JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court-III, Chatra, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that P.W. 5 Sewal Saw lodged report with the police on 26.8.1998 stating that when his daughter-in-law Nirmala Devi aged about 35 years went to fetch water from hand pump in the morning, the appellant suddenly assaulted in her stomach by knife and pulling it out, fled away. Nirmala Devi was taken to the Hospital where she died. It was further alleged that the appellant had given threatening due to disputes between the parties. 3. Mr. Laljee Sahay, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted that no independent witness has been examined in this case; and that the blood stained soil and the alleged weapon were not sent for chemical examination and those were also not produced before the Court. The I.O. was also not examined. The appellant was of tender age at the time of alleged commission of offence. At best this case will come under Section 304 (part-I) I.P.C. for which the appellant has remained in jail for about 13 years. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and sentence. It is submitted that the appellant was waiting with the dagger for inflicting dagger injury due to enmity. The prosecution story has been fully supported by the Doctor's evidence. Thus non-examination of I.O. or non-sending the blood stained soil or the dagger for chemical examination or non-production thereof in the Court is of no help to the appellant, as no prejudice has been caused to him. 5. We find force in the submission of the counsel for the State that this case will not fall under Section 304 (part-I) I.P.C. It has come in the evidence that when the deceased went for fetching water from the hand pump, the appellant suddenly inflicted dagger blow in her stomach and then pulled it out and fled away. It was also alleged that he had extended threat earlier due to dispute between the parties. 6. P.W. 1 is an independent eye witness. Though P.Ws. It was also alleged that he had extended threat earlier due to dispute between the parties. 6. P.W. 1 is an independent eye witness. Though P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are relations of the• deceased, but they are eye witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The medical evidence is corroborated with the ocular evidence. The Doctor (P.W. 9) found incised punctured wound over abdomen. Other part of stomach was also found injured by the incised wound. The Doctor opined that injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Chhura and the same was the cause of death. In the facts and circumstances, non-examination of I.O. or non-production of the chemical report of the blood stained soil or the weapon of assault, are inconsequential and have not prejudiced the case of the appellant. 7. In our opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned judgment. In the result, we affirm the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and dismiss the appeal.