JUDGMENT 1. By Court-This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.3.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 1999, convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34, 307 and 201/34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life under Sections 302/34, R.I. for 10 years under Sections 307, IPC and R.I. for 7 years under Sections 201/34, IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case in short is as follows: Bideshi Gaur-informant (PW 10) gave the fardbeyan on 5.10.1998 at 9.30 hrs to the effect that when he returned from Noamundi Bazar at 7.00 p.m. after doing labour work and did not find his wife Chubi Kui, his son Rajesh aged about 5 years told him that she went to the house of one Raghunath Balmuchu (appellant) to demand her labour charges as she occasionally worked in his field. The informant after taking his meal slept as he was advised by the neighbours not to go for search of his wife in the dark late night. In the morning, he went to the house of the' appellant No. 1-Raghunath Balmuchu and saw a naked dead body of a old woman thrown at some distance of his house under a Akal tree. He also saw the wife of Raghunath Balmuchu in burnt condition who was groaning in agony. Hari Balmuchu (appellant No. 2), the younger brother of Raghunath Balmuchu, disclosed that the old lady was a witch and was practicing witchcraft on him and as she had come to offer puja, she was killed and her body was thrown away. When the informant asked about his wife, he did not say anything about her. 3. It is further alleged that the informant came to know that Raghunath Balmuchu was an 'Ojha' and the old lady was Budhani Kui who came to Raghunath Balmuchu for puja, both the appellants killed her and threw her body in a naked condition near the tree. At the same time, his wife went to the house of Raghunath Balmuchu for demanding the labour charges, she was also killed and her dead body was also thrown somewhere. At the same time, his wife went to the house of Raghunath Balmuchu for demanding the labour charges, she was also killed and her dead body was also thrown somewhere. Raghunath Balmuchu along with his brother Hari Balmuchu sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of wife of Raghunath Balmuchu and set her on fire, but she did not die. The informant saw burnt scar on the body of a minor child also. The informant further said that the dead body of his wife could not be traced out. The informant claimed that Raghunath Balmuchu and Hari Balmuchu killed Budhni Kui on the allegation of practicing witchcraft and as his wife saw the occurrence, she was also killed and to screen away the evidence, they tried to kill the wife of Raghunath Balmuchu by burning her. 4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PW 1 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Budhani Kui and Chubi Kui on 6.10.1998. At 10.30 p.m., he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Budhani Devi and found the following antemortem injuries. I. Face was smashed. II. Skin over the neck was lacerated with multiple abrasions. III. Both eyes were swollen. On dissection of dead body, there was fracture of maxilla of both side. Frontal bone was also fractured. Right mandible was also fractured. Muscles around the neck were holed. Right and left all costal fibs were fractured. Blood was present in pleural cavity. Lungs were congested and lacerated. In his opinion, injuries were caused by hard and heavy object like stone and were sufficient to cause death. Injuries are also possible by blunt portion of Tangi On the same day at 12.50 p.m., he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Chubi Kui and found the following ante mortem injuries. I. Lacerated injury around the right ear. II. Brain deep injury in left eye with lacerated injuries 2" in diameter On dissection of dead body, base of brain was found lacerated and congested. All costal ribs of the chest were fractured. Heart was empty. Lungs were lacerated. Stomach was empty. Male foetus of six months old was found in Uterus. In his opinion, doctor has opined that injuries were caused by heavy and hard object such as stone. The deceased died due to such injuries which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. Heart was empty. Lungs were lacerated. Stomach was empty. Male foetus of six months old was found in Uterus. In his opinion, doctor has opined that injuries were caused by heavy and hard object such as stone. The deceased died due to such injuries which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. PWs 2 and 3 are witnesses of inquest report. 6. PW 5 Bikram Gope is the son of the deceased Budhani Kui. He has inter alia deposed that the appellants had confessed their guilt before him. 7. PW 6 Kartik Uraon has inter-alia stated that Raghunath Balmuchu had confessed his guilt before him and on such confession, blood stained petticoat of Budhani Kui was recovered. He is one of the seizure list witnesses. 8. PW 7 Kirtan Nayak is also the seizure list witness. He is the witness to the recovery of tangi from the house of Raghunath Balmuchu and is also a witness of recovery of blood stained petticoat 9. PW 8 is Dr. Bangaur Rajendra Pd. Rao who examined and treated Leto Kui, wife of Raghunath Balmuchu @ Hagru Balmuchu and found severe bum injuries on her person to the extent of 45 to 50% burn which was deep and extensive. 10. PW 9 is Dr. Bhakta Charan Nayak who examined the appellant Raghunath Balmuchu and found abrasion, superficial burn and profuse swelling on his body. 11. PW 10 Bideshi Gaur is informant of this case. He has supported his version in the fardbeyan. He inter alia stated that the police recovered the dead body of his wife from Itafburu forest 12. PW 11 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has fully supported the prosecution case. 13. PW 12 Chundri Gope is the daughter of the deceased Budhani Kui. She is a hearsay witness. 14. PW 13 is a Sub-Inspector who has proved the station diary entry. 15. PW 4- Nirsundi Purty is a sole eyewitness to the occurrence. He has inter alia stated that he is the servant of Raghunath Balmuchu. 13. PW 12 Chundri Gope is the daughter of the deceased Budhani Kui. She is a hearsay witness. 14. PW 13 is a Sub-Inspector who has proved the station diary entry. 15. PW 4- Nirsundi Purty is a sole eyewitness to the occurrence. He has inter alia stated that he is the servant of Raghunath Balmuchu. He has stated that after grazing the cattle, when he returned home and tied them outside the house of the appellants, he saw that Hari Balmuchu assaulted Budhani Kui with a storte on her head and thereafter, Raghunath Balmuchu assaulted Budhani Kui with tangi In the meantime, wife of the informant-Chubi Kui came there and asked for her labour charges. On this, Hari Balmuchu assaulted her with stone on her head and Raghunath Balmuchu assaulted her with tangi on her head. Thereafter, Raghunath Balmuchu poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife who was standing there and set her on fire with a Matchstick. She got partly burnt. Budhani Kui died at the spot and Raghunath Balmuchu warned him not to tell anyone about the occurrence, on which this witness ran away from the place of occurrence. In the night, he told about the occurrence to the informant. On the next day, he told the police about the occurrence. This witness stood the test of cross-examination. 16. Mr. Nilendu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that if the appellants killed Budhani Kui on the suspicion that she was witch and killed Chubi Kui on the ground that she saw the occurrence and set Leto Kui, wife of Raghunath Balmuchu on fire as she witnessed the occurrence, then how PW. 4 who also saw the occurrence, was spared. He further submitted that it will not be safe to uphold the conviction on the ground of sole eyewitness. He pointed out several contradictions in the evidences. 17. On the other hand, Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment. He relied on 1996 Cri LJ 3842. Anil Mallah v. State of West Bengal and others and submitted that the conviction can be based on the evidence of sole eyewitness; and that the evidence of PW 4 is reliable and only on the ground that there is sole eyewitness to the occurrence, prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. 18. He relied on 1996 Cri LJ 3842. Anil Mallah v. State of West Bengal and others and submitted that the conviction can be based on the evidence of sole eyewitness; and that the evidence of PW 4 is reliable and only on the ground that there is sole eyewitness to the occurrence, prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. 18. PW 4 is the independent witness. He has interalia stated that he is the cattle grazer of Raghunath Balmuchu; and that in the evening when he returned after grazing cattle and he was tying them, he saw the occurrence. He fled away as he was threatened and warned by the appellants not to tell about the occurrence to anyone. But he told about the occurrence to police as well as to the informant. He stood the test of cross-examination. He has stated that the appellants were caught by the villagers and tied with a rope with peg near the house of the appellants and that Raghunath Balmuchu confessed his guilt and on such confession, police seized blood stained tangi and petticoat. Witnesses are consistent and there is no contradiction on material points. There is no reason to disbelieve them. 19. In the result, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.