JUDGMENT Per D.N. Patel, J.-This Cr. Appeal has been listed for its final hearing looking to the period of custody of this appellant. Last time when this matter was enlisted, counsel for the appellant was not present and this Cr. Appeal was adjourned for today. Today when the matter is called out, counsel for the appellant is again absent. Counsel for the appellant, namely Shri Shashank Shekhar, amicus curiae, was appointed by this Court by virtue of order dated 16th September, 2003 because this appeal was preferred from jail. Now because of his consistent absenteeism, we hereby appoint advocate Ms. Priya Shrestha, who is on the panel of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and who is present in this Court and ready to argue out the case; as an amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 2. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment of conviction dated and order of sentence both dated 24th May, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001 whereby the present appellant-accused has been punished for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION On 05.10.1999 at 15.00 hours the informant Purandhar Ganjhu gave fardbeyan to police that on 04.10.1999 at about 01.00 p.m. his mother Radhi Devi (deceased) had gone along with Chauti Devi (PW 2), Athunas Munda (appellant-accused), Parvati Kumari (PW 3) and Guruwari Devi to graze goat and ox. At about 05.00 p.m., Chauti Devi and Parvati Kumari informed the informant that Athunas Munda had killed his mother Radhi Devi with tangi (Axe) at Road Tarnh and dead body was lying there. Thereafter informant along with Birsa Ganjhu, Chander Pradhan and Sudarshan Ganju went to see his mother and in the way at Road Tarnh, he found the dead body of his mother Radhi Devi aged about 60 years having cut wound above the right side eye and left cheek and dead body was lying in pool of blood. Then informant called other persons of his tola and dead body was protected. Then informant called other persons of his tola and dead body was protected. On next day villagers asked that after taking meal they would go to police station to inform about the occurrence because to go to police station, which is at large distance, they have to go through the forest and mountain by walking. Thereafter, when the informant along with villagers were going to inform the police, then Jamadar of Police Station with his staff came to the house of informant and informant gave his statement. The informant further alleged that the reason of occurrence informed by Chauti Devi and Parwati Kumari that there was altercation between Radhi Devi (deceased) and Athunas Munda (appellant-accused) during the grazing of animal and Athunas Munda assaulted informant's mother with tangi (Axe) and killed his mother. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution PW 1 Rajendra Ganjhu He has proved his signature in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.1. PW 2 Chauti Devi She is the eye-witness of the occurrence. PW 3 Parvati Devi She is the eye-witness of the occurrence. PW 4 Chaitu Ganjhu He has proved his signature in the seizure-list of blood stained tangi (Axe) i.e. marked as Ext. 2 and he has also proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.3 PW 5 Madhu Pradhan He has proved his signature in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.1/1. PW 6 Albert Munda He is the formal witness who has proved his thumb mark in the seizure-list. PW 7 Dr. Krishandeo Choudhary He is the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Smt. Radhi Devi and has proved the post-mortem report and his signature in the post-mortem report i.e. marked as Exts. 4 and 4/1. 4. Counsel for the appellant has argued out the case at length and the counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the F.I.R., deposition of the prosecution witnesses including PW 2, PW 3 and the medical evidence given by PW 7 and other evidences on record. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has 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. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the date of incident is 4th October, 1999 and there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. No explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been given by the Investigating Officer, nor the informant has been examined by the prosecution. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence given by PW 2, PW 3 read with the medical evidence given by PW 7 Dr. Krishandeo Choudhary. There is also discrepancy between the ocular evidence and medical evidence so far as left side and the right side of injuries sustained by the deceased is concerned. Moreover, looking to the deposition of eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 3, they have stated in their deposition before the learned trial Court that the place at which the murder has taken place was covered by several trees and bushes and they were not able to see each other i.e. the eye-witnesses were not in a position to see the deceased and, therefore, in fact PW 2 and PW 3 are not the eye-witnesses at all. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. We have heard the A.P.P. appearing for the State who has submitted that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available before the trial Court. No error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting this appellant for the offence of murder of the deceased. 5. We have heard the A.P.P. appearing for the State who has submitted that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available before the trial Court. No error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting this appellant for the offence of murder of the deceased. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that the case of the prosecution is based upon more than one eye-witness who are PW 2 and PW 3 whose names are also referred in the F.I.R. and looking to the deposition of PW 2 and PW 3, they have clearly stated that by sharp cutting instrument (tangi), this appellant has caused murder of the deceased. It is further submitted by the A.P.P. that medical evidence given by PW 7 is also corroborative to the deposition given by PW 2 and PW 3. There are two incised wounds and as per the medical evidence, these incised wounds were because of sharp cutting weapon and due to these incised wounds, the death has taken place within 48 hours of the postmortem. This evidence is thoroughly with the narration given by PW 2 and PW 3 about the incident. Thus, the prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel far both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, we see no reason to entertain this Cr. Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons :– (i) It is the case of the prosecution that informant Purandhar Ganjhu (who has not been examined because he expired during trial) gave his fardbeyan to Jaldega Police Station, District-Gumla (now District Simdega) on 05.10.1999 that on 04.10.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. his mother Radhi Devi (deceased) had gone along with Chauti Devi (PW 2), Athunas Munda (appellant), Parvati Kumari (PW 3) and Guruwari Devi to graze goat and oxen and at about 5.00 p.m. on 04.10.1999 PW 2 and PW 3 informed Purandhar Ganjhu (informant) that this appellant-accused had killed his mother Radhi Devi with tangi (axe) at Road Tarnh and the dead body was lying there. Getting this information, immediately the informant along with other persons went to see his mother an saw dead body of his mother aged about 60 years with injuries on her right eye and left cheek. Getting this information, immediately the informant along with other persons went to see his mother an saw dead body of his mother aged about 60 years with injuries on her right eye and left cheek. The dead body was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter, they brought the dead body at home, dead body was protected for a day and on next day, the fardbeyan was given because the house of the present appellant is far away from the Police Station and in between there is a forest. The distance between the house of the informant and the police station is approximately 25 kms. as stated in tile F.I.R. On the basis of this information, investigation was carried out, several statements of the witnesses were recorded, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Trial No 43 of 2001 and on the basis of the evidence given by PW 1 to PW 7 and on the basis of other documentary evidences on record which are Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the learned trial Court has convicted this appellant for causing murder of Radhi Devi and has punished him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default, further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (ii) Thus, it appears that PW 2 and PW 3 are the eye-witnesses of the incident and PW 7 is the doctor who has carried out postmortem of the body of the deceased. PW 1 and PW 5 are the witnesses of Inquest panchnama and PW 4 is a witness of seizure-list of bloodstained tangi (axe) and he has also proved the signature upon fardbeyan. As the informant has expired, he has not been examined. Looking to the deposition of PW 2, who is Chauti Devi, it appears that she has stated clearly before the learned trial Court about the whole incident and she has sent this appellant causing murder of the deceased by weapon ‘tangi’. This witness along with other eye-witness who is PW 3 and also along with deceased were grazing their goats at Road Tarnh. This witness has clearly stated about the date of occurrence, place of occurrence, the weapon used by the appellant; she has also identified the appellant-accused and she has given all accounts of injuries sustained by the deceased. This witness along with other eye-witness who is PW 3 and also along with deceased were grazing their goats at Road Tarnh. This witness has clearly stated about the date of occurrence, place of occurrence, the weapon used by the appellant; she has also identified the appellant-accused and she has given all accounts of injuries sustained by the deceased. Looking to her cross-examination, nothing is coming out in favour of this appellant-accused. Even in the cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that this appellant has caused head injury upon Radhi Devi who is deceased. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is also a natural one. She has also been referred in the F.I.R. We see no reason to disbelieve this eye-witness. The examination-in-chief can be tested through cross-examination. Even during cross-examination, this witness has maintained her deposition given in the examination-in-chief and no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in appreciating the evidence given by PW 2. She is a trustworthy and reliable witness. (iii) Looking to the deposition given by PW 3 Parvati Devi, she was also present along with other eyewitness and the deceased for grazing the goats in the jungle area and her name has also been referred in the F.I.R. Her name has also been given by PW 2 in her deposition. This PW 3 has also clearly stated the whole incident of murder of Radhi Devi and this appellant-accused has caused injury by axe upon the head of the deceased. Looking to her cross-examination, she has maintained her examination-in-chief. There is no reason to disbelieve this witness looking to her cross-examination remaining intact. Moreover, deposition of both the eye-witnesses is also getting enough corroboration by the other evidence on record. PW 3 is a trustworthy and reliable witness and rightly she has been relied upon by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant-accused for causing murder of the deceased. (iv) Looking to the medical evidence given by PW 7 Dr. Krishandeo Chaudhary, who has carried out post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased which is Ext.4, we see following injuries sustained by the deceased :– Injuries-External injuries– (1) Incised wound 2-1/2" x 3/4" x 3 over the right side of cheek with fracture at right side of mandible with extraction of second and third lower molar teeth of right side. (2) Incised wound 2-1/2" x 1/2" x 2 1/2 over the left side of forehead about 2" above the left eye with fracture of underline bone. In view of the evidence given by PW 7, there were two injuries sustained by the deceased and as per the opinion of the doctor, death has taken place due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury. (v) Looking to the evidence given by PW 2 and PW 3 both have stated the whole incident and the injuries sustained by the deceased and the weapon used by this appellant-accused is axe. Looking to the fact that there is a fracture of left frontal bone, this injury is also matching with the weapon used by this appellant. Axe is a heavy sharp cutting weapon and, therefore, there is a fracture at left frontal bone. Thus, there is no contradiction or inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. (vi) Looking to the deposition of PW 1 and PW 5, they are the witnesses of Inquest panchnama and they have proved their signature on inquest panchnama as Exts. 1 and 1/1 and looking to the deposition given by FW 4, he has proved seizure-list of bloodstained tangi (axe) which is at Ext.2. (vii) This is also corroborative to the deposition given by eye-witnesses. Moreover, fardbeyan was given by Purandhar Ganjhu but the informant had expired during the course of trial and his thumb impression has been proved by PW 4 and fardbeyan is given as Ext.3. This PW 4 is also a witness of fardbeyan. (viii) Thus, looking to the evidence given by PW 2 and PW 3, who are eye-witnesses, they have proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Moreover, looking to the statement given by this appellant-accused under Section 313, Cr PC before the learned trial Court, it appears that the witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 are independent witnesses and there is no inimical terms between the eye-witnesses and this appellant-accused. Thus, neutral are the eye-witnesses and we see no reason to disbelieve these two eye-witnesses. They have proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Moreover, their deposition is also getting enough corroboration by the medical evidence given by PW 7. Thus, neutral are the eye-witnesses and we see no reason to disbelieve these two eye-witnesses. They have proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Moreover, their deposition is also getting enough corroboration by the medical evidence given by PW 7. Looking to these evidence on record, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and we see no reason to take any deviation from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. (ix) Late F.I.R. per se is not fatal to the case of prosecution when the case of prosecution is based upon trustworthy and reliable eye-witnesses. Here, PW 2 and PW 3 are the eye-witnesses. As stated herein above from their cross-examination, their examination-in-chief remained as it is. Hence, there is no suggestion in their cross-examination about false inspection due to delayed F.I.R 7. We, therefore, uphold the decision rendered by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001. There is no substance in this Cr. Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.