Judgment By Court.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.7.2002 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 269 of 2000 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Mr. G.B. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as Amicus Curiae, submitted that as no injuries were found on the vital part of the body of the deceased-Budhuwa Dahanga and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was intention to kill, and the appellants had no knowledge that such injuries will be fatal. 3. The prosecution case according to fardbeyan of the informant-Niral Dahanga P.W.1-wife of the deceased, in short, is that on 21.5.2000 the deceased-Budhuwa Dahanga alongwith his wife was returning to his house at about 4:30 a.m. from his in-laws house for feeding fodders to the animals. When the deceased alongwith the informant reached near the Tamarind tree at about 5:15 a.m., the appellants, who are the elder brothers of the deceased, started assaulting her husband with 'Danda' and then her husband fell down on the ground and blood started oozing. Appellant No. 1-Ratia @ Etwa Dahanga assaulted her husband on his hands, legs and head with 'Stone'. Appellant No. 2 Pusha Dahanga brought 'Tangi' from his house and assaulted her hush band from the back portion, on his legs and hands. Due to such injuries, her husband died there. The appellants also chased the informant to kill her. She fled away from there and narrated the occurrence to the villagers. It is further alleged that the cause of incident is that the informant's 'Bhaisur' had settled the marriage of the deceased with another girl about 5-6 years ago in which Rs. 2,000/- was spent but the deceased married the informant and as such, there was enmity between the deceased and his brothers i.e. the appellants, for refund of the said money. 4. The informant is only eye witness of the occurrence and she has been examined as P.W.1 in this case. Mr. Rao pointed out some contradictions here and there, but in our opinion, those contradictions are minor in nature. The prosecution version finds support from other materials on record, especially with P.W. 5-Doctor, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased. The informant is only eye witness of the occurrence and she has been examined as P.W.1 in this case. Mr. Rao pointed out some contradictions here and there, but in our opinion, those contradictions are minor in nature. The prosecution version finds support from other materials on record, especially with P.W. 5-Doctor, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased. It is true that there were no injuries on the vital parts of the body, but it appears that repeated blows were caused on the legs and hands of the deceased causing seven injuries including the injuries on his face. The doctor opined that all the injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. The deceased died at the place of occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, who is the natural eye witness of the occurrence. 5. In our opinion, the prosecution has fully established the charges levelled against the appellants. Thus, we find that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the charges levelled against them. 6. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.