JUDGMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. 1. The solitary appellant Arjun Prajapat was tried by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya after being indicted of committing offences under Sections 302 and 326 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 1989 and 594 of 1989 and by judgment dated the 31st of July, 1991 was convicted of committing both the offences. The appellant was heard under Section 235 Cr. P.C. and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 326 IPC, with further direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant is before this Court in appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 2. Some of the undisputed facts were that the deceased Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu was the full brother of the present appellant and both were sons of P.W. 1 Daroga Prajapat. It also appears undisputed that there was some dispute between the two brothers regarding partition of certain immovable properties and that the two brothers were living separate from each other in mess and business. It is also not disputed that Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu was killed in the night at around 1 a.m. on 18.5.1989 while he was sleeping in a cot with his son Ram Swaroop Prajapat (P.W. 4) who had lodged the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) in respect of the murder of his father. 3. In the background of the above undisputed facts, it was alleged that while the deceased and the informant (P.W. 4) were sleeping in a cot in their Angan, the mother of the informant P.W. 3 Arti Devi @ Bharti Devi was sleeping on the varanda of the house with her two little daughters. The informant woke up when the blood from his father’s body was splashed on to him and he saw that his father was writhing in pain and was not in a position to speak. He got up and started raising alarms when a blow with some sharp cutting weapon was given on his right shoulder. The informant woke up when the blood from his father’s body was splashed on to him and he saw that his father was writhing in pain and was not in a position to speak. He got up and started raising alarms when a blow with some sharp cutting weapon was given on his right shoulder. The informant stated that he identified the assailants as this appellant Arjun Prajapat, who was standing in front of him and seeing his uncle as the perpetrator of the offence, he exclaimed as to what his uncle had done which prompted this appellant to repeat the blow which fell just around the left elbow joint of the informant. The mother of the informant (P.W. 3) as also P.W. 1 Daroga Prajapat came rushing to the place of occurrence to identify the appellant as a result of which, the appellant ran away from there. 4. The informant stated that it was bleeding from his injuries and that his father was dead and his family members including himself were weeping and wailing. 5. The informant stated that the reason for the occurrence was that this appellant used to pick up quarrel with his father and others on the partition of the immovable properties and used always to hold out threats of killing the deceased. The informant claimed identification of the accused in the moon-lit-night. 6. P.W. 5 S.I. Naresh Kumar stated that while he was at Dumaria Police Station holding charge as officer-in-charge, this appellant Arjun Prajapat came there at about 1.45 a.m. and informed him that someone had killed his father. P.W. 5 set out with him from his police station and he met P.W. 1 Daroga Prajapat on the way who stated to him that his elder son had been killed by his younger son, i.e. this appellant. That information was neither reduced into writing nor was directed to be reduced into writing and P.W. 5 continued proceeding with the present appellant and his father Daroga Prajapat and on reaching the place of occurrence, i.e. the house of the deceased, found that the deceased Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu was lying dead and his son Ram Swaroop Prajapat (P.W. 4) was badly injured. He rushed Ram Swaroop Prajapat to Dumaria hospital and recorded his fardbeyan the next day and on that basis registered the case and again came back to the place of occurrence for investigating the same. He inspected the place of occurrence and found the cots lying around and the deceased had slept in one of them underneath which there was copious blood which was seized by preparing seizure memo. The house of this appellant was separate from that of the deceased and it was opposite that of the deceased and the two appeared separate from each other. P.W. 5 found stain of blood at the entry point of the house of this appellant and inferred that while he was rushing into his house after committing the murder of his brother he had left those stains at the door of his house. Inquest was held on the dead body by preparing the inquest report (Ext. 3) and the seizure list in respect of seizure of blood stained earth appears marked Ext. 4. P.W. 1 Daroga Prajapat had produced a sword stained with blood before P.W. 5 and that was also seized by preparing the production-cum-seizure memo (Ext. 5). After completing the investigation the appellant was sent up by P.W. 5 for his trial. 7. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue the present appeal and we requested Sri Neeraj Kumar Sanidh to assist us in hearing and disposing of the present appeal and accordingly, Sri Sanidh submitted that Ext. 2 the fardbeyan of P.W. 4 was hit by Section 162 Cr. P.C. as there was specific information given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 as to who had committed the murder of Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu the deceased. Submission was that that particular information received by P.W. 5 from P.W. 1 did not contain any information that P.W. 4 was bearing any injury and it was a subsequent development in the prosecution story. Sri Sanidh was submitting that no sword was recovered from the possession of the present appellant and use of that particular weapon against the present appellant was not permissible in law. 8. Sri D.K. Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the charges had been proved to the hilt by acceptable evidence of witnesses especially that of P.W. 1 Daroga Prajapat who did not have any grudge against the present appellant, his son. 9. 8. Sri D.K. Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the charges had been proved to the hilt by acceptable evidence of witnesses especially that of P.W. 1 Daroga Prajapat who did not have any grudge against the present appellant, his son. 9. We first take up the question of admissibility of Ext. 2, the fardbeyan of P.W. 4. Section 154 Cr. P.C. lays down the criteria as to what could be the first information report. As per this provision any report made by way of an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally or in writing to the Officer-in-Charge of a police station is the first information report. The further requirement is that if the information is orally given then it has either to be reduced into writing by the Officer-in-Charge himself or at his direction by any other officer sub-ordinate to him. There is no doubt in it that P.W. 5 had received two information the first having been given by the present appellant Arjun Prajapat who stated that his father had been killed which information was palpably false as his father P.W. 1 Daroga Prajapat had also gone to the police station for lodging the report and had in fact met the Officer-in-Charge (P.W. 5) of the police station while he and this appellant were coming together to his house. Daroga Prajapat as per P.W. 5 had given him information that his elder son had been murdered by his younger son, i.e. Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu had been killed by this appellant Arjun Prajapat. But as may appear from the very evidence of P.W. 5 which we have discussed in quite some details just a few paragraphs back may indicate that that particular information given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 orally had not been reduced into writing. We have already noted with reference to the provisions of section 154 Cr. P.C. that an information given orally in respect of commission of a cognizable offence may be treated as a first information report provided it had been reduced into writing by the officer-in-charge of the police station himself or at his direction by any other officer. If the information was not reduced into writing it ceased to be the first information report and, as such, it could not invite the mischief of section 162 Cr. If the information was not reduced into writing it ceased to be the first information report and, as such, it could not invite the mischief of section 162 Cr. P.C. as regards any subsequent document which had been claimed to be the first information report by the prosecution. P.W.5 has stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he found Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu lying dead and his son Ram Swaroop Prajapat (P.W.4) badly injured who was rushed to the hospital and where Ext.2 fardbeyan of the informant was recorded. Thus, what we find is that the first document which was within the four walls of the provision of Section 154 Cr. P.C. was the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of P.W.4 and, as such, the earlier statement of P.W.1 Daroga Prajapat could never be treated as the first information report so as to rendering the subsequent reports in the form of Ext.2 inadmissible. This, in our opinion, answers the submission of Sri Sanidh fully and completely. 10. There are three witnesses to the incident. P.W.4 was very much sleeping with his father in the same cot and he did not say that he had seen the blows being wielded upon his father by anyone. What P.W.4 stated was that after he felt that blood was splashed on his body and that blood was of his father, he woke up to find that his father was writhing in pain and was not speaking anything, just when he was given a blow on his head by some sharp cutting weapon and thereafter he could find that this appellant, his own uncle, was standing before him with a sword and as soon as P.W.4 exclaimed as to what this appellant had done, another blow with sword was wielded by the appellant which hit the informant on his left elbow joint. P.W.2 Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh had examined P.W.4 on 18.05.1989 at about 3 a.m., as appears from Ext.1 the injury report issued by P.W.2 and had found:- (i) Deep cut wound which had damaged the right shoulder joint. 3/4th of the arm was found cut and it was bleeding. Size and shape of the injury was semi lunar and 12cm. in length up to bone deep. (ii) Deep cut wound on left elbow which had cut the lower end of left arm and elbow joint also. 3/4th of the arm was found cut and it was bleeding. Size and shape of the injury was semi lunar and 12cm. in length up to bone deep. (ii) Deep cut wound on left elbow which had cut the lower end of left arm and elbow joint also. X-ray was taken of the two injuries and it confirmed that the two injuries were grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon within six hours of examination of P.W.4 by P.W.2. Thus, the support to the story narrated by P.W.4 as regards the assault given to him is fully found from the evidence of P.W.2. 11. So far as the evidence of P.W.4 as regards the killing of his father is concerned, we have already noted that he had not seen any blow being given to his father by anyone, but had found none other than this appellant with a sword standing there and on being identified and being told as to what he had done, the appellant had dealt blows twice to the informant. The informant had raised cries and that had attracted his mother (P.W.3) Arti Devi @ Bharti Devi and the father of the deceased and also of this appellant, namely, Daroga Prajapat who stated that they had found this appellant standing there carrying a sword which had blood marks over it. It is true that in the fardbeyan there was a mention of the fact that it was a moon-lit-night which fact was not stated by the witnesses in evidence but considering that the appellant was none else than the very son of P.W.1 Daroga Prajapat and the close family members of other witnesses, like, P.Ws. 3 and 4, there should not be any difficulty in picking-up the features of the present appellant and identifying him, especially, when P.W.4 was given blows by the appellant twice with sword. Thus, what appears to us is that there could not be any two opinions regarding the clear identification of this appellant Arjun Prajapat as the perpetrator of the offence as regards the murder of his brother Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu. The medical evidence coming from P.W.6 Dr. Arvind Prasad may also have some bearing on the above discussion. Dr. Thus, what appears to us is that there could not be any two opinions regarding the clear identification of this appellant Arjun Prajapat as the perpetrator of the offence as regards the murder of his brother Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu. The medical evidence coming from P.W.6 Dr. Arvind Prasad may also have some bearing on the above discussion. Dr. Prasad noted the following ante-mortem incised wounds on the dead body of Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu while holding post-mortem examination on 18.05.1989 at 9.30 a.m.:- (i) Incised wound 5” x 1½” chest cavity deep, found extending from the tip of the left axila to the middle of interior chest wall just above the left margin of juglar notch. The left calivide was found fractured. Blood and blood clots were found around the wound. Left lung with plenra was found lacerated. The intervening tissues and the stratum were also found injured and were sharply cut. (ii) Incised wound 6” x 1½” x chest cavity deep, found extending from the tip of right axila to the centre of neck. Trachea and Isophanges were sharply cut at the level below the thyroid. Blood and blood clots were found in and around the wound. Epical (sic) portion of the right lung was also injured and was lacerated. P.W. 6 had found that the two injuries had intermingled with each other in the centre and that death was as a result of shock and haemorrhage produced by the above mentioned injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon. In cross examination P. W. 6 has stated that the two wounds were at two different places but their centre was one and further that the injuries were possible by two different attacks by heavy sharp cutting weapon. 12. Sri Sanidh by picking out this particular line in cross-examination that the injuries were possible by two different attacks as also by pointing out the length of the two wounds besides reading the two words which were stated by P.W. 6 after stating that the wounds were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon, such as, axe or sword was submitting that it could not be an act of a single hand rather two hands were involved in giving blows by two different weapons, like, an axe or a sword. We appreciate the industry of Sri Sanidh in being so focused in formulating his argument at such short interval and notice, but we find ourselves disinclined to accede to the submissions for the reason that the very language which was used by P.W. 6 in cross-examination leads a lot to be said if this Court was to raise an inference as per the submission of the learned amicus curiae that an axe as also a sword had been used in inflicting the two injuries. The doctor was unambiguous in pointing out that the two different attacks were by heavy sharp cutting weapon which simply did not leave any room to infer that the two attacks were by two different weapons. The very number of injuries indicate that the attacks were two but the weapon could be one, as may appear from the length of the injury both on P.W. 4 and the dead body of his father Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu. The length of injury on P.W. 4 was as big as 12 cm, i.e. above 5 inches which appears also the length of one of the injuries found on the dead body, the other injury on the dead body being 6 inch in length. We want to point out that the length of injury could be dependant upon the force applied in giving the blows at the part of the body hit. If it is the muscular part which has been affected by the blow, then the length could be bigger and if the part hit is a boney organ then in that case the length would a little less than that appearing on the muscular part of the body. Sword, in our opinion, is definitely a heavy sharp cutting weapon and when it is used as a weapon of offence then it could cause injuries which were found on the dead body of the deceased. The manner of occurrence which was stated by the witnesses thus, appears corroborated by the evidence both of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6. 13. Sword, in our opinion, is definitely a heavy sharp cutting weapon and when it is used as a weapon of offence then it could cause injuries which were found on the dead body of the deceased. The manner of occurrence which was stated by the witnesses thus, appears corroborated by the evidence both of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6. 13. On a resume of the evidence of witnesses what we find is that there could not be any doubt that this appellant who had particular motive for partition of land or on account of not being satisfied after getting the lands in his share, had committed the murder of deceased Amrit Prajapat @ Mahagu and had at the same time caused injuries to P.W. 4. At the strength of the evidence which was available to the learned trial judge, we find that the appellant had rightly been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was appropriately sentenced. 14. In the result, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant Arjun Prajapat is on bail. His bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the court below to serve out his sentence. If he does not surrender in one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment, the court below shall ensure that steps for his arrest and committing him to custody to serve out the sentence is taken with ado. 15. Sri Sanidh has assisted us very ably and at a very short notice and we direct that he be paid fee of one hearing by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee and for that purpose let the first and last pages of the present judgment be made over to him.