delay vitiates the prosecution case. Learned trial court has not properly considered the said illegality and infirmity which goes to root of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel submitted that there is every possibility of false implication of the appellant after deliberation and the delay vitiates the prosecution case. Learned trial court has not properly considered the said illegality and infirmity which goes to root of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel urged that the incriminating knife was not produced before the court. Whereas 'sabal' which was produced as material Ext.-2, was not sent for forensic examination. No blood stain was found on the alleged sabal. The seizure list showing seizure of 'sabal' is also not admissible as the same does not bear signatures of inmates of the house. Learned counsel submitted that the infirmities taken as a whole would give rise to serious doubts. The benefit of that doubt ought to have been given to the appellant and he should have been acquitted of the charges. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, emphatically supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that in the instant case, there are six eye witnesses including the informant, who had witnessed the occurrence. They have fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case in their depositions. The occurrence took place in the full view. Except the informant, the other eye witnesses namely P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 are independent witnesses. They have given vivid accounts of the occurrence in their respective depositions. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimonies. He further submitted that the medical evidence has fully corroborated the prosecution case. The I.O. who visited the place of occurrence has also fully supported the prosecution case. The I.Os. seized the incriminating 'sabal' and took the statement of the witnesses. No contradiction has been found in their depositions in the court. He submitted .that this case is fully proved by the competent witnesses and cogent evidence and the learned trial court on due scrutiny of the evidences on record has rightly held the appellant guilty. There is no infirmity in conviction and sentence of the appellant and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. Having heard learned counsel (Amicus Curiae) and learned A.P.P., we have also meticulously examined the record. We find that besides the informant Konika Mandal P.W. 10, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. 12. Having heard learned counsel (Amicus Curiae) and learned A.P.P., we have also meticulously examined the record. We find that besides the informant Konika Mandal P.W. 10, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. On perusal of depositions of the said witnesses,• we find that P.W.-6 in para-1, P.W. 7 in para1, P.W. 8 in para-1, P.W. 9 in para-1 and P.W: II in para-1 have fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case. P.W. 10, the informant has also supported the statement given in the fardbeyan in paras-1, 2 and 3 in her deposition. All the witnesses have been cross-examined at length but nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the testimonies of the said witnesses. On perusal of evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. S.K. Malhotra, who conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, we find that there was clear corroboration of the ocular evidences by the medical. evidence. On examination of the dead body of the deceased Ratan' Mandal, he found the following ante mortem injuries: (1) A large lacerated wound including whole of cornea and surround scleara (white portion of the eye ball) with fracture of roof of orbit in both the eyes. (2) A lacerated wound 3" x ½ ”x muscle deep over right parital region. (3) Abrasion I" x V2 " with swelling 2" x 2" over right delloid region. (4) Lacerated wound 2" x ½ x muscle deep in between right thumb and right index finger. On opening the cranial cavity he found that the roof of both the orbit of eyes were fractured with clots inside the cranial cavity. Brain tissues were lacerated in frontal region. On opening the chest wall he found that the heart chamber contained liquid blood, lungs were congested. On opening the abdomen he found that the liver, spleen, both the kidneys were congested. Stomach contained semi-digested food material. Intestine contained gas and fecal matter. Urinary bladder was full. Organ of generation were found intact. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp and pointed weapon such as knife and was injurious and sufficient by itself to cause death with normal course of nature. The other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as iron rod. In his opinion, the death was caused due to cerebral shock caused by injury no. 1. 13. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp and pointed weapon such as knife and was injurious and sufficient by itself to cause death with normal course of nature. The other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as iron rod. In his opinion, the death was caused due to cerebral shock caused by injury no. 1. 13. Ongoing through the evidences of I.Os. P.W. 12 and P.W. 13, we find that the said Investigating Officers thoroughly investigated into the case. They have supported the prosecution version on the basis of their investigation. The prosecution has also brought documentary evidences in support of the case. On thorough examination of the said documents exhibited by the prosecution and on appraisal of the ocular and medical evidences on record we find no ground to differ with the finding recorded by the learned trial court. The conclusion of the trial court is based on the legal and admissible evidences and there is no infirmity and illegality in its findings. We accordingly uphold the impugned judgment of the learned trial court and consequently dismiss these appeals.