I. A. ANSARI, J.:–By the judgment, dated 14.06.2007, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 1552 of 2004, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Banka, the accused-appellant, Subhash Mishra, stands convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his conviction as mentioned hereinbefore, he has been sentenced, by the impugned order, dated 15.06.2007, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months, both the sentences having been directed to run consecutively. 2. The case of the prosecution, may, in brief, be described thus:– (i) Deceased Bibhash Mishra was brother of the accused Subhash Mishra, deceased Sonu Mishra was the son of late Bibhash Mishra and Meena Devi (PW 3) is wife of late Bibhash Mishra. A private partition, in respect of their joint properties, had taken place between accused Subhash Mishra and his brother, Bibhash Mishra (since deceased). Persuant to the partition, which had so taken place, Bibhash Mishra, along with his family, had raised crops on the land, which he had received on partition. (ii) On 04.12.2002, at about 3:00 PM, while Bibhash Mishra and his son, Sonu Mishra, were making bundles of the paddy, which they had harvested, Subhash Mishra came, armed with bhala (i.e. spear) in his hand and a sword hanging from his waist. Accused Subhash Mishra was accompanied by accused Khana Jha. Accused Subhash Mishra was also accompanied by his son, Sameer Mishra, and wife, Munni Devi. While accused Khanna Jha was armed with lathi, Sameer Mishra and Munni Devi, son and wife respectively of accused Subhash Mishra, were holding broken bricks in their hands. (iii) Coming to the field, where Bibhash Mishra and his son, Sonu Mishra, were making bundles of the harvested paddy, accused Subhash Mishra asked them not to take away the crops. On being so resisted by accused Subhash Mishra, Sonu Mishra protested by saying that they had grown the paddy and they had the right to remove the harvested crop. (iv) On the protest, so raised by Sonu Mishra, Subhash Mishra pierced bhala into the chest of Sonu Mishra, who fell down on the spot, and when Sonu Mishra’s father, Bibhash Mishra, came to rescue his son, accused Subhash Mishra gave a blow with his bhala on the forehead of Bibhash Mishra. (iv) On the protest, so raised by Sonu Mishra, Subhash Mishra pierced bhala into the chest of Sonu Mishra, who fell down on the spot, and when Sonu Mishra’s father, Bibhash Mishra, came to rescue his son, accused Subhash Mishra gave a blow with his bhala on the forehead of Bibhash Mishra. From the injuries sustained on his forehead, Bibhash Mishra started bleeding. Thereafter, accused Khanna Jha, Munni Devi and Sameer Mishra assaulted Bibhash Mishra with lathi and the broken bricks. On being so assaulted by the accused persons aforementioned, Bibhash Mishra fell down on the ground and, on alarm being raised by his wife, Meena Devi (PW 3), accused persons fled away. Co-villagers of Bibhash Mishra arrived at the place of occurrence and they took Sonu Mishra and his father, Bibhash Mishra, to Amarpur Referral Hospital, where the doctor declared Sonu Mishra dead; but his father, Bibhash Mishra, survived and receied some medical treatment. (v) On the basis of a written information given to police, at Amarpur Police Station, with regard to the occurrence, a First Information Report (in short, ‘FIR’) was registered and investigation proceeded. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of Sonu Mishra and the said dead body was also subjected to post mortem examination. From Amarpur Referral Hospital, injured Bibhash Mishra was shifted to Civil Hospital, Bhagalpur, and was, then, referred to, and admitted at, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna (in short, ‘PMCH’), where, while remaining under treatment, injured Bibhash Mishra died. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid, under Sections 302/307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against Subhash Mishra, Khanna Jha, Munni Devi and Sameer Mishra. 3. Though the accused persons, named in the charge sheet, had, initially, appeared in the Magisterial Court, they all jumped bail; but accused Subhash Mishra was apprehended. Since then, except Subhash Mishra, others have been absconding. 4. At the trial, when charges under, Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were framed against accused Subhash Mishra, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. Since then, except Subhash Mishra, others have been absconding. 4. At the trial, when charges under, Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were framed against accused Subhash Mishra, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. Accused Subhash Mishra was, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 6. Having found accused Subhash Mishra guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as we have mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences, which have been passed against him, the convict, Subhash Mishra, has preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Ms. Bela Singh, learned Counsel, as Amicus Curiae, and Mr. D. K. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 8. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be noted is that PW 3 (Meena Devi), wife of deceased Bibhash Mishra and mother of deceased Sonu Mishra, has been examined as the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. In her evidence, she has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 3:00 PM, she was present at her agricultural field along with her husband and son, Sonu Mishra, and while her son, Sonu Mishra, and husband were busy in making bundles of the harvested paddy, accused Subhash Mishra came there carrying bhala (spear) in his hand, and a sword hanging from his waist and that Subhash Mishra, at that time, was accompanied by his son, Sameer Mishra, his wife, Munni Devi (since absconders), and accused Khanna Jha. It is in the evidence of PW 3 that while accused Khanna Jha was armed with a lathi, Sameer Mishra and Munni Devi were carrying broken bricks in their hands. 9. Describing the occurrence, PW 3 has deposed that accused Subhash Mishra asked Sonu as to why he was carrying the harvested paddy from the field and, on being so questioned, Sonu reacted by saying that since the paddy field belonged to them, they would carry the harvested paddy. 9. Describing the occurrence, PW 3 has deposed that accused Subhash Mishra asked Sonu as to why he was carrying the harvested paddy from the field and, on being so questioned, Sonu reacted by saying that since the paddy field belonged to them, they would carry the harvested paddy. On hearing the reply of Sonu Mishra, accused Subhash Mishra pierced the bhala into the chest of Sonu Mishra. As a result of this assault, Sonu Mishra died on the spot. PW 3 has also deposed that when her husband, Bibhash Mishra, came rushing to the place, where Sonu Mishra, had been assaulted, Subhash Mishra gave a blow by his spear near Bibhash Mishra’s eye, accused Khanna Jha assaulted Bibhash Mishra by means of a lathi and accused Munni Devi and accused Sameer Mishra also assaulted Bibhash Mishra by broken bricks. 10. It is in the evidence of PW 3 that Pinku Mishra provided her with a vehicle, wherein she carried her injured husband and son to the Referral Hospital, at Amarpur, and, on examining her son, Sonu, the doctor declared him dead and, thereafter, police from Amarpur Police Station came to the hospital and recorded her statement and also the statement of her husband. It is also in the evidence of PW 3 that her husband’s statement was treated as fardbayan, which is Exhibit-2. It is the further evidence of PW 2 that her husband was shifted to Bhagalpur for medical treatment and from there, he was referred to PMCH, where her husband, while remaining under treatment, died. 11. Though PW 3 was put to cross-examination by the defence, nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination by the defence to show that what she had deposed was untrue or false. In fact, her entire evidence remained unshaken and we see, therefore, no reason to disbelieve her evidence or not to give credence to her evidence, which her evidence deserves. The learned Trial Court, in our considered view, did not commit any error in relying upon her evidence as true, particularly, when we notice that her description of the occurrence is, as we would show, stands substantially corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The learned Trial Court, in our considered view, did not commit any error in relying upon her evidence as true, particularly, when we notice that her description of the occurrence is, as we would show, stands substantially corroborated by the medical evidence on record. It is noticeable, in this regard, that the doctor (PW 6), who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sonu Mishra, found as follows:– “ Incised penetrating wound on the right side of the anterior chest wall 1” x 1/2”, the wound extended to the right chest cavity through the second intercostal space; the right lung was lacerated at one place. There is haemorrhage in the mediastinum. The right chest cavity is full with blood.” 12. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 6), the injury was ante mortem, the same was caused by some sharp-edged weapon and that the death resulted from shock and haemorrhage. The doctor (PW 6) has also given his opinion that the bhala, which had been produced before him, could have caused the injury, which was found on the dead body of Sonu. 13. Notwithstanding the fact that the defence disputed the correctness of the findings of the doctor (PW 6), the fact remains that nothing was brought out from the cross-examination of PW 6, by the defence, to show that his findings, as regards the injury, which Sonu Mishra had suffered from, were incorrect. This apart, nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW 6 to show that his opinion, with regard to the nature of injury, which had been sustained by the said deceased, the nature of weapon, which had been used, and the cause of death were incorrect. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the findings of the doctor and/or his opinion with regard to the nature of injury sustain by Sonu Mishra, the nature of weapon used and the cause of his death. 14. Coupled with the above, PW 4, who is also a doctor, and who had examined Bibhash Mishra on 04,.12.2002 (i.e. on the day of the occurrence), at Amarpur Referral Hospital, has deposed that on examination, he found Bibhash Mishra to have sustained the following injury:– “Lacerated wound measuring 2” x ½” x ½” (deep) with loss of skin and soft tissues on the left supraorbital region with proptosed left eye ball. The doctor (P.W 4), has deposed that the said injury was 6 (six) hours old and that he referred the patient (i.e. Bibhash Mishra) to Bhagalpur for further treatment. This doctor has proved injury report as Ext. 4. 15. Even the findings of PW 4 and his opinion has remained unshaken in cross-examination by the defence. 16. It is, thus, clear that consistent with the ocular evidence given by PW 3, the doctor (PW 4) found deep cut injury near the left eye of Bibhash Mishra. 17. We would, at this stage, like to point out that though Bibhash Mishra died, while remaining under treatment, his dead body was not subjected to post mortem examination and there is, therefore, nothing in the evidence on record to show as to what the cause of his death was. 18. Though the remaining witnesses, namely, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 have turned hostile, we are in agreement with the learned Trial Court that the solitary testimony of PW 3 (Meena Devi), having remained unshaken in her cross-examination and supported by the medical evidence on record, clearly proved that accused Subhash Mishra was one, who had caused the injury on Sonu Mishra by piercing bhala (spear) into his chest as has been described by PW 3. There is no manner of doubt, therefore, in our minds, that the accused Subhash Mishra was proved to be the assailant of Sonu Mishra. This apart, the evidence on record clearly proves that the accused-appellant, Subhash Mishra, had also assaulted Bibhash Mishra on his forehead by means of his spear and, in the facts and attending circumstances of the case, we cannot, but hold that the assault on Bibhash Mishra constituted offence of attempt to commit murder. 19. In the circumstances mentioned above, we find that the learned Trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused-appellant, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having intentionally caused the death of Sonu Mishra and also, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the offence of attempt to murder. 20. Situated thus, we uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant under both the penal provisions, namely, under Section 302 as well as under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. 20. Situated thus, we uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant under both the penal provisions, namely, under Section 302 as well as under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. Coming to the impugned sentences, which have been passed against the appellant, we notice that the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also imprisonment for life for offence committed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides imposing on him fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 22. It needs to be point out that the life imprisonment will mean imprisonment for whole of the life unless remission is granted by the State Government and, hence, the question of making sentence of imprisonment for life run consecutively does not arise. 23. While we, therefore, sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, we modify the sentence passed against him by directing that the accused-appellant shall suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default, to suffer, as has been done by the learned Trial Court, imprisonment for a period of three months. 24. In the terms of the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of. 25. Send back the Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment and order. 26. Learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to receive payment as per the relevant rules.