Judgment : MUKHERJEE, J. (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No.37 of 2001 arising out of Sessions Case No.128 of 2001 sentencing the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (2.) One Pravas Das lodged complaint on 17.2.2001 with the O.C., Manikchak Police Station alleging that on that day at about 6.15 a.m. his sister Kumari Shanti Das (Buri) aged 17 years went to attend private tuition in the house of Netai Karmakar at Mathurapur. While she was going through Dakatia Garden, Shanti Das was stabbed and lying on the ground. On getting information the informant went to the place of occurrence at about 6.25 a.m. and found that his sister was lying with the vojali penetrated in her back. That apart, Yunustulla, Nemai Ghosh and others informed him that Sukumar Mahara stabbed Shanti Das 4-5 times with the help of knife and thereafter Sukumar fled away. The villagers could not apprehend him. The victim was taken to Manikchak Hospital with bleeding injury on her person and the doctors declared her dead. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Manikchak P.S. Case No. 17 of 2001 dated 17.2.2001 was started under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (3.) The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the materials-on-record was pleased to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence holding that at least six injuries were found on the person of the deceased both on her front as well as back and that there was no room for doubt over the death of Shanti due to repeated stabbing and that it was homicidal in nature. The learned Judge further held that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.2 who was very much present at the place of occurrence and that the contradiction that was sought to be established by the learned defence counsel to discredit the testimony of P.W.2, was not at all vital to impeach the credibility of P.W.2. The learned Judge further held that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.2 who was very much present at the place of occurrence and that the contradiction that was sought to be established by the learned defence counsel to discredit the testimony of P.W.2, was not at all vital to impeach the credibility of P.W.2. The learned Judge held that the prosecution led cogent and reliable evidence to prove the charge against the accused. (4.) Mr. Basu appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the point which requires consideration is whether the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 can be relied upon. It is contended that there are serious contradictions on material particulars in the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W. 5 with the earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, as such, the evidence of the P.Ws. cannot be said to be convincing. It is submitted that on the seized materials there was no label and the evidence was not clear who produced the articles before the Police Officer making the seizure and where the seizure was made. It is contended that the neighbouring persons were not examined and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 cannot be said to be the eyewitnesses. Mr. Basu has drawn our attention to the contradictions with the statements made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as taken in the cross-examination of the P.Ws. Mr. Basu contends that none of the P.Ws saw the assault inflicted by the appellant on the victim and the witnesses did not also know the name of the appellant. It is contended that no T.I. parade was held and the identification made at the time of trial in the Court carries no importance. It is submitted that P.W. 3 although allegedly told the name of the assailant to the doctor, it does not find corroboration for the evidence of the doctor. It is submitted that the offending weapon was not shown to the doctor which was a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. Mr. Basu submits that the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure four days after the incident. Mr. Basu submits that the alleged seizure is not credible and the evidence of the witnesses cannot be relied upon, inasmuch as, it suffers from serious infirmities and, therefore, unreliable. (5.) Mr. Mr. Basu submits that the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure four days after the incident. Mr. Basu submits that the alleged seizure is not credible and the evidence of the witnesses cannot be relied upon, inasmuch as, it suffers from serious infirmities and, therefore, unreliable. (5.) Mr. Salam appearing on behalf of the State submits that the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are of much importance and from the evidence of these P.Ws it would clearly appear that the appellant dealt the blows on the deceased as a result of which she succumbed to the injuries. Mr. Salam submits that P.W. 2 witnessed the occurrence as he was present at the place of occurrence. (6.) P.W. 1 is the informant who went to the place of occurrence after letting information. It is in his evidence that he being accompanied by his brother and mother went to Dakatia Bagan and saw her sister Buri lying on the ground with a vojali penetrated on her back and another knife lying near her legs. It is also in his evidence that Nemai, Yunustulla and Ramesh told him that accused Sukumar stabbed his sister and then escaped. P.W. 1 has stated that he went to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead and therefrom he went to thana and lodged the F.I.R. P. W. 1 has stated that there were cut marks in the wearing apparels of the deceased. (7.) P.W. 2 is said to be the eyewitness of this case. P.W. 2 Yunustulla has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 6.15 a.m. he was proceeding to collect papers and he was going to Dakatia Bagan on foot where he saw Shanti proceeding 10-12 cubits ahead of him carrying a bag on her person. It is in his evidence that accused Sukumar son of Jogindar came on a cycle and after crossing him the accused placed himself in front of the girl and then threw away the bag from the girl and stabbed the girl with a knife in the abdomen. He has also stated that being stabbed, the girl bent down placing her hands on her abdomen and then the accused stabbed the girl on her back. He has stated that the girl fell down on the ground and the accused escaped riding the cycle. He has also stated that being stabbed, the girl bent down placing her hands on her abdomen and then the accused stabbed the girl on her back. He has stated that the girl fell down on the ground and the accused escaped riding the cycle. (8.) P.W. 3 has stated that he saw a boy coming there on a cycle and then went in front of the girl and stabbed her in her stomach and after being stabbed the girl bent down. It is also in his evidence that the knife which was used to stab the girl fell on the ground and then the boy stabbed the girl on her back with another knife and then the boy escaped. He has stated that after stabbing the girl the boy escaped riding his cycle. (9.) P.W. 4 Nemai Ghosh has stated that he was some distance away from the place to attend natures call and when he came he saw the girl lying with a vojali penetrated on her back and a knife lying near her legs. It is in his evidence that he saw the accused person going away on a cycle. (10.) P.W 5 is the post occurrence witness who came to the place of occurrence and saw the girl lying on the ground with a knife penetrated on her back and also saw Sukumar leaving the place. (11.) P.W. 6 is the primary school teacher who has stated that Shanti used to come to him thrice a week to take private tuition and after getting information he went to the place of occurrence and saw Shanti lying on the ground with a knife penetrated on her back. (12.) P.W. 7 is the elder brother of the deceased who got information and went to the place of occurrence, saw his sister lying on the ground with a knife penetrated on her back and subsequently she was shifted by a van to the hospital. It is also in his evidence that Sukumar proposed to marry his sister and when she refused she was stabbed by him. (13.) P.W. 8 is the constable who identified the dead body to the doctor. P.W. 9 is the Autopsy Surgeon. It is also in his evidence that Sukumar proposed to marry his sister and when she refused she was stabbed by him. (13.) P.W. 8 is the constable who identified the dead body to the doctor. P.W. 9 is the Autopsy Surgeon. P.W.10 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the witnesses Yunustulla and Ramesh Mondal under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W. 11 is the witness for the seizure, P.W. 12 is the I.O. (14.) From the statement of witness Yunustulla recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. we find that he was going to collect the papers relating to his land and on the way he found that the victim was proceeding with a bag in her shoulder and a boy riding a cycle came to the victim girl and threw away the bag from the shoulder of the girl and thereafter stabbed her in the abdomen. The victim bent down placing her hand in the abdomen and thereafter the boy struck her on the back by means of a knife and then fled away riding the cycle. It is also in his statement that the victim girl was restless and he knew the boy. This witness Yunushtulla has specifically stated that Sukumar Mahara was the boy and that the victim girl was also known to him. From the statement of the witness Yunushtulla (P.W.2) it becomes clear that he witnessed the occurrence and he disclosed the name of the assailant Sukumar Mahara. In his evidence P.W. 2 has also stated the same thing before the Court. (15.) Another witness Ramesh Mondal made a statement before the learned Magistrate recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that the boy came on a cycle and stood in front of the victim girl. The boy stabbed the girl in her abdomen. This witness has stated that he had seen this occurrence from some distance and found that the victim girl bent down placing her hands on the abdomen. He has also stated that the boy thereafter placed his hands on the back of the girl and thereafter went away riding the cycle. It is also in his statement that the victim girl shouted and on reaching the spot he found that the girl expired. This witness Ramesh Mondal has been examined as P.W. 3. He has also stated that the boy thereafter placed his hands on the back of the girl and thereafter went away riding the cycle. It is also in his statement that the victim girl shouted and on reaching the spot he found that the girl expired. This witness Ramesh Mondal has been examined as P.W. 3. In his evidence P.W.3 has also stated in the same manner as stated before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. From the statement of the witness Ramesh Mondal made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is clear that he witnessed the infliction of assault by the appellant and found the assailant going away on a cycle. In view of such direct, clear and unambiguous ocular version of the incident as made in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and at the time of trial, we find that the contradiction with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as urged by Mr. Basu, relegates to insignificance. There is no infirmity in the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and their testimony is convincing and unimpeachable. (16.) P.W. 9 the Autopsy Surgeon, has noted the following injuries:-"1. An oblique incised wound 2" * 1/4" * muscle deep at left middle back. 2. An oblique incised wound 1" * 1/8" * skin deep at left upper back. 3. An oblique incised wound Vi * 1/8" * skin deep at left cheek. 4. An oblique incised wound !4" * 1/4" x muscle deep at left anterior upper abdomen. 5. Penetrating wound, oblique, VA"* V2 with smooth inverted margins with one sharp and one ragged angle at left lower anterior abdomen, 2" away from midline. The wound traversed inwards cutting skin, tissue, muscle, blood vessels, peritoneum and small gut. Coil of intestine came out through the wound. 6. One knife with wooden handle found penetrated at right side of back and the tip of the knife felt under skin at anterior chest. The knife removed from the body. An oblique wound VA" * with smooth inverted margins with one sharp and one ragged angle found at right side of back VA away from midline. The wound traversed inwards through 4th inter coastal space cutting, skin, tissue, muscle, blood vessel, right pleura, and lung, pericardium and sternum." (17.) During the Examination-in-Chief of the doctor, the seized weapons (Material Ex. I and Material Ex. The wound traversed inwards through 4th inter coastal space cutting, skin, tissue, muscle, blood vessel, right pleura, and lung, pericardium and sternum." (17.) During the Examination-in-Chief of the doctor, the seized weapons (Material Ex. I and Material Ex. II) were shown to the doctor and he has opined that any of these two weapons could cause the injury; the shape of the knife was sufficient to cause the injuries as noted by him. The doctor has further stated that the cut marks on wearing apparels, sweater and *kamiz as shown to him might be caused by knife; the woolen vest with cut marks might also be caused by knife. P.W. 1 has also stated that the sweater, kamiz and other wearing apparels as shown to him had cut marks. (18.) From the evidence as discussed above it is clear that the ocular version as stated by P.W.2 and P.W.3 finds corroboration from the evidence of the doctor. The cut marks on the wearing apparels unmistakably indicate the infliction of stab injuries by the appellant on the person of the victim. (19.) The doctor has stated that wearing apparels, knife etc. were handed over to the escort constable. The seizure list (Exhibit -4) shows that the seized articles namely the wearing apparels, the 13" long knife were seized as produced by the witness constable Abdul Barik (P.W. 8) of | Manikchak PS. (20.) PW. 8 Abdul Barik has stated that he identified the dead body to the doctor and after post mortem examination, the wearing apparels and knife as collected by him were deposited with the thana and the same were seized under seizure list. He has put his signature Exhibit 4/1. He has also identified the wearing apparels and the knife as shown to him. The doctor has stated as against the injury No. 6 that there was one knife penetrated at the right side of the back of the deceased and the knife was removed from the body. So, the subsequent removal of the knife after the post mortem examination was over, also finds corroboration from the evidence of the witnesses who saw that the victim was lying with a knife penetrated on her back. There is also no ambiguity or suspicion as regards the seizure of the offending weapons and other articles both under Exhibits 4 and 8. There is also no ambiguity or suspicion as regards the seizure of the offending weapons and other articles both under Exhibits 4 and 8. (21.) P.W. 7 the elder brother of the victim has stated that Sukumar proposed to marry his sister and as she refused, he stabbed her. There is no contradiction on this point with his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This evidence of P.W. 7 clearly goes to show that appellant Sukumar was very much known to the family of the victim and the contention of Mr. Basu that the identity of the appellant at the time of alleged occurrence was not established, cannot be accepted. The evidence of P.W. 7 in this regard shows the motive behind the commission of the offence, although, it is not required to be proved in view of the direct, clear and unimpeachable evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. (22.) It was urged by Mr. Basu that P.W. 2 did not state the particulars of his land or the name of the person from whom he was going to collect the papers regarding his land, and as such his testimony was unreliable. It appears from the cross-examination of P.W. 2 that he was going to collect the papers regarding his land from one Kuttu. The contention of Mr. Basu in this regard is, therefore, not acceptable. (23.) On perusal of the evidence -on-record and after giving anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and their testimony cannot be discarded on any ground whatsoever. We find that the learned trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Judge of the Court below. (24.) There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (25.) Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Correctional Home where the appellant is now detained. (26.) Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below immediately. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.