Judgment : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The appellant in both the appeals (one through advocate and the other through jail authority) is aggrieved by a judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri, dated April 12, 1999 in Sessions Case No.62 of 1990 convicting him of an offence under s.302 IPC and the order of the judge dated April 13, 1999 sentencing him. The sentencing part of the order dated April 13, 1999 is quoted below:– “…….that the convict Poulush Oraon convicted under s.302 of the Indian Penal Code is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) only and in default of payment of fine he is to suffer imprisonment for a period of one month more.” The FIR was registered at Mal police station in Jalpaiguri sub-division of the district Jalpaiguri on August 4, 1986 at 2.05 a.m. The information was given by one Basant Baraik. The oral information was reduced to writing. Basant stated as follows. He, his mother and his elder sister, Anita, were residing together at Dukhia Line of Neoranadi Garden. He and his mother were employed in the garden. On the night of August 3, 1986 at around 9 p.m. his mother went to the road for taking fresh air. Other people of the village were also there. The appellant reaching there and calling his mother an old witch killed her with a Tangi (a hatchet). The incident was witnessed by Fuljan Munda and Piyari Oraon. Hearing sound his sister came out and seeing his sister the appellant fled. The appellant was arrested and produced before the magistrate on August 11, 1986. Statements of one Amrita Uraon, Fuljan, Piyari and Anita @ Kutel were recorded under s.164 CrPC on August 11 & 12, 1986. The appellant was granted statutory bail on November 10, 1986. A charge-sheet dated January 25, 1989 was filed against the appellant under s.302 IPC on May 18, 1989. Charge was framed under s.302 IPC on January 12, 1993. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The appellant was granted statutory bail on November 10, 1986. A charge-sheet dated January 25, 1989 was filed against the appellant under s.302 IPC on May 18, 1989. Charge was framed under s.302 IPC on January 12, 1993. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Between April 21, 1995 and March 9, 1999 the prosecution examined the following witnesses:– PW1–Kutel; PWs2-6–Hari Thakur, Tulu Mahali, Bindeswar Rai, Bajrang Rai & Puli Kar (all neighbours); PW7–the officer making further investigation; PW8–the officer completing investigation and filing charge-sheet; PW9–the officer starting investigation; PW10–Basant; PW11–the magistrate recording the s.164 statements; PW12–Piyari; PW13–Fuljan; PW14–Amrita; PW15–the doctor doing the post-mortem. The prosecution exhibited the following documents:– Ex1–the FSL report; Ex2–the serologist’s report; Ex3–the FIR; Ex4–the sketch map of the scene of the crime; Ex5–the inquest report; Ex6–the dead body challan; Ex7–a seizure list dated August 4, 1986; Ex8–a seizure list dated August 5, 1986; Ex9–the four s.164 statements of PWs1, 12, 13 & 14; Ex10–the post-mortem report. The appellant was examined under s.313 CrPC on August 29, 1998 and again on March 19, 1999. On August 29, 1998 the appellant, while saying that he was innocent, also said that he would give defence evidence. On March 19, 1999 he, however, said that he would not give any defence evidence. Examination-in-chief of PW1, Kutel, is quoted below:– “I reside at Fulbani. Prior to my marriage I used to reside in my father’s house at Neoranadi T.E. Etoari Baraik was my mother. She is now dead. She died about 8/9 years back. About 8 & 9 years back one night at about 10.00 P.M. the accused Paulush murdered my mother by Tangi. On hearing the cries of my mother I came out of the room and found Paulush to murder my mother and to run away. I raised alarm when the villagers assembled at the PO. I narrated the matter to them and told them Paulush had murdered my mother. The accused Poulush is present in court today(id.).” Cross-examination of PW1 is quoted below:– “On hearing the cries of my mother I came out on the road and found my mother was lying on the road. It is not a fact that at that time I did not see Paulush there. I saw Paulush to runaway from that place with Tangi in hand. It is not a fact that at that time I did not see Paulush there. I saw Paulush to runaway from that place with Tangi in hand. It is not a fact that I did not see Paulush to murder my mother. It is not a fact that I did not see Tangi in the hand of Paulush. I was interrogated by police. It is not a fact that I have not stated to police to have seen Paulush to inflict tangi blow to my mother. It is not a fact that I did not tell the police that Paulush had tangi in hand. Many persons came to the PO hearing my shouts. Tulu Mahali, Hari Thakur, Bindheswari, Phuli Oraon, Bajrang, Piary and others came to the PO on hearing my shouts. After the incident I went to the manager of the tea garden. Tulu, Bindesari and Hari Thakur accompanied me to the manager and I reported everything to the manager. It is not a fact that Paulush did not murder my mother by Tangi. It is not a fact that I did not see Paulush to runaway from the PO. After reporting to the manager of the tea garden I went to Police station and lodged the FIR. It is not a fact that I deposed falsely.” Examination-in-chief of PW2, Hari Thakur, is quoted below:– “I reside at Neoranadi Station. Previously ie. about 7/8 years back I used to reside at Neoranadi T.E. I know Etoari Baraik, mother of the PW1 Kutal. Etoari died about 8/9 years back. She was murdered by Paulush. About 8/9 years back on the date of murder of Etoari while I was taking rest in my house after taking dinner I heard a noise and rushed towards the PO which was near the house of Etoari and on reaching there I found Etoari was murdered and lying on the middle of the road. I found blood in the road. At the PO. I came to learn from Kutal and others that Paulush had murdered Etoari and ran away. Paulush is present in court (id the accused).” Cross-examination of PW2 is quoted below:– “It is not a fact that Kutal did not tell me that Paulush had murdered her mother and fled away. Lachhman Munda was on the south of Etoari’s house. On the east was road. Paulush is present in court (id the accused).” Cross-examination of PW2 is quoted below:– “It is not a fact that Kutal did not tell me that Paulush had murdered her mother and fled away. Lachhman Munda was on the south of Etoari’s house. On the east was road. On the west was Kulu Mahali and on the north was Philip. Besides many labourers also live around the house of Etoari. Myself, Tulu, Bindeswari, Kutail then went to the Manager Shri P Chaudhuri and reported the matter. Thereafter the manager provided us with one car and he also gave a letter to the driver who handed over that letter to police at the PS. Thereafter we returned by that car from the PS. We did not report to the manager that Paulush had murdered Etoari.” Deposition of PW3, Tulu Mahali, is quoted below:– “I reside at Neoranadi T.E. I knew Etoari, mother of PW1, Kutal. Etoari died about 8 years back. I saw the deadbody of Etoari which was lying in the road in front of the Etoari. I saw blood on the road. In that night I heard sound of cries but I did not learn from anybody how Etoari died. (The prosecution is permitted to cross examine the witness) I was interrogated by the IO. It is not a fact that I stated to the IO that when I went to the PO and enquired how Etoari was murdered then Kutal Baraik and others present there told me that sometime ago Paulush of our line murdered Etoari by tangi and fled away. I call Paulush as dada. It is not a fact that as per instruction of Paulush I deposed falsely. It is not a fact that I am suppressing the truth and desposed falsely to save Paulush. XXXn declined.” Deposition of PW4, Bindeswar Rai, is quoted below:– “I reside at Neoranadi tea garden. I knew Etoari. She died about 8½ years back. On that night while I was sleeping in my house I heard cries. I came out and found blood in the road and the dead body of Etoari was also lying in the road. We informed the matter to the Manager of the tea garden. On reaching the PO I found Kutail was crying there. I did not hear anything from anybody how Etoari died. (The prosecution is permitted to cross examine witness.) Police interrogated me. We informed the matter to the Manager of the tea garden. On reaching the PO I found Kutail was crying there. I did not hear anything from anybody how Etoari died. (The prosecution is permitted to cross examine witness.) Police interrogated me. It is not a fact that I stated to police that on reaching the PO I came to learn from Kutail and other persons present there that some time ago Paulush murdered Etoari by a tangi and fled away. XXXn declined.” Deposition of PW5, Bajrang Rai, is quoted below:– “I reside at Neora Bagan tea garden, Bukia Line. I know Etowari Baraik who is now dead. I can’t say how long ago she died. I do not know anything about her death. (The prosecution is permitted to cross-examine the witness):- It is not a fact that police interrogated me in connexion with this case. It is not a fact that I stated to police that on the previous night on hearing noise I went out on the road and found many persons had assembled there and the mother of Kutail Baraik was lying dead and Kutail was crying there and I came to learn from Kutail that Poulush Oraon had murdered her mother by a tangi. I know Poulush Oraon. I called him as Jamaibabu. It is not a fact that with a view to save Poulush from this case I did not tell the truth. Cross-examination:– declined.” Deposition of PW6, Puli Kar, is quoted below:– “I reside at Neora Bagan. I know Etowari Baraik of Dukhia Line of Neora garden. Etowari Baraik died about 8 or 9 years back. I do not know how she died. I also did not see her dead body. (The prosecution is permitted to cross-examine the witness):– I was interrogated by the police. It is not a fact that I stated to the I.O. that on the last night at about 10 p.m. while I was in my house I heard noise went out on the road and found the mother of Kotail namely, Etowari Baraik was lying dead and Kutail told me that Poulush Oraon murderer her mother by tangi and fled away. Cross-examination declined.” PWs7, 8 & 9 are the three police officers who investigated the case. PW7 took over the investigation from PW9 on April 23, 1987. PW7 left the investigation incomplete. He was not cross-examined. Cross-examination declined.” PWs7, 8 & 9 are the three police officers who investigated the case. PW7 took over the investigation from PW9 on April 23, 1987. PW7 left the investigation incomplete. He was not cross-examined. PW8 took over the investigation on September 27, 1987. He submitted the charge-sheet. He proved the two FSL reports (Exs1 & 2) and the FIR (Ex3). He was not cross-examined as well. PW9 started the investigation. He proved the inquest report (Ex5), the dead body challan (Ex6), the seizure list (Ex7) showing seizure of control blood and bitumen, the seizure list (Ex8) showing seizure of the victim’s torn blouse and petticoat, and said that during investigation he examined Tulu Mahali (PW3), Bindeswar Rai (PW4), Bajrang Rai (PW5), Puli Kar (PW6), who all told him that when they reached the scene of the crime they found the victim lying dead and were told by Kutel that the appellant had murdered the victim with a Tangi. Cross-examination of PW9 is quoted below:– “After seizure of blood stained earth and blood kept the same at the P.S. P.W.1 did not tell me that she saw Poulus to inflict Tangi blow to her mother. She also did not tell me that she saw Poulus carrying a Tangi in his hand at that time. Wits. viz. Tulu Mahali, BindeswarRai, Bajrang Rai and Pouri Kar did not make any statement to me as recorded by me. Not a fact that I did not investigate the case properly.” Deposition of PW10, Basant, is quoted below:– “I reside at Neora tea garden. Etowari Baraik was my mother. She is dead. She died about 11 yrs. ago. On the date of incident in the month of August on Sunday I came to know from my elder sister Putile Baraik at 10 P.M. that accd. Pourush assaulted my mother with a Tanga. As a result she died. I reported the P.S. about the incident at Mal P.S. Darogbabu wrote the same in writing as F.I.R. The contents of the F.I.R. was not read over and explained to me but I put my L.T.I. thereon. Thereafter I left for home. This is my signature in the F.I.R.(Ext.3/2). There is electric light near our house. The road is clearly visible by the said light from our house. I know Poulush who is present on accd. Dock and identified. Thereafter I left for home. This is my signature in the F.I.R.(Ext.3/2). There is electric light near our house. The road is clearly visible by the said light from our house. I know Poulush who is present on accd. Dock and identified. I along with Poulush are living the same line called Dukhiya Line. XXn: Not a fact that my elder sister Kutile did not stated to me that Poulus did not assault our mother. The electric light post of the road is about 100 yrds. From our house. Not a fact that I am deposing falsely being tutored.” PW11 is the magistrate who recorded the statements of Anita @ Kutel (PW1), Piyari Oraon (PW12), Fuljan Munda (PW13) and Amrita Uraon (PW14) under s.164 CrPC on August 11 & 12, 1986. He said that he had recorded the statements in his own handwriting, and he proved the documents (Ex9) containing the recorded statements. He said that the witnesses had given their respective statements voluntarily, but that there was nothing in the records to show that the witnesses had made their statements voluntarily. Deposition of PW12, Piyari Oraon, is quoted below:– “I live at Neora tea garden. I knew Etowari Baraik who is dead. About 11 yrs. back she died being assaulted by accd. Poulus on Sunday with Tanga. Accd. Poulus is present today on accd. dock today. The incident took place in front of my house and I saw the incident. At that time I was sitting in the courtyard of our house. After assaulting Etowari, Poulus fled away with Tanga. The incident took place at about 10 P.M. xxxn: Nani, Rajkishore, Tulu, Amerika & other are residing in and around our house. At that time I was taking dinner inside the room. After having dinner I went to bed on that night. Not a fact that I did not see that accd. Poulus to assault Etowari Baraik on that night. Tulu Mahali is my neighbour. I had no talk withim over the incident.” Deposition of PW13, Fuljan Munda, is quoted below:– “I live at Neora tea garden in Dukhiya Line. I knew Etowari Baraik who is dead. She used to live in our Line. She died about 11 yrs. ago in the month of Bhadra on one Sunday. She died being assaulted by Poulus with a Tangi. Said Poulus is present today on accd. dock. and identified. Accd. I knew Etowari Baraik who is dead. She used to live in our Line. She died about 11 yrs. ago in the month of Bhadra on one Sunday. She died being assaulted by Poulus with a Tangi. Said Poulus is present today on accd. dock. and identified. Accd. Poulus fled away after assaulting Etowari with a Tangi. At that time I had been to the river side for easing myself. I made a statement before the Judl.Magistrate. xxxn: Not a fact that on the date of incident at night I did not go to the river side for easing myself. I did not state about the incident to villager. Not a fact that I am deposing falsely. Not a fact that I deposed falsely before the Magistrate. being tutored.” Deposition of PW14, Amrita Uraon, is quoted below:– “I reside at Neoragarden. About 11yrs. back at about 10 P.M. Etowari was on the road ans she was singing. It was in the month of Bhadra on a Sunday the incidnet took place. She was dashed by Poulus and was assaulted by Poulus with Tanga and thereafter he fled away. At that time I was inside the room and hearing halla I came out and saw the incident. Accd. Poulus is present in the court room on accd. dock and identified. In earlier occasion I made statement before the Judl. Magistrate. xxxn: On the date of incident at that time I was taking dinner at my house. After arrival at the P.O. I found many persons and Etowari were lying on the ground. I found Kutile (daughter of Etowari), Hari Thakur, Tulu Mahali, Bindeswar, Bajrang, Puli Kar there. I had no talk with them. Not a fact that I did not see Etowari to be assaulted by Poulus and fled away. Not a fact that I am deposing falsely being tutored. Not a fact that I made false statement before the Magistrate.” PW15 is the doctor who did the post-mortem on the victim. He proved his report (Ex10). He said that all the five incised wounds mentioned in his report were ante mortem and homicidal in nature, and could be caused with a sharp weapon like Tangi and the cause of the victim’s death. In his cross-examination he remained firm in is opinion. He proved his report (Ex10). He said that all the five incised wounds mentioned in his report were ante mortem and homicidal in nature, and could be caused with a sharp weapon like Tangi and the cause of the victim’s death. In his cross-examination he remained firm in is opinion. The wounds recorded in Ex10 are quoted below:– “(I) Incised wound over the Rt Side of the base of the mandible 3?x 1/2?x bone deep -- blood clot in & around the wound. (II) Incised wound front & Rt Side of neck just above the thyroid cartilage 3?x 1?x bone deep cutting through larynx, pharynx & vs. of the neck -- blood clot in & around the wound. (III) Incised wound over the front of neck below the Cricoid cartilage 3?x 1?x bone deep cutting through trachea, oesophagus & vs. of the neck -- blood clot in & around. (IV) Incised wound obliquely placed over the back of the neck below the occipt 4?x 1?x bone deep -- blood clot in & around; (V) Incised wound over the Rt. shoulder 3?x 1?x bone deep -- blood clot in & around the wound.” Findings of the court below are these. The minor discrepancies in PW1’s deposition are no ground to disbelieve her. She has been fully corroborated by PW2. Evidence given by PWs3, 4, 5 & 6, though they were declared hostile, corroborates PW1. There is nothing in the evidence of PWs7, 8 & 9 for which PW1 should be disbelieved. PW9 proved his signature on the FIR. PW11 proved the s.164 statements he recorded. Evidence given by PWs12, 13 & 14 fully proves the prosecution case that the appellant murdered Etoari. Evidence of PW15 fully supports the prosecution case. Non-production of the murder weapon does not make the prosecution case unbelievable. The appeal was admitted by this court on January 14, 1999. The appellant’s prayer for suspension of sentence and his release on bail was rejected. He is in jail. Mr. Bhattarcharyya appearing for the appellant has submitted as follows. Basant, the de facto complainant, deposing as PW10 did not say specifically that PW1 told him that she saw the appellant murder her mother. Evidence of PW1 is only that she saw her mother lying. PW9 has said that PW1 did not tell him that the appellant murdered her mother. Evidence given by PW1 is not believable. Basant, the de facto complainant, deposing as PW10 did not say specifically that PW1 told him that she saw the appellant murder her mother. Evidence of PW1 is only that she saw her mother lying. PW9 has said that PW1 did not tell him that the appellant murdered her mother. Evidence given by PW1 is not believable. It was not possible for PW13 to see the murder. Depositions of PWs1, 12, 13 & 14 in court substantially contradicted their version of the case recorded in their respective s.164 statements. Hence these witnesses cannot be believed. Mr Singh, the Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has submitted as follows. PWs1, 12, 13 & 14 are the eyewitnesses to the murder. That the victim was murdered is certain. Evidence of PW15 and his post-mortem report (Ex10) fully supports the prosecution case that the victim died due to the effects of the five serious bodily cut injuries inflicted by a sharp weapon like a Tangi. When PWs1, 12, 13 & 14 have categorically deposed that they saw the appellant committing the murder, there is no reason why the prosecution case should be disbelieved. It is evident that PWs3, 4, 5 & 6 gave false evidence. The court below has convicted the appellant of an offence under s.302 IPC. The prosecution case was that on August 3, 1986 at around 9 p.m. the appellant murdered one Etoari of Dhukiya line at Neoranadi Tea Garden in the district Jalpaiguri with a Tangi on the road near Etoari’s house. The court below held that the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. PWs1-6 & 12-14 all said that Etoari was dead. PW9 starting the investigation of the case said that he prepared the inquest report (Ex5) and sent Etoari’s dead body for post-mortem under the challan (Ex6); and PW15 said that he conducted post-mortem on Etoari, indentified by the constable bringing the dead body, on August 4, 1986. Non-examination of the constable does not create a doubtful circumstance. Evidence in the records leaves no doubt that Etoari is dead. PWs1-4 & 12-14 said that they saw Etoari’s dead body lying on the road in front of Etoari’s house. The inquest report (Ex5) shows that Etoari’s dead body was found on the road at Dukhiya Labour line of Neoranadi Tea Garden, the place mentioned in the FIR (Ex3). Evidence in the records leaves no doubt that Etoari is dead. PWs1-4 & 12-14 said that they saw Etoari’s dead body lying on the road in front of Etoari’s house. The inquest report (Ex5) shows that Etoari’s dead body was found on the road at Dukhiya Labour line of Neoranadi Tea Garden, the place mentioned in the FIR (Ex3). The sketch map of the scene of the crime (Ex4) shows that Etoari’s dead body was found on the road in front of her house. Hence there is no doubt that PWs1-4 & 12-14 found that Etoari’s dead body was lying on the road in front of her house. The FIR (Ex3) date and time of Etoari’s death is August 3, 1986 around 9 p.m. Evidence of PWs1-4 & 6 is that Etoari died around 8-9 years ago; and evidence of PWs10 & 12-14 is that she died around 11 years ago. A backward calculation takes the date of death to 1986. Though these witnesses did not give the exact date and time, they all said that it was around night meal time. Hence their evidence, considered with the inquest report (Ex5), the dead body challan (Ex6), the post-mortem report (Ex10), and evidence of PWs9 & 15, leads to the definite conclusion that Etoari died on August 3, 1986 at around 9 p.m. PWs1, 2 & 12-14 deposed that Etoari was murdered. The FIR (Ex3) was registered recording Etoari’s murder. The inquest report (Ex5) was prepared stating that Etoari was murdered. Evidence of PW9 is that it was a murder case that he started investigating. PW15 mentioned the five injuries he found on Etoari’s body. His evidence is that all the injuries were ante mortem and homicidal in nature, and that they could be caused by a sharp weapon. All were bone deep injuries – four on the neck, one on the right shoulder. Hence there is no doubt that it was a case of culpable homicide. Evidence given by PW1 is that when hearing her mother’s cries she came out of the room, she found the appellant murdering her mother with a Tangi. In cross-examination she said that when she came out on the road, she found her mother lying on the road. Hence there is no doubt that it was a case of culpable homicide. Evidence given by PW1 is that when hearing her mother’s cries she came out of the room, she found the appellant murdering her mother with a Tangi. In cross-examination she said that when she came out on the road, she found her mother lying on the road. Relying on this it has been strenuously argued that it is not the evidence that PW1 actually saw the appellant attacking Etoari with a Tangi and causing her the bodily injuries or any one of them. The argument has no merit. PW1 very firmly repeated in cross-examination that she saw the appellant murdering her mother and fleeing with the Tangi. PW2 was a neighbour of Etoari. His evidence is that when hearing a noise he came out and went to the place, he found murdered Etoari lying on the middle of the road and was told by PW1 and others that the appellant had murdered Etoari and ran away. PW3, declared hostile, evidently withheld the truth. He said that though hearing cries he reached the place and saw Etoari’s dead body lying on the road, he did not learn from anybody how Etoari died. PW4, also declared hostile, gave similar evidence. PWs5 & 6, also declared hostile, feigned total ignorance. All these four witnesses were interrogated during investigation. But these witnesses (PWs3 & 5 calling the appellant as “dada” and “Jamaibabu” respectively) could do little to bring out the appellant from the blaze of the eyewitness account of PW1 cemented by the eyewitness account given by PWs12, 13 & 14. PWs7, 8 & 9 are the officers investigating the case. They examined the cited witnesses during investigation for completing which they took an amazing twoyear- five-month period. The offence weapon did not come to court. PW9 even allowed the case, a murder case, to fall in the course of statutory bail. A classic example of spoiling investigation and allowing a serious offence case lose its sting. But at times it is very difficult to erase the horror of a crime and blur the memory of eyewitness to an offence like murder of one’s dear one. PW10 said that his elder sister (PW1) told him that the appellant murdered his mother Etoari. PW11 is the magistrate who recorded the statements (Ex9) of PWs1, 12, 13 & 14 under s.164 CrPC. PW10 said that his elder sister (PW1) told him that the appellant murdered his mother Etoari. PW11 is the magistrate who recorded the statements (Ex9) of PWs1, 12, 13 & 14 under s.164 CrPC. PWs12, 13 & 14 all said that they saw the appellant murdering Etoari with a Tangi and fleeing. They all were Etoari’s neighbours. PW12 said that the incident happened in front her house, and that she saw it. That in cross-examination she said that she was taking dinner inside the room, and that after dinner she went to bed, is no reason to conclude that she could not witness the murder. She was deposing around 11 years after the incident. The attacker struck Etoari as many as five times. It was natural for people around the place to hear her cries, come out of their houses and see the attacker in action and fleeing. PWs13 & 14 also gave quite credible eyewitness evidence that they saw the appellant attack Etoari and kill her. PW13 said that she was at the river side for defecating. The map of the scene of the crime (Ex4) shows that the river was within yards from the scene of the crime. PW14, also residing within yards from the scene of the crime, as is revealed by the map (Ex4), said that when hearing halla (a noise) he came out, he saw the appellant killing Etoari with a Tangi. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PWs1, 12, 13 & 14 that raises a doubt about the truth of what they said in their depositions. They all are natural witnesses. In 1995 PW1 was 29. This means that in 1986 she was 20. In 1997 PW12 was 25 and PW13 was 27. This means that in 1986 they were 14 and 16 respectively. Age of PW14 was not recorded in her deposition. PWs1, 12, 13 & 14 were illiterate; they put their left thumb impressions on their respective depositions. Once these four witnesses are projected on the screen of the mind individually and then collectively, not a single reason emerges for discarding their evidence, especially when there is no evidence that any one of them had any reason to implicate the appellant in a false case. Once these four witnesses are projected on the screen of the mind individually and then collectively, not a single reason emerges for discarding their evidence, especially when there is no evidence that any one of them had any reason to implicate the appellant in a false case. Questionable investigation not shedding on the offence weapon and as many as four witnesses turning hostile together are unable to dismantle the case firmly and definitely proved by the evidence given by PWs1, 12, 13 & 14. Whatever little PW9 contributed supports their evidence, and evidence given by PW15 and his post-mortem report (Ex10) lend full support to their evidence that it is the appellant who attacked Etoari with a Tangi on August 3, 1986 at around 9 p.m. and caused all the five homicidal bodily cut injuries with the intention to kill her. The answer to the question why the appellant attacked Etoari and killed her is not available from the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. But absence of evidence to show motive does not make any difference. The evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who attacked and killed Etoari, and the nature of the five bodily injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report clearly proves that the appellant inflicted them with the intention to kill Etoari and for ensuring her death. There is nothing to bring the case within the fold of any exception in s.300. It is a clear case of murder. For these reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. The appellant’s conviction by the court below is affirmed and the sentence imposed by it is maintained. Department to take steps under s.388 CrPC. Certified xerox.