JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 22.01.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 174 of 2001, whereby the appellant Baijan Hembrum was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the informant Gora Hembrum was informed that his daughter Talamayi Hembrom died on account of being shot at by fire-arm by one Baijan Hembrum in front of the house of co-villager Chundo Marandi; that the informant returned to his village Bhalsundhia and saw the dead body of his daughter in front of the house of Chundo Marandi. It has been stated that Chundo Marandi and Bariayar Marandi had seen the occurrence. The incident occurred because the appellant Baijan Hembrum was under the belief that Talamayi Hembrom had killed his son by practicing witchcraft and in retaliation the appellant had shot dead the informant's daughter. On the basis of the fardbeyan recorded on 8.3.2001 at village Bhalsundhia, Borio P.S. Case No. 40 of 2001 under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellant. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and cognizance was taken whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 174 of 2001. Charges were framed under Section 302 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and witnesses examined whereafter the statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr PC. The defence is of complete denial whereafter the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence convicted the appellant vide the impugned judgment. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, PW 1 Dr. Bhagwat Marandi, who had conducted the postmortem over the dead body of Talamayi Hembrom. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ext.-l. PW 2 is the informant, namely, Gora Hembrom. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, PW 1 Dr. Bhagwat Marandi, who had conducted the postmortem over the dead body of Talamayi Hembrom. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ext.-l. PW 2 is the informant, namely, Gora Hembrom. PW 3 Chundo Marandi, PW 4 Bariyar Marandi and PW 5 the Investigating Officer, namely, Awdesh Kumar, who has proved the fardbeyan, Ext.-2 and also produced the sketch map of the place of occurrence, Ext.-3, formal F.I.R. Ext.-4 and inquest report Ext.-5. 5. Dr. H. Waris, learned amicus-curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that there is discrepancy between the occular and medical evidence on record. Learned amicus-curiae has drawn attention to the evidence of PW 3, Chundo Marandi and submitted that he is not an eye-witness because in para-13, he has stated that the bullet traveled through and through the body but, the doctor i.e. PW 1, in para-14, has stated that he did not find any exit wound on the dead body of the deceased which creates a doubt that the witness had not seen the occurrence and he supported the case as he is related to the informant. It has further been submitted that the doctor has also stated that hectic search was made by him but the bullet could not be found in the dead body. Learned counsel also submitted that the inquest report does not support the manner of the occurrence as no blood stain was found on the earth by the Investigating Officer whereas, the Investigating Officer in his inquest report i.e. as Ext-5 stated that there was blood coming out from the wound and non-finding of the blood stain on the earth shows that the deceased was killed elsewhere and the body was brought to the site where the inquest report was prepared. In support of his arguments, he has submitted that PW 2 i.e. the informant, in his deposition, has stated that he had seen the dead body of his daughter lying in the field whereas, PW 3 has stated that the occurrence has taken place on the verandah of PW 3, which is also supported by PW 4. Thus, there are material of contradiction, which creates a doubt regarding the occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of land enmity. Thus, there are material of contradiction, which creates a doubt regarding the occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of land enmity. It is argued that even if the occurrence is believed to be true in its entirety, though denied by the appellant, then the incident took place as the appellant was not in a fit state of mind due to the death of his child and it is specifically stated in the F.I.R. that when he tried to hand over the dead child to the deceased, she refused to take him. That the appellant lost his mental balance and committed the crime, at best the accused can be held guilty for the charge under Section 304 (ii) of the lPC. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that PWs 3 and 4 have categorically stated that the appellant had caused fire-arm injury on tile deceased, which resulted in her death and the doctor i.e. PW I has also found that the injury caused by fire-arm was the cause of death. 7. On hearing the learned counsels and on going through the evidence on record, we find that the witnesses namely, PW 4 has deposed that on that day he was sitting on the verandah of PW 3 and the appellant had fired a bullet shot at the deceased which hit below her chest and she died. PW.3 has stated that at 2 p.m. the appellant accused had shot the deceased. That the occurrence took place in his verandah and he had seen the occurrence PW 2 is the informant and he has stated in para-3 that PWs 3 and 4 had seen the occurrence they had told him that the appellant had fired the bullet on his daughter. In para 2 he has stated that he had seen the dead body of his daughter in the field near the house of PW 3. The said witnesses have been cross-examined but no material fact has been brought forth so as to disbelieve the evidence on the point that the appellant had shot dead the deceased. As per post-mortem report Ext. 1 the doctor opined that cause of death was by fire-arm injury. The said witnesses have been cross-examined but no material fact has been brought forth so as to disbelieve the evidence on the point that the appellant had shot dead the deceased. As per post-mortem report Ext. 1 the doctor opined that cause of death was by fire-arm injury. The doctor found lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" with blackening and inverted margin in between the junction of sternum and second rib and PW 4 has stated that the appellant accused had shot the deceased below the chest. 8. Learned counsel's contention that PW 3 in para-13 has stated that the bullet had entered and come out from one side to the other side but the doctor did not find any exit wound neither he found the bullet despite hectic search proves the fact that PW 3 had not seen the occurrence does not have much force because the witness might have exaggerated on the point of bullet travelling through one end to the other end of the body but the fact that he had seen the incident has not been discredited in the cross-examination. 9. The contention of the learned counsel that PWs 3 & 4 have stated the incident took place on the verandah of PW 3 but PW 2, the informant has stated that he had seen the dead body of his daughter lying in the field near the house of PW 3 shows that the place of occurrence has not been defined is not acceptable as the Investing Officer PW 5, in para-4 has stated that the place of occurrence is in front of the eastern door of PW 3 and PW 3 in para-9 has also stated that deceased was shot at on the eastern verandah of his house and there is a door on the eastern side. In the villages the open space outside the door are called verandah and this is not such a material contradiction to discredit the prosecution case. 10. The plea that there was no blood stains on the earth whereas in the inquest report it has been mentioned that blood was flowing from the wound (hole) creates a doubt on the prosecution case is also not tenable because the I.O. has been cross-examined on this point and he has categorically stated in para-11 that there was no blood stained earth neither did he seize any blood stained earth. The Doctor i.e. PW 1 in para-2 has stated that, on dissection of the dead body he found the chest cavity filled with blood which shows that there was internal bleeding and blood did not flow out to wet the earth. In Aftab Ahmad Ansari v. State of Uttrakhand, (2010) 2 SCC 583 it was held that the inquest panchnama may not contain every detail and the absence of some details would not affect the veracity of the deposition made by the witness. In Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, 2011 (1) East Cr C 1 (SC) : (2010) 10 SCC 374 it is held that any discrepancy occurring in the inquest report or the post-mortem report could neither be fatal nor be termed as a suspicious circumstance as would warrant a benefit to the accused and resultant dismissal of the prosecution case. Moreover, these are minor discrepancies which cannot be a ground for disbelieving the evidence of the eye-witnesses, who have supported the case. PW 4 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence to the point that what was the deceased wearing at the time of occurrence and he had categorically stated that she was wearing green colour lower garment and white colour blouse. which is also mentioned in the inquest report and this fortifies the fact that of PW 4 is an eye-witness of the occurrence. 11. Learned amicus-curiae has submitted that the occurrence took place on account of the land dispute. This argument is not acceptable because PW 2 at para 12 in his cross-examination has stated that though he and the appellant have a common record of rights but there has been a partition between the appellant and his family and they are in possession of their respective share which shows that there is no land dispute neither any evidence to that effect has been brought on record and even in examination under Section 313 of the Cr PC, the appellant has not stated regarding false implication on account of land dispute. 12. Further plea that at best it can be treated the offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC as the appellant had lost his mental balance on account of loss of his child cannot be accepted because no evidence to that effect has, been brought on record. 13. 12. Further plea that at best it can be treated the offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC as the appellant had lost his mental balance on account of loss of his child cannot be accepted because no evidence to that effect has, been brought on record. 13. In view of the discussion made above and evidence on record, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj. Accordingly, the appeal is, hereby, dismissed. 14. Before parting we would like to express our appreciation to Dr. H. Waris learned amicus curiae for rendering his valuable assistance to this Court for the appellant. Appeal dismissed.