JUDGMENT Per D.N. Patel, J.- The present appeal has been preferred by the original accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd December, 2003 and 23rd December, 2003, passed by learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 521 of 2000, whereby, the present appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. If the case of the prosecution is unfolded, the facts are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 2 Smt. Gulia Orain has lodged a First Information Report on 16th October, 1998 at 12.30, at noon hours before Tamar Police Station, District-Ranchi (now Khunti) against the accused persons, including the present appellant, to the effect that on 15th October, 1998 Bigani Orain had visited her house with Ram Singar. At about. 8.00 p.m. when they were sitting in her house, the accused persons came there. They were Mangal Lohara, Ghasia Munda and another person. The present appellant told the informant-P.W. 2 to send Ram Singar. Ghasia Munda, another accused, insisted Ram Singar to accompany him for taking liquor, which was refused by Ram Singar. Bigani Orain also prohibited Ram Singar from taking liquor. Ghasia Munda assaulted Ram Singar and, therefore, Ram Singar tried to save his life and tried to run away. All the three accused persons chased Ram Singar. They all assaulted Ram Singar. The assault was caused by Kulhari (Farsa). Thereafter, the accused persons ran away and when the informant and others were managing to take Singar to the doctor, who declared Singar dead. 3. After registering the First Information Report, the investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted by the police on 31st July, 1999, showing the present appellant-accused Mangal Lohara to be absconding and further mentioning therein that F.I.R. named accused Ghasia Munda has been murdered. Thereafter, when the present appellant-accused was arrested, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted' on 30th January, 2000. 4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the .court of sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 521 of 2000 and the trial commenced. Thereafter, when the present appellant-accused was arrested, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted' on 30th January, 2000. 4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the .court of sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 521 of 2000 and the trial commenced. The trial court i.e. 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti after appreciating the evidences on record, convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the records and proceedings of the sessions trial. Looking to the deposition of P.W.2-Smt. Gulia Orain, who is informant, it appears that she had gone at Village-Loboda as a guest alongwith Sin gar Oraon, who is son of the younger brother of her husband. At about 8.00 p.m. on 15th October, 1998, on hearing high pitch voice of accused Ghasia Munda, she (P.W. 2) came out and saw Ghasia Munda and the present appellant. They were calling Ram Singar to come out. They were insisting Ram Singar to accompany them for taking liquor, which was refused by Ram Singar and thereafter, both Ghasia as well as Mangar Lohara (appellant-accused) assaulted Ram Singar by Farsa, as a result of which Ram Singar died. It has been further stated by this P.W. 2 that both the accused, thereafter, tied away from the place of occurrence. The present appellant-accused has also been identified by P.W. 2 in the court. Looking to the cross-examination of this P.W. 2, it appears that nothing is coming out in favour of the accused. Looking to overall deposition of this P.W. 2 it appears that she is a natural witness. She has stated the facts in detail before the court without any exaggeration, omission or contradiction. Looking to the deposition of this P.W. 2 it appears that when P.W. 2 was at the house, the appellant-accused and another accused came there. Co-accused Ghasia was calling for Ram Singar to come out of the house and they were insisting Ram Singar to go for consuming alcohol, to which Ram Sin gar was refusing. Looking to the deposition of this P.W. 2 it appears that when P.W. 2 was at the house, the appellant-accused and another accused came there. Co-accused Ghasia was calling for Ram Singar to come out of the house and they were insisting Ram Singar to go for consuming alcohol, to which Ram Sin gar was refusing. Thereafter, accused Ghasia assaulted Ram Sin gar, whereupon Ram Singar tried to escape and ran away and both the accused, namely, Ghasia and the present appellant chased Ram Sin gar and gave blows by Farsa, as a result of which Ram Singar expired on the spot. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 was not knowing the present appellant and, therefore, she could not give the name of the appellant-accused in the First Information Report and, therefore, she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. This contention is not accepted by this Court, mainly for the reason that she has already stated in her deposition that the whole incident has taken place slowly. Initially the appellant-accused with another co-accused were calling Ram Singar. P.W. 2 came out of the house. Thereafter, Ram Singar came out of the house. The accused persons were insisting Ram Singar to accompany them for taking liquor, which was refused by Ram Singar. Meanwhile, other villagers also rushed and both the accused assaulted Ram Singar, who expired on the spot. Meanwhile, the name was given by the accused himself as per paragraph nO.10 of the deposition of P W. 2. Even otherwise also, P.W. 2 has identified the appellant in the court. There was light also, which has facilitated P.W. 2 to identify the appellant-accused. Looking to overall deposition of this P.W. 2, it appears that she is a trustworthy and reliable witness. Moreover, P.W. 2 has no inimical terms with the appellant-accused and, thus, there is no reason to falsely implicate the appellant-accused by P.W. 2. Though P.W. 2 is a rustic witness, she has narrated the whole incident clearly before the court. The date of incident was "Deepawali Festival Day". There was Deepak outside the house. There was also a lantern in her hand and, therefore, there was sufficient light to identify the appellant -accused. 6. Though P.W. 2 is a rustic witness, she has narrated the whole incident clearly before the court. The date of incident was "Deepawali Festival Day". There was Deepak outside the house. There was also a lantern in her hand and, therefore, there was sufficient light to identify the appellant -accused. 6. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 6 Bigani Orain, it appears that she has supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that when this P.W. 6 was in the market, she met P.W. 2 and Ram Singar, who is son of the younger brother of the husband of P.W. 2. They all came at the house of P.W. 6 and at about 8.00 p.m. accused Ghasia Munda and others, to whom she did not identify, came there. This P.W. 6 has also stated that she has not seen what was in the hand of accused Ghasia. This witness has also stated that P.W. 2 had seen assaulting and causing injuries to Ram Singar and the present appellant-accused is known to P.W. 6, as he is of the same village. It appoars that this P.W. 6 has tried to heip the accused, but, she has not been declared hostile witness. Nonetheless, the fact remains that she has corroborated several facts, which have been stated in the First Information Report and stated in the deposition of P.W.2, who is an eye witness, especially to the effect that accused Ghasia Munda and others came at the house of P.W. 6 at about 8.00 p.m. on 15th October, 1998. P.W. 2 and Ram Sin gar were also present at the house of P.W. 6. P.W.2 has seen the assault upon Ram Singar and P.W. 6 was preparing food inside the house. P.W. 6 has also seen the dead body of Ram Singar. Thus, there is a material corroboration by this P.W. 6 to the deposition of P.W. 2 and to the facts, stated in the First Information Report. P.W. 6 is an illiterate village lady. She is giving deposition after approximately five years. Therefore, though there is a minor deviation in her deposition, it appears that she has supported the deposition of P.W. 2-eye witness, on so many important aspects, as stated hereinabove. 7. P.W. 6 is an illiterate village lady. She is giving deposition after approximately five years. Therefore, though there is a minor deviation in her deposition, it appears that she has supported the deposition of P.W. 2-eye witness, on so many important aspects, as stated hereinabove. 7. Likewise, looking to the deposition of P.W.1-Antu Oraon, who is father of Ram Singar, it appears that this witness has also corroborated several facts, which have been narrated by P.W.2, namely, PW.2 and Ram Singar had visited Laboda village as guest. He has also stated that the incident has taken place on 15th October, 1998 and on the next date, he got information that his son has been murdered. .It has also been stated by this witness that Mangal Lohara, who is the present appellant, is known to him and he is a 'docoit'. 8. Looking to. the deposition of P.W. 5-Dr. Saroj Kumar, it appears that P.W. 5 has conducted post mortem examination of the deceased on 17th October, 1998 at 11.30 hours and has found the following injuries: "(i) 10 X 4 cm. X bone deep on right cheek lower part cutting the right side of rrandible bone. (ii) 11 X 3 cm. X bone deep on right lateral neck upper part cutting the soft tissue, blood vessels and 4th cervical vertebra. (iii) 7 X 3 cm. X bone deep over left side of forehead with chipping underlying bone. (iv) 13 X 4 cm. X soft tissue on left cheek lower part and adjoining left lateral neck cutting the soft tissue underneath. (v) 11 X 4 cm. X bone deep and 9 X 2 cm. X bone deep over left scapular region cutting the underlying bone. (vi) 14 X 4 cm. X bone deep over right scapular region cutting the underlying bone. (vii) 5 X 2 cm. X soft tissue over inter scapular region cutting the soft tissue underneath. (viii) 13 X 4 cm. X bone deep over inter scapular region and adjoining right scapular region cutting the underlying bone. (ix) 7 X 3 cm. X bone deep over sternum cutting the underlying bone. (x) 5 X 2 cm. X soft tissue right shoulder. (xi) 11 X 3c m. X bone deep right hand back cutting the underlying bone. (xii) 7 X 2 cm. X bone deep left parietal region of head cutting the underlying bone and brain matter. (ix) 7 X 3 cm. X bone deep over sternum cutting the underlying bone. (x) 5 X 2 cm. X soft tissue right shoulder. (xi) 11 X 3c m. X bone deep right hand back cutting the underlying bone. (xii) 7 X 2 cm. X bone deep left parietal region of head cutting the underlying bone and brain matter. Opinion: (a) All the injuries were ante mortem. (b) Caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. (c) Death is due above noted injuries. (d) Time since death 18-36 hours from the time of post mortem examination. 9. All the aforesaid injuries were ante mortem and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. Thus, there is corroboration by medical evidence to the ocular evidence, given by P.W. 2. 10. Looking to the deposition of P;W.3 Jagdish Prasad, who is Investigating Officer, it appears that the place of occurrence is the front side of the house of Siri Oraon, where the dead body was found lying. There was a profuse bleeding. This witness (Investigating Officer) has proved the fardbeyan, which has been marked as /Ext.-1, First Information Report, which has been marked as Ext.-2, and the Inquest Report, which has been marked as Ext.3. 11. Looking to the evidence of P.W. 4 Deobrata Poddar, it appears that he is another Investigating Officer, who has carried out further investigation and filed charge-sheet. This P.W. 4 has stated that the present appellant-accused was arrested on 3rd November, 1999 at 7.30 p.m. From Village-Sinduari. It has also been stated by this P.W. 4 that at the time of arrest, accused gave false name and false address, but, later on it was found that his actual name is Mangal Lohara. He was declared initially as absconding accused and initially the charge-sheet was filed only against Ghasia Munda and therefore, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant after his arrest later on. Thus, the present appellant-accused was absconding for a period of more than one years from the date of incident. This also reflects the conduct of the present appellant-accused. 12. In view of the aforesaid evidences on record, it appears that P.W. 2 is an eye witness, who has narrated the incident in detail and in clear terms, without any contradiction or omission. This also reflects the conduct of the present appellant-accused. 12. In view of the aforesaid evidences on record, it appears that P.W. 2 is an eye witness, who has narrated the incident in detail and in clear terms, without any contradiction or omission. There is enough corroboration to the deposition of this eye witness by the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and also there is corroboration by the medical evidence, given by Dr. Saroj Kumar, who is P.W. 5. Thus, the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubts of the murder of Ram Singar by the appellant-accused. As stated hereinabove, this appellant-accused was also identified in the court. There was sufficient light at the place of occurrence. Immediate is the First Information Report and the appellant-accused was also named in the First Information Report. Moreover, the present appellant-accused was absconding for a period of more than one year and that too when he was arrested from another village, he falsely gave another name and another address. This conduct of the appellant also goes against him. 13. In view of these evidences, no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the offence of murder of Ram Singar. Thus, there is no substance in this criminal appeal, which is hereby dismissed.