JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal, the Appellant Bishwanathan Goder @ J. Bishwanathan challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.7.2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of prosecution in short as per the fardbeyan of Smt. Andal dated 24.10.1996 is that the daughter of informant, namely, Shanti (deceased) was married to Bishwanathan Goder @ J. Bishwanathan (Appellant) in the year 1990. After three months of the marriage, the Appellant assaulted Shanti and driven her out from the house. In this connection a case was lodged under Jimeri Police Station in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter the informant along with her daughter came to Jamshedpur and started living there. After one and half months, the Appellant along with his father came to Jamshedpur and on assurance that they will cordially behave with Shanti, took her to their place. Shanti lived with Appellant for about one and half years and during that period she gave birth to a male child. Again the Appellant started misbehaving with her, whereupon she again came to Jamshedpur. After sometime the informant went to her village for purchasing land and during that period the Appellant came and exerted pressure upon her for sending Shanti, however, at that time the informant told that she will call a panchayati and then only she will send her daughter. A panchayati was held and in that panchayati deceased (Shanti) had refused to go with the Appellant complaining that he had been ill treating her. Thereafter Appellant had attempted to commit murder of second wife of informant's husband and in that connection he was arrested and put behind the bar and remained inside the prison for three months. Informant had again come to Jamshedpur alongwith Shanti and her son and started living there. However, she came to learn that 20-25 days ago Appellant had also reached at Jamshedpur and started living in rented house. The Appellant had come to the house of informant few days ago and asked her for sending Shanti to his house. However, she refused to send Shanti on the pretext of decision given in panchayati. It is further alleged drat the Appellant quarreled with her and returned after giving threatening. The Appellant had come to the house of informant few days ago and asked her for sending Shanti to his house. However, she refused to send Shanti on the pretext of decision given in panchayati. It is further alleged drat the Appellant quarreled with her and returned after giving threatening. Two days before the occurrence the Appellant had stopped Shanti near Andhra School and tried to took her forcibly but however the persons of the locality intervened and rescued Shanti. A day before the occurrence, the Appellant again came to her house situated at Shastri Nagar and quarreled with her, however the persons of the locality, namely, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Chhkuri Pandey and others intervened and chased him away. The Appellant while fleeing away had threatened to kill Shanti. In the morning of the date of occurrence at 7 a.m. the Appellant came and threatened, however he was again chased away by the persons of the locality. On the date of occurrence, the informant's daughter Shanti had gone for working as made servant in the house of D. Minakshi at New Ranikudar. However, at 8.45. a.m., the informant heard hulla that the Appellant had killed her daughter, whereupon she went in the house of D. Minakshi and found the dead body of Shanti in the lane. She also found so many injuries on the neck of deceased caused by sharp cutting weapon. The persons who were present near the place of occurrence including D. Minakshi informed that the Appellant had tried to took away Shanti. When she refused, he cut the neck of the deceased with Chappu i.e. Dao,(an instrument for cutting wood). After killing her the Appellant fled towards police station. One towel (Gamcha) was lying at the place of occurrence which belonged to Appellant. The said towel was identified by the informant. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, the police instituted Kadma P.S. Case No. 151 of 1996 dated 24.10.1996 u/s 302 of the IPC and took up investigation. 4. After completing the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the Appellant u/s 302 of the IPC. 5. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions as the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively trible by the court of sessions. 6. 4. After completing the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the Appellant u/s 302 of the IPC. 5. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions as the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively trible by the court of sessions. 6. Learned court below has framed the charge against the Appellant for an offence u/s 302 of the IPC and the said charge was explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Thereafter prosecution had examined altogether 10 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution had also proved and brought on record Ext.-1 Post Mortem Report, Ext-2 series the signatures of witnesses on inquest report, fardbeyan and seizure list, Ext- 3 signature of accused on production- cum- seizure list, Ext-4 the fardbeyan, Ext.-5 formal FIR, Ext.-6 inquest report, Ext.-7 seizure list and Ext.-8 production -cum- seizure list. 8. The accused was thereafter examined u/s 313 Code of In course of his statement the accused had denied the allegation that he has killed the deceased but however he admitted that a panchayati was held in the village in which Shanti refused to live with the Appellant and after the said panchayati, deceased came to Jamshedpur along with her mother. It is further admitted by the Appellant that he also came to Jamshedpur after 20 days and started living in a rented house. The Appellant also admitted that Shall was living in the house of Hari Shankar Pandey at Shastri Nagar. 9. The learned court below after considering the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able prove the charge against the Appellant and accordingly convicted sentenced the Appellant as aforesaid. 10. Assailing the said judgment, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the entire prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of P.W. 2 who claims himself to be the eye witness of the occurrence. The occurrence took place in day time in crowded area but no witness of the locality has been examined as an eyewitness of the occurrence. Only P.W. 2 who is the resident of different place has been cited as eye witness of the occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 2 does not find corroboration from any other witness and therefore it is not safe to convict the Appellant on his sole testimony. Only P.W. 2 who is the resident of different place has been cited as eye witness of the occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 2 does not find corroboration from any other witness and therefore it is not safe to convict the Appellant on his sole testimony. It has been further submitted that the' statement of P.W. 2 is self contradictory because in the examination in chief he states that he reached at the place of occurrence on motor cycle while returning from his duty but at paragraph No. 6 he states that he lad gone near water tap for bringing water. On this score also, his evidence is not worthy of acceptance. The articles seized during the investigation has not been produced in court which also cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution. It has been contended that the impugned judgment of the court below is thus not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 is wholly reliable and there is no contradiction and/or inconsistency in his evidence. The contradiction pointed out by the defence is insignificant. At paragraph No. 6, P.W. 2 was referring about the quarrel between Appellant and informant prior to occurrence and in that context he had stated that the said quarrel took place near the water tap and at that time he was also present near the said water tap as he had gone there for bringing water. Thus, there is no contradiction regarding the presence of P.W. 2 at the place of occurrence on the date and time of occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 2 find full corroboration from the evidence of doctor (P.W. 1), informant (P.W. 3), P. W. 9 and I.O. (P.W. 10). Due to the non production of material seized during the investigation, no prejudice has been caused to the accused because the accused in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure had admitted that a copy of Ext.-8 (Seizure-cum- production list) was received by him and he put his signature on it. Since no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant due to non production of seized article, the said lapse is of no consequence. It has been contended that the impugned judgment dose not require any interference by this Court. 12. Since no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant due to non production of seized article, the said lapse is of no consequence. It has been contended that the impugned judgment dose not require any interference by this Court. 12. Having heard the Submission, we have carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record. It is evident from the deposition of P.W. 1 Dr. Y. Nath that there was incised wound on the throat of deceased. He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. The cause of death according to the doctor was due to bleeding and shock. Thus the doctor has the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover the homicidal death not under challenge. 13. Now the question remained to be decided in this case as to whether the Appellant has any hand in the commission of present crime ? On careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we find that P.W. 2 (Hridayanand Upadhyay) is the sole eye witness of the occurrence, P.W. 3, the informant is hear say on the point of occurrence but however she has come forward to prove the motive of the occurrence. P.W. 4 is the father of the deceased who is also hear say on the point of occurrence. P.W. 5 Binod Pandey, P.W. 6 Chhakuri Pandey, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Pandey, have been declared hostile as they have not fully supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 8 Brahmdeo Narayan Diwedi is the seizure list witness and P.W. 9 Deo Narayan Tiwary is the witness of production-cum- seizure list. P.W. 10 Lalan Prasad is the I.O. Now, we are proceeding to consider the evidence of P.W. 2. 14. Reverting to the evidence of P.W. 2, we find from his deposition that the deceased was residing in the rented house of Harishankar Pandey at Shastri Nagar and she was doing the work of maid servant. He then deposed that few days earlier to the occurrence the Appellant came and quarreled with the informant (mother of deceased) for sending Shanti (deceased). However, on their intervention Appellant returned. At the time of returning, the Appellant had threatened to kill Shanti. He then deposed that few days earlier to the occurrence the Appellant came and quarreled with the informant (mother of deceased) for sending Shanti (deceased). However, on their intervention Appellant returned. At the time of returning, the Appellant had threatened to kill Shanti. He stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8.30 a.m. he was returning from duty on a motor cycle and in course of that when he reached near Ranikudur Puja Pandal, he heard hulla that one person is assaulting a woman. Thereafter he stopped his motor cycle and went in the lane and saw that the Appellant was inflicting injury on the neck of deceased with a Dao (an instrument for cutting wood). He further deposed that the Appellant had inflicted 3-4 injuries on the neck of deceased. He has said that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the Appellant fled away towards police station. He stated that when he and others chased him, the Appellant entered inside the police station. He had also proved his signature on the inquest report. During the cross examination, he deposed that prior to the occurrence, a quarrel took place between Appellant and informant (P.W.3) in his presence and also in presence of Chhakuri Pandey, Shashi Pandey and 2-3 women of the locality. He states that the said quarrel took place near a water tap and at that time he had gone near the water tap for bringing water. From the perusal of entire cross examination, we find that there is absolutely nothing on which his testimony can be discarded. We also find nothing in his evidence from which it can be gathered that he had any reason to falsely implicate the Appellant. 15. P.W.3, is the mother of deceased. She stated that just after three months of the marriage the Appellant assaulted deceased had driven her out from the house. Thereafter deceased came to Jamshedpur and started living with her. The father of Appellant again took Shanti to his house but Shanti again returned to her house along with her nine months old son. She stated that she had gone her village for purchasing land and during that period, the Appellant had abused and insulted her. Thereafter deceased came to Jamshedpur and started living with her. The father of Appellant again took Shanti to his house but Shanti again returned to her house along with her nine months old son. She stated that she had gone her village for purchasing land and during that period, the Appellant had abused and insulted her. In the village, a panchayati was held and in that panchayati it was decided that Shanti and Appellant will live separately for one year and thereafter again Shanti came to Jamshedpur. The Appellant also came to Jamshedpur and started living in a rented house. She further deposed that the Appellant had killed the deceased and fled away. When she reached near the place of occurrence she saw the dead body of her daughter. She stated that the persons who were present at the place of occurrence had disclosed the name of assailant. She then deposed that on her statement, fardbeyan was drawn on which she put her signature. She proved her signature. During the cross examination, she stated that no paper was prepared during panchayati. 16. P.W.8 had stated, that on 24.10.1996 at about 8.30 a.m. he was in his house and after hearing hulla, he came out of the house and found that a woman was lying on the ground and there were injuries on her neck. He deposed that from that place, police seized pieces of green bangles and one Gamcha and prepared seizure list on which he and Narendra Singh put their signature as witnesses. He proved the signatures as Ext,- 2/2 and 2/3 respectively. He also stated that the said Narendra Singh has already died. During the cross examination, he admitted that the said articles were not in front of him at the time of deposition. P.W 9 Deo Narayan Tiwary deposed that on 24.10.1996 the Appellant had produced a blood stained Dao (an instrument for cutting wood) and blood stained cloth to the Officer-in-Charge of Kadma police station. He further stated that from the possession of Appellant one love letter and one invitation card of marriage were also seized. He stated that he and Bhola Sao put their signatures on the seizure -cum-production list. Both the signatures were marked as Ext.- 2/4 and 2/5. 17. P.W. 10 is the Investigating officer. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext- 4. He stated that he and Bhola Sao put their signatures on the seizure -cum-production list. Both the signatures were marked as Ext.- 2/4 and 2/5. 17. P.W. 10 is the Investigating officer. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext- 4. He had also proved the formal FIR marked as Ext.-5. He had stated that during the investigation he inspected the place of occurrence and found the dead body of deceased near the house of B.N. Dubey. He found blood spread over on earth over an area of three feet He prepared inquest report in presence of witnesses. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Ext.-6. He further deposed that be had seized one blood stained Gamchha, pieces of bangles, one chappal and a necklace of black stone. He also seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. He prepared a seizure list in presence of witnesses. The said seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.-7. He then stated that when he returned to the police station, he was told that the Appellant had surrendered the police station along with the weapon used in course of occurrence. The Inspector of Police, namely, Md. Hussain handed over to him a blood stained Dao (an instrument for cutting wood) made of iron, a blood stained shirt, one letter and a marriage invitation card along with seizure-cum- production list. He has proved the seizure-cum-production list which was marked as Ext.-8. 18. On careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we find that P.W. 2 is an eye witness of the occurrence and he had categorically stated that when he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw that the Appellant was inflicting injury on the neck of deceased by a Dao (a sharp cutting weapon). He stated that the Appellant had inflicted 3-4 injuries on the neck of deceased. His aforesaid evidence found full corroboration from the medical evidence. P.W. 1 doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of Shanti and found four incised wound on the neck of deceased. P.W. 2 had also deposed that after inflicting injury, the Appellant fled towards police station and when he along with others chased him, he entered inside the police station. This fact is also supported by P.W. 9 and P.W. 10. P.W. 2 had also deposed that after inflicting injury, the Appellant fled towards police station and when he along with others chased him, he entered inside the police station. This fact is also supported by P.W. 9 and P.W. 10. P.W. 9 had stated that in his Presence the Appellant had produced a blood stained Dao and blood stained cloths before the Officer-in-Charge of Kadma Police Station. The I.O. had also stated at paragraph No. 6 & 7 of his deposition that when he returned to the police station from the place of occurrence, the appellant was present in the police station and at that time the Police Inspector Md. Hussain had given him blood stained Dao and cloths etc. along with production-cum-seizure list. In this connection, it is not out of place mention that the Appellant in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure had admitted that he had received a copy of Ext.-8 and he also admits his signature on Ext.-8. Thus the aforesaid statements of P.W. 9, 10 and Appellant himself fully corroborates the statement of P.W. 2. We further find that there is nothing on record to show that P.W. 2 have any enmity and /or any personal grudge to falsely implicate the Appellant. Under the said circumstance, we find that the P.W. 2, who is an independent witness, is wholly reliable and acceptable. 19. We further find that there are evidence available on record to show that the Appellant had strain relation with the deceased because she was not living with him and for that purpose he quarreled several time with the deceased as well as her mother P.W. 3. There is evidence on record to show that a panchayati was also held in that connection. The Appellant had also admitted the factum of panchayati during his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure Thus, in our view, the motive for committing the present crime has also been proved. 20. The submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant that non production of seized article in court cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution is not worth acceptable. It is well settled that non production of seizure list and /or seized article though is a lapse on the part of prosecution the same has no fatal consequences unless the defence shows that any prejudice has been caused to them. It is well settled that non production of seizure list and /or seized article though is a lapse on the part of prosecution the same has no fatal consequences unless the defence shows that any prejudice has been caused to them. In the present case we find that due to non production of aforesaid articles, no prejudice has been caused inasmuch as no such suggestion was given to seizure list witnesses i.e. P.W. 8 & 9 as also to I.O. that said articles were not seized. We find that no question was put to these witnesses at the time of their cross examination challenging the seizure of aforesaid articles. Thus, in our view, seizure of said articles remained unchallenged. 21. Since, the statement of P.W. 2, who is eye witness of the occurrence, is wholly reliable and the same find full corroboration from medical evidence and objective finding of I.O. and as the motive of the occurrence is also proved, we conclude that the charge leveled against the Appellant has been proved by the prosecution beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, we uphold the judgment of the learned court and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant. 22. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.