Judgment D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2001, whereby, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 9/12 September, 2002 has convicted this appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and punished him for life imprisonment and also for fine of Rs.2000/in case of default, further rigorous imprisonment of one year has been awarded against this appellant, hence, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, gave fardbeyan before Goel Kera Police Station, district West Singhbhum at Chaibasa on 06.07.2000 that on 05.07.2000 his sister was beaten by this appellant so severely that she was compelled to consume poison and therefore, she has expired. Previously, also several times, he has beaten his sister, who is the wife of this appellant. His sister is the second wife of this appellant and first wife of this appellant has also expired because of beating by this appellant. Marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the sister of the informant approximately six years prior to the date of occurrence, and therefore, investigation was carried out and the statement of several witnesses were recorded and chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court and the Case was committed to the Court of Sessions in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2001 and on the basis of the evidence given by P.Ws. 1 to 8 and also other documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has convicted this appellant for the offence of murder of Daya Mani Bodra, who is the wife of this appellant, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has punished him for life imprisonment and against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who has submitted that there are major omission, contradiction and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder of Daya Mani Bodra by this appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no eye witness of the incident. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who has submitted that there are major omission, contradiction and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder of Daya Mani Bodra by this appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no eye witness of the incident. The socalled eye witness P.W.2 is also not an eye witness of the incident. Moreover, looking to the F.I.R., theory of the prosecution are running counter to each other. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that viscera report has not been brought on record, in fact the whole theory of the prosecution about consumption of the poison is baseless. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum At Chaibasa deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2, who is the socalled eye witness, is close relative of the deceased, except this P.W.2, P.W.4, who is the mother of the deceased is also hearsay witness. The informant, who is the brother of the deceased P.W.1 is also hearsay witness. Thus, P.W.1 and P.W.4 are the hearsay witnesses and there are not much helpful to the prosecution. So far as P.W.3 is concerned, who is the seizure list witness and socalled theory of poison which is advanced by the prosecution without viscera report, is also not helpful to the prosecution witnesses whereas prosecution witnesses P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 have not uttered a single word in their deposition about the role played by this appellant-accused. P.W.8 is a doctor certainly not an eye witness at all. Thus, the whole case of the prosecution is baseless and there is no iota of evidence against this appellant. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum At Chaibasa deserves to be quashed and set aside. P.W.8 is a doctor certainly not an eye witness at all. Thus, the whole case of the prosecution is baseless and there is no iota of evidence against this appellant. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum At Chaibasa deserves to be quashed and set aside. Even otherwise the appellant is in judicial custody since 8.7.2000 thus, he is in jail since approximately 13 years 09 months and 23 days as on 30.04.2014 and therefore, this punishment in stead of under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code may be converted into punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, because this is not a preplanned and well designed murder of the deceased. 5. We have heard the counsel appearing for the State – A.P.P., who has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Trial Court in appreciating the evidences on record. The case of the prosecution is based upon eye witness P.W.2 and also upon medical evidence given by P.W.8, Dr. Yogendra Singh and also on the basis of the deposition given by P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the State – A.P.P that P.W. 2 though is close relative of the deceased, but he is also the relative of the appellant and there is no reason to falsely implicate this appellant. There is no inimical term between P.W. 2 and this appellant and nothing has come out in favour of this appellant in the cross examination of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has clearly stated that this appellant has given blows by wooden log upon Daya Mani Bodra and because of this injury, she has expired. P.W. 2 has immediately informed on telephone to P.W. 1 and looking to the deposition given by P.W. 1 especially, in paragraph – 4, where he has stated that he was informed immediately by P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 rushed at the house of his sister and he saw Daya Mani Bodra injured. Thus, though P.W – 1 is not an eye witness but, he is witness of the facts immediately after the murder. Thus, though P.W – 1 is not an eye witness but, he is witness of the facts immediately after the murder. Similarly, P.W. 4, who is the mother of the deceased, was also immediately informed by P.W. 2, thus, P.W. 2 is an eye witness, who has informed immediately to P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 8 – Dr. Yogendra Singh the prosecution has proved the murder of Daya Mani Bodra committed by this appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the depositions and other documentary evidences on record (Exbt. 2) and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State – A.P.P that this criminal appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is no substance in this criminal appeal. Hence, we hereby, dismissed this criminal appeal, mainly for the following facts, reasons and evidences on record: (i) The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1, who is the brother of the deceased and the informant of this case, had given fardbeyan before Goel Kera Police Station, district West Singhbhum at Chaibasa on 06.07.2000 that on 05.07.2000 this appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, had beaten sister of informant (P.W. 1) so severely that his sister was compelled to consume poison. It has also been stated in the fardbeyan in several times that this appellant had beaten his sister, who is the wife of this appellant. First wife of this appellant had also expired because of this type of beating. The marriage of his sister had taken place with the appellant before approximately six years of the date of the incident and immediately after the marriage, on several occasions, this appellant had beaten his sister. On the basis of this fardbeyan, F.I.R was lodged, investigation was carried out, statement of several witnesses were recorded and chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court and the Sessions Court committed the case being Sessions Trial No.17 of 2001 and the Sessions Court on the basis of deposition given by P.Ws. On the basis of this fardbeyan, F.I.R was lodged, investigation was carried out, statement of several witnesses were recorded and chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court and the Sessions Court committed the case being Sessions Trial No.17 of 2001 and the Sessions Court on the basis of deposition given by P.Ws. 1 to 8 and also on the basis of court witness, who is Investigating Officer, this appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder of Daya Mani Bodra and punished for life imprisonment and against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by this appellant. (ii) Looking to the evidences on record and F.I.R, It appears that P.W.2 is an important witness, who is an eye witness and looking to the deposition given by P.W.2, who is nephew of this appellant, there is no reason for disbelieving P.W.2 that he would falsely implicate this appellant and there is no inimical terms between P.W. 2 and this appellant. P.W.2 has clearly stated the role played by this appellant for the murder of Daya Mani Bodra. This witness had narrated that this appellant had beaten the deceased, Daya Mani Bodra, who is the wife of this appellant, by wooden log and she was beaten so severely and because of this injury she had fallen down and she has expired. Looking to his cross-examination nothing has come out in favour of this appellant on the contrary in the cross-examination he confirmed his examination-in-chief. (iii) We see no reason to disbelieve P.W.2. The P.W.2 has proved the date, time and place of occurrence and the manner in which this appellant has caused murder of the deceased. This P.W.2 has also informed P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased and this witness is trustworthy and reliable witness. The deposition specially examination-in-chief is to be tested with the cross-examination of any witness. Cross-examination is the weapon in the hand of defence and in the cross-examination of this P.W.2 he has confirmed his examination-in-chief and no error has been committed by the learned Trial Court in appreciating the deposition given by P.Ws. 1 to 8. The deposition specially examination-in-chief is to be tested with the cross-examination of any witness. Cross-examination is the weapon in the hand of defence and in the cross-examination of this P.W.2 he has confirmed his examination-in-chief and no error has been committed by the learned Trial Court in appreciating the deposition given by P.Ws. 1 to 8. (iv) Looking to the deposition of P.W.1, who is informant and the brother of the deceased, who has given fardbeyan before the police and looking to the deposition given by P.W.1, who has stated that he was informed immediately by P.W. 2 that his sister was beaten by this appellant and has expired. Immediately this informant P.W. 1 rushed at the house of his sister where he saw dead body of his sister Daya Mani Bodra. There were marked injury upon the dead body. P.W.2 was also present at the house of the deceased. He has proved his fardbeyan which is as Ext.1. Inquest report has also been signed by him which has also been given exhibit number. Looking to his cross-examination, he has confirmed about the injury sustained by the deceased, thus, P.W.1 is not an eye witness, but he is witness of several facts which he has seen immediately after the murder has taken place. Deposition given by P.W.1 is corroborative to the deposition given by P.W.2. P.W.1 is also reliable and trustworthy witness. Similarly, P.W.4, who is the mother of the deceased she has also stated in her deposition that she was informed by P.W.2 about the incident and the fact that this appellant has committed murder of her daughter Daya Mani Bodra. This witness has also proved the date, time and place of occurrence and her deposition is also corroborative to the deposition given by P.W.2. (v) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.8, Dr. Yogendra Singh, following antemortem injuries were found upon the body of the deceased: “(i) Tongue was protruded. (ii) Due to advance stage of decomposition colour of skin became bluish black and of neck and chest the....was present. (iii) On dissection at neck trachea ring was broken. Blood was present in tracheal canal. (iv) On thorax-Sternum was broken. Ribs on left side also broken 4th, 5th and 6th. (v) Blood was present in thoracic cavity. (vi) Heart was empty. Stomach contained small amount of fluid with pungent smell. (vii) Uterus was in small size. (iii) On dissection at neck trachea ring was broken. Blood was present in tracheal canal. (iv) On thorax-Sternum was broken. Ribs on left side also broken 4th, 5th and 6th. (v) Blood was present in thoracic cavity. (vi) Heart was empty. Stomach contained small amount of fluid with pungent smell. (vii) Uterus was in small size. Viscera preserved for chemical examination. (viii) A part of lung, apart of heart, a part of liver, intestine, spleen, kidney and whole of stomach also preserved. (ix) Opinion: Death was caused due to above injuries causing hemorrhage and shock. (x) Injuries on neck and chest can be caused by hard and blunt substance. It may be also caused by blow of hand and legs. (xi) Time elapsed since death – more than 48 hours. (xi) The above injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.” In view of the aforesaid deposition given by P.W.8, it appears that the death has taken place because of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injuries were sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. Thus the deposition of P.W.8 is corroborative to the deposition given by P.W.2. Thus, ocular evidence and medical evidence are corroborative. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court while convicting this appellant. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons stated hereinabove, and evidences on record prosecution has proved the offence of murder of Daya Mani Bodra committed by this appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and we see no reason to alter the sentence and convert the conviction awarded by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2001. There is no substance in this Criminal Appeal, hence, we hereby, upheld the decision rendered by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa dated 9/12 September, 2002, passed in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2001. 8. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed.