JUDGMENT Oral Order: Per D.N. Patel, J.--The aforesaid criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.6.2000 and 8.6.2000 respectively passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 1998, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment for committing murder of Khobi Devi. 2. The fact of the prosecution' case is unfolded hereunder:- It is a case of the prosecution that the informant Budhram Singh, P.W. 4 husband of the deceased has given a written complaint on 1.11.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. to the Officer-in-Charge, Raidih Police Station stating therein that his wife Khobi Devi while coming to her house alongwith. his daughter Balmai Devi (P.W.3), when they reached near the house of Keshwar Singh (appellant-accused), the accused assaulted upon Khobi Devi by sharp cutting instrument, namely, Balua and caused injuries at the back side of neck, over right cheek and neck and she died on the spot. It is also alleged by the informant P.W. 4 that daughter of the accused had expired on earlier date of the incident and, therefore, he was suspecting the deceased as 'Dain' and, therefore, he has killed her. Date of incident is 31.10.1997 at 6 p.m. Thereafter investigation was carried out, statements of several witnesses were recorded, charge-sheet was filed and Sessions Trial No. 83 of 1998 was registered against the appellant-accused and upon recording of the evidences and appreciating the same, the trial court has punished the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Khobi Devi and against this order, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant accused. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who has submitted that no detail has been given in the first information report as to how the assault has been made. In fact, first information report has not been given by P.W. 4, as alleged by the prosecution, is not an eye witness at all. There was neither any eye witness nor any nearby resident independent witness has been examined. Place of occurrence was not fully. established and looking to the depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 9, they have not stated that P.W. 3 has given the name of the assailant. There was neither any eye witness nor any nearby resident independent witness has been examined. Place of occurrence was not fully. established and looking to the depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 9, they have not stated that P.W. 3 has given the name of the assailant. Thus, appellant-accused is innocent and is wrongly roped into the offence otherwise also, there are lots of omissions, contradictions and improvements by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and hence, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State- A.P.P submitted that whole case of the prosecution is based upon the eye witness, namely, P.W. 3, immediate is' the first information report, appellant-accused is named in the first information report, weapon is also narrated clearly in the first information report, place of occurrence is also pointed out right from the first information report itself. Thus, looking to the deposition of P.W. 3, who was accompanying her mother when assault was committed by the appellant-accused by Balua-sharp cutting instrument, mother of P.W. 3 expired on the spot because of several injuries on the vital part of the body. She immediately rushed at the house where she informed P.W. 4, who is father of P.W.3 husband of the deceased and thereafter she also informed P.W. 1-Ghan Shyam Singh immediately, who is Mukhiya of Village-Ramja where the incident has taken place. Thus, looking to the deposition of P.W. 1 also there is enough corroboration to the deposition of eye witness (P.W. 3). 5. It is also submitted by A.P.P. that inquest panchnama is Ext. 2 which also clearly established the injuries upon the deceased and where the dead body was lying. The dead body was found in front of the house of the accused. Looking to Ext. 5 which is seizure panchnama of blood stained earth and blood stained weapon, signatures upon this panchnama have also been proved by P.W.2 and P.W.5. This is also corroborative to the deposition of the eye witness. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that looking to the deposition of P.W.7, who is Dr. Looking to Ext. 5 which is seizure panchnama of blood stained earth and blood stained weapon, signatures upon this panchnama have also been proved by P.W.2 and P.W.5. This is also corroborative to the deposition of the eye witness. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that looking to the deposition of P.W.7, who is Dr. Angraj Subhas Chandra, who has carried out post mortem of the deceased, there are as many as four injuries and incised bones are there upon the dead body. Thus, looking to the deposition of P.W. 7, looking to the post mortem and looking to the Ext.-3, there is enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 3, who is an eye witness and the trial court has committed no error in appreciating these evidences on record. The prosecution has proved the offence beyond all reasonable doubt committed by the appellant-accused. Looking to the fact of the case, no second view is possible or permissible and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the incident has taken place on 31.10.1997 at 6 p.m. at Village-Ramja, District-Gumla. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4, who is informant-Budhram Singh-husband of the deceased that when his wife and his daughter were coming together at home, when they reached near the house of appellant accused, he assaulted with Balua-sharp cutting instrument upon his wife Khobi Devi and caused injuries at neck Because of several injuries at the vital parts of the , body, she expired on the spot and his daughter Balmai Devi, P.W. 3 rushed immediately at the house and informed Budhram Singh, P.W. 4 that appellant accused has committed murder of her mother and thereafter P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 both rushed to the house of P.W.1, who is Ghan Shyam Singh, Mukhiya of Ramja village and thereafter first information report was filed on 1.11.1997 at 8.30 a.m., police station is a distance of approximately 25 k.m. from Ramja village. Information was given at Raidih Police Station which is Ext.-1. Information was given at Raidih Police Station which is Ext.-1. Thus, immediate is the first information report, the appellant-accused is named in the first information report and the weapon is also reflected in the first information report used by the appellant-accused and motive is also alleged in the first information report that the appellant-accused suspected that Khobi Devi was a 'Dain' and as the daughter of the appellant-accused expired on a previous day, he has committed assault upon Khobi Devi. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 3, who is an eye witness, namely, Balmai Devi, it appears that she was• coming alongwith her mother Khobi Devi at her house. P.W. 3 is a daughter of the deceased. When both mother and daughter came nearby at the house of the appellant-accused, the appellant assaulted. Khobi Devi by weapon Balua and caused injuries on the back side of neck, over right cheek and neck and she died on the spot because of the injuries. It has also been stated by the eye witness (P.W.3) that even after she has fallen down, further injuries were caused by this appellant by weapon Balua. She immediately rushed at her house where she informed her father, who is P.W. 4 and thereafter they informed the Mukhiya, P.W.1 Gyan Shyam Singh where P.Ws. 8 and 9 were also present at the house of P.W.1. Thus, looking to her deposition, it appears that she is a natural witness. She was present with her mother and both of them were coming on their house. She was murdered near the house of the appellant and looking to her immediate reaction that she had rushed at her house and informed the father, P.W. 4 and immediately they rushed to the house of Mukhiya of Village-Ramja, i.e. P.W.1 where P.Ws. 8 and 9 were also present and thereafter first information report was filed Looking to the cross-examination of this witness, name is coming out in favour of the appellant-accused, though he is a rustic witness and given deposition after several months of the incident. She has given clear deposition before the court and has narrated the incident in details. She is natural, reliable and trustworthy witness. She has seen the whole incident. 7. She has given clear deposition before the court and has narrated the incident in details. She is natural, reliable and trustworthy witness. She has seen the whole incident. 7. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 1, who is Ghan Shyam Singh Mukhiya of Village-Ramja, he has stated that P.W. 3 came at his house and informed that her mother was murdered by the appellant. It has also been stated by this witness that thereafter they have rushed at the place of offence where the dead body was lying. Looking to the deposition of this witness, though he is not an eye witness, but he is a witness of several things which has happened immediately after the occurrence. Immediate behaviour is also reflected by P.W. 1. P.W. 3 has intimated to P.W. 1 on 31.10.1997 at evening. hours that the appellant-accused committed murder of her mother. This witness has also stated where the dead body was lying. It was in front of the appellant's house and there was bleeing profusely. 8. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 2, Bal Govind Singh, who has proved his signature upon the inquest panchnama and upon seizure panchnama of blood stained earth and blood stained weapon which was given by the wife of the appellant from her house. This witness has also stated that he has seen dead body of Khobi Devi nearby the house of the appellant accused. There was profuse bleeding at the scene of offence. Similarly, looking to the deposition of P.W. 5, Panha Singh, who has proved his signature upon the seizure-list. Likewise, looking to the depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 9, they have also stated in their depositions that when they were sitting at the house of P.W.1, Mukhiya of Village-Ramja on 31.10.1997 at evening hours, Salmai Devi, P.W. 3, an eye witness came and informed them that her mother was murdered by the appellant accused. They also rushed at the scene of offence where they saw the dead body lying over there. It has been stated by P.W. 8 that appellant-accused was addressing the deceased as 'Dain'. Likewise looking to the deposition of P.W. 6, Falinder Singh, son of the deceased, he has also seen the dead body lying near the house of appellant-accused and stated that appellant accused was addressing the deceased as 'Dain'. It has been stated by P.W. 8 that appellant-accused was addressing the deceased as 'Dain'. Likewise looking to the deposition of P.W. 6, Falinder Singh, son of the deceased, he has also seen the dead body lying near the house of appellant-accused and stated that appellant accused was addressing the deceased as 'Dain'. Looking to the deposition of these witnesses, it appears that though they are not eye witnesses but they have enough corroboration to the deposition. of P.W. 3, so far as place of offence is concerned, so far as profusion of blood on the scene of offence is concerned, so far as injuries upon the deceased is concerned, so far as seizure of blood stained earth and weapon is concerned and so far as motive is concerned. Daughter of the appellant-accused had expired on previous day of the incident and he was under a mistaken belief that Khobi Devi is a Dain' and by playing witchcraft, she has committed murder of his daughter and, therefore, appellant-accused committed murder of Khobi Devi on 31.10.1997 and the witnesses, P.Ws. 6 and 8 have stated in their depositions that the appellant-accused. was addressing the deceased as 'Dain'. Eye witness, P.W. 3 has also stated in her deposition that appellant-accused assaulted by sharp cutting instrument-Balua in a drunken state on the neck of her mother by saying that she was a 'Dain'. Thus, looking to the depositions of P. WS.1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9, there is enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 3. All these witnesses are residing in the same village. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 are independent witnesses, they are neither relative of the informant nor relative of the deceased. There is no inimical terms with the appellant. There is no reason to give false evidence against the appellant-accused. Likewise, P.Ws. 3 and 6, they have also no inimical terms with the appellant-accused. 9. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 7, who is Dr. Angraj Subhash Chandra, he has carried out post mortem of the deceased Khobi Devi on 1.11.1997 at 9.30 a.m. Following are the injuries found upon the deceased as per post mortem examination:- 1. Sharp cutting injury in back of neck, sized 5" x 4"x 4" with severing of vessels and bone i.e. cirvitical vertibra. 2. Angraj Subhash Chandra, he has carried out post mortem of the deceased Khobi Devi on 1.11.1997 at 9.30 a.m. Following are the injuries found upon the deceased as per post mortem examination:- 1. Sharp cutting injury in back of neck, sized 5" x 4"x 4" with severing of vessels and bone i.e. cirvitical vertibra. 2. Sharp cutting injury below ear right side 3" x 1" X 2" with fracture of moistoial bone of right side. 3. Sharp cutting injury at mendibular joint right side 1" x 1" x 1 ". 4. Sharp cutting injury of thigh right side size 2" x 1"x1". From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that there were as many as four injuries upon the deceased, out of which injury nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature and they were ante mortem injuries and were capable being caused by Balua-sharp cutting instrument. 10. Thus, looking to the injuries, there is corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 3. It has also been stated by P.W. 7 Dr. Angraj Subhash Chandra that time elapsed since death is within 24-28 hours approximately. This time is also telling with the date of incident and the time of incident which is 31.10.1997 at about 6 p.m. and the post mortem was carried out on 1.11.1997 at about 10.30 a.m. Thus, medical evidence is corroboration to the deposition of eye witness-P.W. 3. 11. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 10, Basudeo Singh, who is Investigating Officer, he has recorded the statement of witnesses and drawn inquest panchnama of the dead body of the deceased at Ext.4 which was lying in front of the house of the appellant-accused, upon which signatures of P.Ws.2 and 5 were taken, who have also in their depositions admitted their signatures. Likewise, looking to the deposition of the Investigating Officer, it appears that blood stained earth was collected and blood stained weapon was also recovered at the behest of the wife of the appellant-accused. Weapon-Balua was shown by the wife of the appellant-accused and given to Investigating Officer from her house. Seizure panchnama is Ext.-5, upon which also there are signatures of P.Ws.2 and 5 and they have "admitted their signatures. Thus, seizure panchnama and inquest panchnama are also corroborative to the case of the prosecution. 12. Weapon-Balua was shown by the wife of the appellant-accused and given to Investigating Officer from her house. Seizure panchnama is Ext.-5, upon which also there are signatures of P.Ws.2 and 5 and they have "admitted their signatures. Thus, seizure panchnama and inquest panchnama are also corroborative to the case of the prosecution. 12. Looking to these evidences on record, specially all eye witnesses, there is enough corroboration of other prosecution witnesses, as stated hereinabove, right from the first information report onwards and also by medical evidence, we are of the opinion that prosecution has proved an offence of murder of Khobi Devi by appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt, no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating these evidences on record. 13. Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused has said that no detail has been given as to how the injuries were caused by Balua upon the deceased. This contention is not much "helpful to the appellant because first information report was lodged by P.W. 4, who is husband of the deceased and father of P.W.3, an eye witness. Daughter of the P.W. 4 conveyed to him and he immediately rushed at the scene of offence and thereafter Mukhiya of the village was also informed and several eye witnesses, namely, P.W. land P.W. 8 have rushed at the scene of offence and ultimately, P.W. 4 informed the police of Raidih Police Station which is 25 k.m. away from the place of occurrence. He has stated name of the appellant-accused in the first information" report. The informant, P.W. 4 has been narrated the weapon used by the appellant, the place of scene of offence has been narrated by the informant in the 'first information report and the motive for which the murder has been committed has also been narrated in the first information report, even otherwise also first information report is a rough sketch of the whole incident and not the encyclopedia of the incidant, enough evidence has to be put in the criminal case. It cannot be levelled as cryptic information to the police. Signatures upon the first information report of other witnesses are also there which they have admitted in their depositions and is given as Ext.-1, no error 'has been committed by the trial court in appreciating these evidences on record. It cannot be levelled as cryptic information to the police. Signatures upon the first information report of other witnesses are also there which they have admitted in their depositions and is given as Ext.-1, no error 'has been committed by the trial court in appreciating these evidences on record. Likewise it has also been submitted by the appellant-accused that there was no sharpen by the eye witnesses. This contention is also not much helpful to the appellant, as eye witness is a daughter of the deceased. Looking to the assault and several injuries upon the deceased and profuse bleeding upon the deceased and also even though she has fallen down, the appellant accused further gives blow, she imm'9diately rushed at her house and informed PW. 4, father of PW. 3. How the witness will behave at all depend upon the witness. There is no mathematical rule of the behaviour of the eye witness. Some may shoot out and some may not, some may run away and some may hide out nearby but certainly eye witness .informs as per the description of the accused. It has also been submitted by the appellant that no independent eye witness has been examined. This contention is also not much helpful to the appellant because the incident has taken place at evening hours when mother and daughter were coming at their house and when they reached nearer at the house of the appellant-accused, suddenly appellant-accused committed murder upon Khobi Devi by weapon Balua. Presence of eye witness with mother is natural and she has seen the whole incident and immediately she rushed nearby her house and informed her father (P.W. 4) and both of them have rushed at the scene of offence, immediately P.W. 3 has also informed Mukhiya of village where P.Ws. 8 and 9 were also present. Whenever they reached at the scene of offence, they saw the dead body of Khobi Devi with profuse bleeding in front of the house of the appellant having several injuries upon her. Deposition of eye witness is getting enough corroboration from several witnesses as stated hereinabove. From the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 even medical evidence given by P.W.7 (Dr. Angraj Subhash Chandra) is also corroborative to the deposition of P.W.3. Deposition of eye witness is getting enough corroboration from several witnesses as stated hereinabove. From the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 even medical evidence given by P.W.7 (Dr. Angraj Subhash Chandra) is also corroborative to the deposition of P.W.3. Whenever any eye witness is nearby relative, it is a rule of wisdom that court must view the deposition of such type of witness in all circumspection and the court has to verify whether such witness is a natural witness, reliable witness and trustworthy witness or not. Whether the deposition of this type of witness is getting further corroboration or not? But it is not a rule that every time whenever nearby relative is a witness to depose ought to be discarded. 14. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 3 and her cross-examination, she is a natural witness, her presence with her mother is a natural one, she is reliable and trustworthy witness and there is enough corroboration by other prosecution witnesses to her deposition. As a cumulative effect of this contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused that eye witness is a close relative and, therefore, she is not reliable and she is not trustworthy witness is not accepted by this Court. We are not in need of quantity of witnesses but quality of witnesses. The evidences have been correctly appreciated by the trial court and have rightly punished the appellant-accused for committing murder of the deceased Khobi Devi. No error has been committed by the trial court. 15. In view of these facts, there is no substance in this appeal and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.