Judgment D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th February, 1998 and 27th February, 1998 respectively, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1993, whereby, the present appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for one year rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is a case of the prosecution that on 20th May, 1993, the informantP.W.5 gave fardbeyan to police that his wifeP.W.1, namely, Renuka came at the house and informed him that Alomoni Majhian as well as Jelapi Majhian have been assaulted by the present appellant. He immediately rushed nearby the house, where, the incident has taken place, where, he saw Alomoni Majhian was unconscious and Jelapi Majhian (P.W.4) was injured. It is also stated in the fardbeyan that the whole incident has taken place because the appellant, who is son-in-law of deceased Alomoni Majhian, had mortgaged all the articles, which she had given to him at the time of marriage. The assault has taken place in the house with a weapon Kudal. Upon recording of the fardbeyan, First Information Report was lodged. The case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court by Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1993 and upon recording the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.10 and upon appreciating these evidences, which includes the deposition of injured eye witness and the medical evidence, the learned trial court has convicted the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment as well as for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for one year rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The so called eye witnesses are not the eye witnesses, at all. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The so called eye witnesses are not the eye witnesses, at all. There are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence and ocular evidence are in contradiction with each other. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. We have heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, who has vehemently submitted that the whole incident has taken place in the house of the deceased Alomoni Majhian, where, the assault was caused by weapon Kudal, by the appellant, who is soninlaw of the deceased, where, P.W.4Jelapi Majhian was also present. P.W.4 is mother of the deceased. Thus, the case of the prosecution is based upon the evidence given by the injured eye witness as well as by the eye witness, namely, Renuka, who is P.W.1. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. that looking to the deposition of the eye witnesses, they have clearly narrated the role played by the present appellant in causing murder of the deceased as well as in causing injuries to the injured eye witnessP.W.4. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that the injury certificate of injured eye witness has also been proved by P.W.10Dr. Sahir Pall. Thus, the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the evidences of the prosecution witnesses have been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, this Court may not interfere with this criminal jail appeal, preferred by the present appellant. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that: (i) The whole incident has taken place on 20th May, 1993. The deceased, namely, Alomoni Majhian has been assaulted by the appellant, in her house. The appellant is soninlaw of the deceased. First Information Report was lodged upon information given by the informant, namely, Milan Manjhi (P.W.5). The deceased, namely, Alomoni Majhian has been assaulted by the appellant, in her house. The appellant is soninlaw of the deceased. First Information Report was lodged upon information given by the informant, namely, Milan Manjhi (P.W.5). P.W.5 has stated that his wife P.W.1Renuka came at the house and conveyed him that the appellant has caused injuries to Alomoni Majhian (deceased) and Jelapi Majhian (P.W.4). Immediately, he rushed at the house of Alomoni Majhian, where, he saw that Alomoni Majhian was unconscious and Jelapi Majhian was injured. Thereafter, another witness, P.W.6Haripado Singh, rushed at the house of Alomoni Majhian. Thus looking to the information given by P.W.5, P.W.1 and P.W.4 are eye witnesses, therefore, we will examine closely the depositions given by P.W.1 and P.W.4. (ii) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.1Renuka, who is wife of the informant P.W.5, it appears that she has clearly stated that she has seen the occurrence. She stated that when she was at the house of Alomoni Majhian, the appellant accused was assaulting Alomoni Majhian and Jelapi Majhian. The appellant has caused injury to Alomoni Majhian on her ear and head with Kudal and when Jelapi Majhian (P.W.4) went to rescue Alomoni Majhian, she was also assaulted by the appellant on her hand with Kudal. Looking to her cross examination, nothing is coming out in favour of the appellant accused. She has also stated that when she had gone, immediately, to call her husband, who is P.W.5, marpeet was still going on and when she returned, Alomoni Majhian was already killed and Jelapi MajhianP.W.4 was lying injured. The deposition of P.W.1 is getting enough corroboration from the deposition given by P.W.4 and the medical evidence, given by P.W.8 and P.W.10. Looking to the overall depositions of this witness, it appears that she is a reliable and trustworthy witness. She has clearly narrated the whole incident without any major omission, contradiction and improvement. (iii) Looking to the deposition of P.W.4Jelapi Majhian, it appears that she is an injured eye witness and her injury certificate has been proved by P.W.10Dr. Sahir Pall. As per P.W.10Dr. Sahir Pall, P.W.4 has sustained following injuries: “lacerated wound on the little finger of the left hand ¼''x ¼'' x ¼'', Abrasion on left forearm ¼''x ¼''. (iii) Looking to the deposition of P.W.4Jelapi Majhian, it appears that she is an injured eye witness and her injury certificate has been proved by P.W.10Dr. Sahir Pall. As per P.W.10Dr. Sahir Pall, P.W.4 has sustained following injuries: “lacerated wound on the little finger of the left hand ¼''x ¼'' x ¼'', Abrasion on left forearm ¼''x ¼''. Nature of injuries were simple and were caused by hard and blunt substance.” Thus, her presence at the scene of offence is a natural one because she is mother of the deceased. Moreover, she is an injured eye witness. She has also narrated that the present appellant has caused injury upon Alomoni Majhian mainly for the reason that the appellant had mortgaged the articles and for that he was given scolding by the deceased. The articles were given at the time of marriage and they were mortgaged by the appellant. Looking to her deposition and cross examination, she has clearly stated that the appellant has caused injuries upon the deceased and when P.W.4, being a mother of the deceased, tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by the appellant and she has also sustained injuries. Looking to her cross examination, her examination-in-chief remains as it is. Looking to overall evidences given by P.W.4, it appears that she is a reliable and trustworthy witness. We see no reason to disbelieve this injured eye witness. Without any exaggeration, the whole narration has been given by this P.W.4 and her deposition is also getting enough corroboration by the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.8 and P.W.10 as well as deposition of P.W.6. (iv) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.6Haripado Singh, it appears that he is an independent witness and he rushed, immediately, at the scene of offence, after the incident has taken place, where, he saw Alomoni Majhian was unconscious and Jelapi Majhian was injured. Looking to the deposition of this witness, the place of scene of offence, time of occurrence and the injury of P.W.4 has also been narrated, in detail. Thus, the deposition of P.W.6 is getting enough corroboration to the deposition of eye witnesses. (v) Looking to the deposition of P.W.8, who is Dr. Jogendra Nath, it appears that he has carried out postmortem of the deceased Alomoni Majhian. Thus, the deposition of P.W.6 is getting enough corroboration to the deposition of eye witnesses. (v) Looking to the deposition of P.W.8, who is Dr. Jogendra Nath, it appears that he has carried out postmortem of the deceased Alomoni Majhian. As per P.W.8, following injuries have been found upon the body of the deceased: “Stitched wound: (i) With four stitches measuring 5 cm (½cm x soft tissue) over the right temporal area. (ii) 3cm (½cm x soft tissue) over right pinna. (iii) 1 cm (½cm x skin deep) over right pinna tragus. Internal Injury: There was contusion of right temporo-parito occipital scalp and temporalis muscle. There was subdural blood clots over left half of brain contusion of whole brain with the blood and blood clot in the cranial cavity. The stomach was contused, over greater curvature with laceration over an area of 3x 1½cm. The large intestine was measured over an area of 3 inches length. The stomach contained blood tinged mucous.” Looking to the aforesaid injuries, it appears that what is stated by the eye witnesses, is true and correct and the same is getting corroboration to the depositions of eye witnesses, who are P.W.1 and P.W.4. They have narrated that the appellant has caused injuries on the head of the deceased, which is getting corroboration by the deposition given by P.W.8Dr. Jogendra Nath. (vi) Looking to the deposition of P.W.10Dr. Sahir Pall, it appears that he has proved the injuries sustained by P.W.4Jelapi Majhian. Thus, P.W.4 is an injured eye witness, proved by P.W.10. (vii) Thus looking to the overall evidences, it appears that P.W.1 and P.W.4 are eye witnesses and they have clearly narrated that the appellant has caused fatal injuries at the vital part of the body of Alomoni Majhian and, therefore, this evidence is getting enough corroboration by the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses. No error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating these evidences on record and, therefore, we see no reason to disbelieve these eye witnesses. (viii) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is contradiction in the ocular evidence and medical evidence. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the doctor is not an eye witness, at all. He has narrated the injuries sustained by the deceased. (viii) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is contradiction in the ocular evidence and medical evidence. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the doctor is not an eye witness, at all. He has narrated the injuries sustained by the deceased. Looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, there is an injury at the head of the deceased and eye witnesses have also stated that the appellant had caused injury at the head of the deceased. Thus, medical evidence is corroborative to the ocular evidence. 6. In view of these evidences on record, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th February, 1998 and 27th February, 1998 respectively, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1993 is, hereby, upheld. There is no merit in this criminal jail appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.