JUDGMENT: Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J 1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2000 dated 8th/9th July, 2002. 2. The sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code as well as 201 Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and he has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for offence under Section 354 and 201 Indian Penal Code. Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8th/9th July, 2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2000, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 3. On 09.09.1999, at about 20.00 Hrs., the informant Rajendra Sahu gave fardbeyan to police and on the basis of the said fardebyan, Gumla P.S. Case No. 169 of 1999 under Sections 376, 302, 201 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused Etwa Singh. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.09.1999, at 7.00 a.m., Sunita Kumari, daughter of the informant, had gone towards north of the village to graze grass to the bufallow. Another co-villager Raimuni Devi was also grazing grass to her animal with her. Bandhu Lohra and Amin Pujar were also nearby with their cattle. It has further been stated by the informant Rajendra Sahu that at about 12:00 noon when his daughter Sunita Kumari was sitting on the ridge of the well situated in the field, Etwa Singh came from behind and caught his daughter. He forcibly committed rape upon his daughter and when his daughter raised alarm (Hullah), Etwa Singh cut the neck of his daughter with Hasua due to which she died. Accused Etwa Singh threw the dead body of his daughter into the well. Raimuni Devi raised alarm and when the informant ran to the place of occurrence seeing the informant and others, accused Etwa Singh fled away. The informant has claimed that Sabur Sahu, Bandhu Lohra and Amin Manjhi have also seen the accused Etwa Singh fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant and other co-villagers started searching the accused Etwa Singh. The informant has claimed that Sabur Sahu, Bandhu Lohra and Amin Manjhi have also seen the accused Etwa Singh fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant and other co-villagers started searching the accused Etwa Singh. The informant has stated that after committing rape upon his daughter, accused Etwa Singh killed his daughter by cutting her neck and threw her dead body into the well. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the sole accused. Charges under Section 376, 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused. During the trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. 5. P.W.1 Raimuni Devi has supported the case of the prosecution. She was at the place of occurrence. She has stated that Sunita Kumari was sitting on the ridge of the well and she was watching the bufallow from there. This witness has seen the occurrence. When she raised the alarm, others came there and thereafter, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. This witness has clearly stated that Etwa Singh has thrown the body of the deceased into the well. In cross-examination of this witness, the defence has not been able to elicit anything which could have supported the defence. 6. The prosecution has examined Sabur Sahu as P.W.2. He has also deposed in the Court that when Raimuni Devi raised alarm (Hullah), he along with Rajendra Sah, Amin Pujar and Bandhu Lohra came running at the place of occurrence and saw that Etwa Singh after cutting the neck of Sunita Kumari threw her into the well. They pulled out Sunita Kumari from the well but she has died. This witness has stated that accused Etwa Singh had earlier committed murder in Samsera Bazar. This witness has also identified accused Etwa Singh in the Court. This witness has put his signature on the inquest report. He is the uncle of the deceased Sunita Kumari. This witness had given his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also and he has admitted his signature on the same which is Exhibit-1. In cross-examination also, this witness has stood by his statement that he has seen the accused cutting the neck of the deceased and throwing the body of the deceased into the well. 7. Another witness Amin Pujar has been examined as P.W.3. In cross-examination also, this witness has stood by his statement that he has seen the accused cutting the neck of the deceased and throwing the body of the deceased into the well. 7. Another witness Amin Pujar has been examined as P.W.3. He has been named in the fardbeyan of the informant as a witness. He is also an eye witness to the occurrence. This witness has also stated in the Court that Etwa Singh came from behind the bushes and he caught Sunita Kumari and when he caught her, she raised hullah. When we came running there, accused Etwa Singh killed Sunita Kumari and threw her body into the well. They tried to apprehend Etwa Singh but he ran away. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that well was visible from Tongri Gachh. Though there are some bushes in the area this witness has seen the occurrence. He has further stated in the cross-examination that he has seen the cut on the neck of Sunita Kumari. He has also stated in cross-examination that he was grazing cattle towards south of the well of Bhairo Kharia. 8. Sita Ram Sahu is a formal witness who is an inquest report witness. This witness has also deposed that Sunita Kumari was murdered. 9. Another witness who has been named in the fardbeyan of the informant is Bandhu Lohra. He has been examined by the prosecution as P.W.5. He has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has seen Etwa Singh cutting the neck of Sunita Kumari and throwing her body into the well. He along with others pulled the body of Sunita Kumari out from the well, however, she had died. He has also identified the accused Etwa Singh in the Court. 10. P.W.6 is the informant of this case. He is the father of the deceased Sunita Kumari. He has identified his signature on fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He is an eye witness. He has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated in the Court that he had also gone there for cutting grass. When his daughter Raimuni Devi raised alarm (hullah), he ran towards there. He was nearby the place of occurrence and he saw Etwa Singh cutting the neck of his daughter and throwing her body into the well of Bhairo Kharia. He has stated in the Court that he had also gone there for cutting grass. When his daughter Raimuni Devi raised alarm (hullah), he ran towards there. He was nearby the place of occurrence and he saw Etwa Singh cutting the neck of his daughter and throwing her body into the well of Bhairo Kharia. He has further stated that Etwa Singh tried to commit rape upon his daughter and when his daughter resisted Etwa Singh killed her and threw her body into the well. This witness has also stated that other persons namely, Sabur Sahu, Amin Pujar and Bandhu Lohra also came running there and they also saw the occurrence. They were also grazing grass to the cattle. He gave his statement to Daroga who reduced his statement into the writing and on his statement, the fardbeyan has been recorded which is marked as Exhibit-2. He has also identified the accused Etwa Singh present in the dock, in the court. This witness has also stood the test for cross-examination and nothing material has been elicited from this witness. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had no previous enmity with the accused Etwa Singh. 11. Ganesh Sahu has been examined as P.W.7. At the time of occurrence, he was at his house. When he heard that Etwa Singh has killed Sunita Kumari, he came running to the place of occurrence and there he has seen dead body. He has seen the cut on the neck of the deceased. He has also identified accused Etwa Singh in the Court. This witness has also stated that Etwa Singh has committed murder previously also. 12. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Doctor Manvendra Kumar Sinha. He has proved the Postmortem Examination report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. This witness has been examined as P.W.8. He found one incised wound in right side of the neck starting from mid line interiorly and passing posteriorly of 5”x1 / 2”x3”. The injury was caused by sharp cutting hard instrument Hasua. He has further stated that death was caused by shock and haemorrhage due to injury at neck. In the cross-examination also he has stated that injury is possible by sharp cutting weapon. 13. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.9. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-4. He has further stated that death was caused by shock and haemorrhage due to injury at neck. In the cross-examination also he has stated that injury is possible by sharp cutting weapon. 13. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.9. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-4. After writing the fardbeyan, he has prepared the inquest report and inspected the place of occurrence. He has stated that he has taken the statement of the witnesses and made efforts to arrest the accused, however the accused was found absconding. 14. The learned Trial Court has properly analyzed the evidence of the witnesses and the materials on record and it has come to a conclusion that prosecution has established the charge under Section 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code against the accused Etwa Singh beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial court has further found that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, however, the prosecution has been able to establish the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused Etwa Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 302, 354 and 201 Indian Penal Code. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P.. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are not eye witnesses as they were not present at the place of actual occurrence. The prosecution evidence suffers from omissions, material contradictions and improvements. The prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon and the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside. 17. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has submitted that the case of prosecution is based on the credible evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 P.W.3, P.W. 5 and P.W.6. The ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witness. He has supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 18. We find from the evidence of these witnesses that they have clearly stated in the court that after hearing the hullah they came to the place of occurrence and they have seen the accused Etwa Singh cutting the neck of the deceased and throwing her body into the well. 18. We find from the evidence of these witnesses that they have clearly stated in the court that after hearing the hullah they came to the place of occurrence and they have seen the accused Etwa Singh cutting the neck of the deceased and throwing her body into the well. When they tried to apprehend the accused Etwa Singh, he fled away. In cross-examination these witnesses have reiterated their earlier statement and these witnesses have stood the test of cross- examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence also. 19. The learned Trial court has minutely scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and it is evident from the fact that taking into account the statement of the informant himself that accused Etwa Singh tried to commit rape upon his daughter, the Trial Court has found the charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code not established. We find no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused Etwa Singh. 20. In view of the aforesaid evidences on record the prosecution has proved the offence of murder of the deceased Sunita Kumari beyond reasonable doubt. This murder has been committed by the present appellant. The prosecution has proved charge under Section 302, 354 and 201 I.P.C. No error has been committed by the learned Trial Court in appreciating the evidences on record. 21. We hereby uphold the decision of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2000. 22. There is no substance in this appeal. 23. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.