JUDGMENT AMARESH KUMAR LAL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Santosh Manjhi @ Ghichana against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.8.2004 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 381 of 2003 by which he has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and 7 years under Section 376 of IPC. It has been directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.2.2003 at about 1 p.m. Manager Sharma, informant (P.W. 7) had gone in the western direction of his village to scrap grass. When he reached near the field of Jaishree Manjhi, he heard one woman yelling at the top of voice and asking for help saying that Ghichana @ Santosh Manjhi (appellant) was trying to outrage her modesty. When the informant (P.W. 7) went nearby, he saw Ghichana on the top of the woman who was his aunt Dhurpati Devi (deceased). It has been further alleged that with the help of Khurpi, the women was trying to save herself but the appellant snatched Khurpi and assaulted on her neck, head, face and nose. By the assault the deceased was in profused bleeding. The informant caught hold of the appellant but somehow he got himself freed and ran away. Jagpati Devi (P.W. 1) and her daughter Shanti Devi (P.W. 2) rushed the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence. After sometime Dhurpati Devi (deceased) died on the spot. 3. Fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant (P. W. 7) was recorded at the place of occurrence Murarpatti Pachhim Badh by S. I. Sanour Khan (P.W. 8) on 23.2.2003 at 5.30 Pm. On the basis of fard beyan Nautan P. S. Case No. 11 of 2003 dated 23.2.2003 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC against the sole appellant. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of session. Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC to which he denied and claimed to be tried. After trial, the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC to which he denied and claimed to be tried. After trial, the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. Now this Court is required to reappraise the evidence and to consider as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of its case:- P. W. 1 Jagpati Devi is the wife of P. W. 4, P. W. 2 Shanti Devi is the daughter of P.W. 4, P. W. 3 Chotey Lal Sharma is the nephew of P.W. 4, P. W. 4 Bindeshwari Sharma is the husband of P.W. 1, P. W. 5 Sri Kishun is the husband of deceased, P. W. 6 Dr. Sudhir Kumar is the doctor who had held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P. W. 7 Manager Sharma is the informant, and P.W. 8 Md. Sanour Khan is the investigating officer. 7. P. W. 1 has stated that she has gone to the field to cut grass. Her daughter P. W. 2 Shanti Devi had also gone in the field. Dhurpati Devi (deceased) was also cutting grass at some distance. When Dhurpati Devi raised alarm, they (P.W. 1 and P. W. 2) reached there and saw that Santosh (appellant) was committing rape of the deceased Dhurpati Devi who was trying to protest by khurpi (a sharp cutting tool), raising alarm and saying that she would complain to the members of her family. Thereafter, the appellant snatched Khurpi and assaulted her on the head and several other places on her person. Dhurpati Devi succumbed to her injury on the place of occurrence. First of all, Manager Sharma (P.W. 7) reached at the place of occurrence. Other co-villagers also came there. She has been cross-examined. The defence has not been able to demolish her evidence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her daughter Santi Devi (P.W. 2) had gone to the police station to inform about the occurrence. Manager Sharma is the son of eldest brother of her husband. At the time of occurrence, there was no male member in her house. The defence has not been able to demolish her evidence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her daughter Santi Devi (P.W. 2) had gone to the police station to inform about the occurrence. Manager Sharma is the son of eldest brother of her husband. At the time of occurrence, there was no male member in her house. After hearing about the occurrence the male members came to the post-mortem house. The deceased Dhurpati Devi was her sister and she had got married. 8. P. W. 2 is also the eye witness of the occurrence. She has also stated that soonafter the cry of Dhurpati Devi she and her mother (P.W. 1) rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that the appellant was committing rape by removing the lower garment of Dhurpati Devi. He had cut Dhurpati with Khurpi on her mouth and other parts of the body. Manager (P.W. 7) snatched Khurpi from Santosh Manjhi (appellant) who pushed him and fled away. Dhurpati Devi after trampling succumbed to her injuries on the place of occurrence. She has identified the appellant. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the accused is also her co-villager but she has not seen his house. Manager Sharma (P.W.7) is her brother in relation as a co-villager. Sri Kishun (P.W. 5) is the husband of the deceased. Radhunandan Sharma is the father of Sri Kishun. Raghunandan has three sons. Bindeshwari (P.W. 4) and Nagina (not examined) are the brothers of Kishun. Both brothers of Sri Kishun are married. At the time of murder Sri Kishun was not at his house. When the dead body was brought to her house, at that time he also reached there. She has also been cross-examined at length but her evidence has remained constant. 9. P. W. 3 has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his field. He heard the cry of a woman which was coming from the field of Jai Shree Manjhi. He reached there and saw a lady in a pool of blood. He tried to save her but Santosh Manjhi pushed him and fled away. He and others followed him but he could not be apprehended. At that time Dhurpati Devi was alive. Soon thereafter she died. After sometime the police officer came there and prepared the inquest report in carbon process. He has identified his signature (Ext. 1). He tried to save her but Santosh Manjhi pushed him and fled away. He and others followed him but he could not be apprehended. At that time Dhurpati Devi was alive. Soon thereafter she died. After sometime the police officer came there and prepared the inquest report in carbon process. He has identified his signature (Ext. 1). The police officer also seized the blood stained soil. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Bindeshwari Sharma (P.W. 4) is his uncle. The houses of Bindeshwari Sharma, his uncle and the deceased are separate. The house of Kishun is at a distance of 30 steps from his house. Manager Sharma (P.W. 7) is not his relative. He also appears to be an eye witness of the occurrence. 10. P. W. 4 Bindeshwari Sharma has stated that at the time of occurrence he was not at his house. Manager Sharma (P.W. 7) narrated him that Santosh Manjhi (appellant) has committed rape upon the deceased and killed her with Khurpi. After committing the occurrence he escaped. The place of occurrence is at a distance of one mile from his house. His statement was also recorded by the police. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Sri Kishun (P.W. 5) is his elder brother. Both of them live in a house separately. He has stated that he did not lodge the case. At that time, neither he was in the house nor Sri Kishun was in the house. Manager (P.W.7) had informed him and Sri Kishun about the occurrence. Although he is a hearsay witness but he has supported the prosecution case. 11. P. W. 5 has stated that Dhurpati Devi (deceased) was his wife who had gone in the field to scrap grass. His wife was raped. Thereafter, she was assaulted with Khurpi on her face, neck, as a result of which she died. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was working at Buxar and P. W. 4 was also working there. He is not the eye witness. 12. P. W. 6 while posted as Assistant Civil Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Siwan was a member of the Medical Board consisting of three Members who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dhurpati Devi aged about 25 years Hindu Female on 24.2.2003 and found the following ante-mortem injuries. He is not the eye witness. 12. P. W. 6 while posted as Assistant Civil Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Siwan was a member of the Medical Board consisting of three Members who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dhurpati Devi aged about 25 years Hindu Female on 24.2.2003 and found the following ante-mortem injuries. (1) Incised wound size 6” x ½” x bone deep on left side of Cheek. (2) Incised wound size 3” x 1/2” x bone deep on left temporal region. (3) Incised wound size 4” x 1” x bone deep on left side of mandible with fracture of mandible on same side. ` (4) Incised wound size 2” x ½” x bone deep on left side of masnoid-region of head. (5) Incised wound size 3” x 1” x bone deep on left side of neck at the level of C2 bone. (6) Incised wound size 2” x ½” x muscle deep just above left clavicle. (7) Incised wound size 2” x ½” x bone deep on mid part of upper jaw. (8) Incised wound size 2” x ½” x bone deep on mid part of lower jaw. (9) Incised wound size 3” x ½” x muscle deep on right side of neek. (10) Incised wound size 3” x ½” x bone deep on dorsum of right palm. (11) Incised wound size 2” x ½” x bone deep on dorsum of left palm. (12) Incised wound size 1” x 1/4” x bone deep on dorsum of left index finger. On dissection uterus was found gravit of 28 weeks. Gastonia of female baby. Viscera of the body was intact and pale. Stomach contains undigested food material. Bladder is empty. Both chambers empty. After pathological examination dead spermatozoa were found in the private part of the deceased. The death was caused due to aforesaid injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. The post mortem report has been marked as Ext. 3. He has also identified the signature of members of medical team consisting of Dr. M. N. Singh, Dr. Sudhir Kumar and Dr. Bhagwan Lal Singh as Ext. 2, 2/a, and 2/b. He has also been cross-examined. He has stated that postmortem was done by the Medical Board and report was written by doctor B. L. Singh. Dr. M. N. Singh, Deputy Superintendent was the senior member of the board. M. N. Singh, Dr. Sudhir Kumar and Dr. Bhagwan Lal Singh as Ext. 2, 2/a, and 2/b. He has also been cross-examined. He has stated that postmortem was done by the Medical Board and report was written by doctor B. L. Singh. Dr. M. N. Singh, Deputy Superintendent was the senior member of the board. Time elapsed since death is within 6 to 24 hours. 13. P. W. 7 is the informant of this case. He has stated that on the cry of a lady he rushed there and saw that the appellant has thrashed a lady and was cutting her neck, nose and other parts. He identified the victim as Dhurpati Devi his aunt. On hulla four persons had reached there. Shanti Devi (P.W. 2), Chhotelal (P.W. 3), Jagpati Devi (P.W. 1). He has further stated that he tried to catch hold the accused but he escaped. The deceased died on the spot. The police officer came on the place of occurrence and recorded his statement. He put his thumb impression. He has identified the appellant to have committed the offence. In his cross-examination he has stated that the husband of the deceased was living at Buxar. After the death of the deceased her husband had become like a mad. He has further stated that he had seen the occurrence from his own eyes. The accused had cut the neck, nose and other parts of the deceased. The evidence of this witness is also natural and convincing. 14. P. W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that on 23.2.2003 he received information in the police station as the Officer-in-Charge that a lady of village Murarpatti had been killed after rape. He rushed there and reached at 5.30 P.M. and recorded the statement of Manager Sharma (P.W. 7) which was witnessed by Ashok Kumar Sharma (not examined). The fard beyan has been marked as Ext. 4. The inquest report has been prepared at his instance by S. I. Anirudh Roy in carbon process. It has been marked as Ext. 5. He seized the blood stained soil and a seizure list was prepared in presence of witnesses which has been marked as Ext. 6. At 19.30 hours the challan of the dead body was prepared and sent to the Sadar Hospital, Siwan through Chaukidar Laxmi Chaudhari and Ramawatar. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and lodged the case. 5. He seized the blood stained soil and a seizure list was prepared in presence of witnesses which has been marked as Ext. 6. At 19.30 hours the challan of the dead body was prepared and sent to the Sadar Hospital, Siwan through Chaukidar Laxmi Chaudhari and Ramawatar. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and lodged the case. Thereafter, he took the statement of other witnesses. On the following morning (24.2.2003) at 4 a.m. he inspected the place of occurrence in the western side of Badhar of Murarpatti, the wheat field of Jaishree Manjhi. This is the place where the accused had committed rape and killed the deceased. He found blood there. The wheat crop was also found lacerated there. The place was lonely. After recording the statement of witnesses he reached to the house of the accused who has been found absconding. Thereafter, he took the statement of Kishun Sharma (P.W. 5) and Bindeshwari Sharma (P. W. 4). He came to the Court and found that on 25.2.2003 the accused surrendered in the Court. After receiving the post-mortem report and investigating the case he submitted charge-sheet against the sole accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he got information from unknown and he has not recorded his name. He has stated that the place of occurrence is at a distance of six kilometer which has been mentioned in the formal FIR. He did not ask about the place of occurrence and he rushed to the place of occurrence by Jeep with the police personnel. He stopped jeep 100 yards ahead the place of occurrence. Two -three persons were there who had stated that they had seen the occurrence. Out of them two-three were female and one or two were male. He has admitted that he did not send the blood stained soil for chemical examination. He has stated that the blood stains were on the cloth of the deceased. He did not send the cloth for chemical examination. He did not find any male member in the house of the deceased. The house of the accused and the deceased are in the same tola at a distance of 300 yards. 15. He has stated that the blood stains were on the cloth of the deceased. He did not send the cloth for chemical examination. He did not find any male member in the house of the deceased. The house of the accused and the deceased are in the same tola at a distance of 300 yards. 15. The defence of the accused is false implication in this case but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not been able to show the enmity between the deceased or his family with the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that all the witnesses are interested. No independent witness has been examined who was present at the place of occurrence. 16. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that occurrence has taken place in Badhar, a lonely agricultural place where wheat crop had been sown. It is a clear case of the prosecution that the deceased had gone to Badhar for collecting grass and the other members of her family had also gone to collect grass and they were at some distance. Some other people were also in the Badhar for agriculture purpose. 17. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7 have supported the prosecution case as they were present in Badhar and rushed to the place of occurrence on the cry of the victim lady (Dhurpati Devi, the deceased). Their evidence is quite natural and convincing. The ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence of P. W. 6, Dr.Sudhir Kumar who had held the autopsy of the deceased and had found a large number of injuries on the person of the deceased. The medical report also shows that victim lady was pregnant and gravit was of about 28 weeks. On microscopic examination of vaginal swab dead spermatozoa has been found. The Investigating Officer has also found laceration mark on the place of occurrence and he has also found the blood stains on the wheat plant and on the soil. No doubt, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are the members of the family and interested witnesses but their evidence is quite natural. Their presence at the spot has not been disputed by the defence nor any enmity has been raised proved. Their evidence is consistent corroborated by medical evidence; as such their evidence cannot be discarded. No doubt, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are the members of the family and interested witnesses but their evidence is quite natural. Their presence at the spot has not been disputed by the defence nor any enmity has been raised proved. Their evidence is consistent corroborated by medical evidence; as such their evidence cannot be discarded. On careful consideration of the prosecution evidence we find that their evidence is quite convincing and cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are interested witnesses. This view has been expressed in several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court. One decision of the Hon’ble Apex Curt may be referred; A I R 2001 S C 281 (State of Rajasthan vs. Hanuman). Paragraph 8 of this decision is quoted below:- “8. We have carefully perused the judgments passed by the learned Sessions Judge and by the High Court. We are of the view that both the reasons stated by the High Court in the impugned judgment are unsustainable. The position is well settled that evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. Normally close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of the relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such criticism. Further, from the testimony of the two ladies Smt. Badam and Chhoti whose presence at the spot was not disputed by the defence it is clear that they have described the incident in a clear and graphic manner. They have categorically asserted that respondent-Hanuman gave three blows with his axe on the head of Panchu. Though the witnesses were subject to searching cross-examination nothing material could be elicited from them which may cast a doubt on their credibility. The learned trial Judge who had the opportunity of marking their demeanor in the Court assessed their evidence and did not find any good reason to discard their testimony. In the circumstance the High Court committed an error in discarding their testimony on this ground.” 18. In the case in hand, those witnesses were subjected to searching cross-examination. No material could be elicited from them which may cast a doubt of their credibility. In the circumstance the High Court committed an error in discarding their testimony on this ground.” 18. In the case in hand, those witnesses were subjected to searching cross-examination. No material could be elicited from them which may cast a doubt of their credibility. Learned trial court who had opportunity to make their demeanour in the Court, assessed their evidence and did not find any good reason to discard their testimony. In this view of the matter, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal has got no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.