Judgment All the aforesaid six appeals arising out of the same impugned judgment were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 8th December, 2003, passed by the then Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2002, whereby and whereunder all the appellants having been found guilty for committing murder of two persons namely, Jhugu @ Budhuwa and Bolley Devi, were convicted for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4/5 of the Prevention Witch (Daain) Practices Act and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and also R.I. for six months and three months respectively for the offence under Section 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24/06/2001 at about 1-1.30 P.M, while the informant Reena Devi (PW-4) was in her house alongwith her father-in-law Jhugu @ Budhuwa Oraon and mother-in-law Bailly Devi, all these appellants namely, Jeeta Oraon, Mongo Oraon @ Bhogo Oraon, Chotu @ Sunil Kachhap, Lodhi Oraon, Madi Kachhap, Sarju Oraon and one Bifal Oraon (brother-in-law of Jeeta Oraon) came inside the house of the informant and started assaulting her mother-in-law by saying that she is a witch. She tried to save her mother-in-law but some of the accused persons caught hold of her. Meanwhile, her father-in-law when tried to save his wife the accused persons assaulted with Lathi on his head as a result of which he became unconscious. Thereafter, they again started assaulting her mother-in-law and when she fell down, the appellant Jeeta Oraon, his brother-in-law Bifal (not the appellant) and Madi Kachhap caught hold of her and cut her neck by 'Dauli'. Thereafter, the accused persons after holding out threats to the informant left the place. When the informant found both the persons being killed, she informed to her husband Bhaju @ Aashin Kachhap (PW-1), who informed to the police. Thereafter, the accused persons after holding out threats to the informant left the place. When the informant found both the persons being killed, she informed to her husband Bhaju @ Aashin Kachhap (PW-1), who informed to the police. On getting information, one Bipin Kumar Singh (PW-8), Officer-in-charge of the Sadar Police Station, came to the place of occurrence at about 3.30 P.M and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.-2) of the informant Reena Devi (PW-4), upon which a formal F.I.R (Ext.-2/1) was drawn and the case was registered as Sadar P.S. Case No. 78 of 201 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4/5 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. He himself took up the investigation. He held inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased. Thereupon, the dead bodies were sent for Post Mortem Examination. 4. On receiving the dead bodies, Dr. R.P. Sahu (PW-9), did held the autopsy of both the deceased. The Doctor after holding autopsy of the dead bodies of Jhugu @ Budhuwa did find the following antemortem injuries:- (1) Lacerated wound. (A) 1 cm x 1 cm x soft tissues on right elbow back. (B) 7 cm x 1 cm x Scalp deep on right parietal region of head width crack fracture of underline bone. (C) 6 cm x 3 cm x soft tissues on right arm lateral side. (2) Diffuse contusion over back of chest and rail track abrasion eight in number size varying from 10 cm x 2 cm to 4 cm x 2 cm. (3) Abrasion 6 cm x 3 cm right elbow and adjoining area. (4) Upon internal examination contusion of right parietal and temporal scalp 6 x 4 cm with crack fracture of right tempero parietal bone with presence of blood and blood clot in cranial cavity was found. Fracture of 3rd to 7th ribs of left side and 3rd to 8th of right side with laceration of both lungs, liver and spleen was found. Presence of blood and blood clot was found in a thoracic and abdominal cavity. 5. According to the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi and stick and the deceased died on account of the aforesaid injuries. The Post Mortem examination report has been proved as Ext. 3. 6. Presence of blood and blood clot was found in a thoracic and abdominal cavity. 5. According to the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi and stick and the deceased died on account of the aforesaid injuries. The Post Mortem examination report has been proved as Ext. 3. 6. On the same day i.e. 25/06/2001, Doctor also conducted the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of Bailly Devi and found the following injuries:- (1) Lacerated wound (A) ½ cm x ½ cm x bone deep, ½ cm x ½ cm x bone deep, 1 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on left forearm with fracture of underline bone. Incised wound (A) 5 cm x 2cm x soft tissue, 6 cm x soft tissue, Right forearm front. (B) 4 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue right shoulder front. (C) 8 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on front part of neck. Cutting of the soft tissues, blood vessels and trachea, esophagus and 4 and 5 cervical vertebra with spinal cord were found. On inspection of the incised wound two tissue tags are projecting indicating minimum of three blows. On internal examination, 7th and 8th (ribs) on right side with laceration of right lungs and liver with presence of blood and blood clot in right thoracic and abdominal cavity. 7. According to the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries were antemortem in nature. Incised wound were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and rest by hard and blunt substance. Death was caused due to the aforesaid injuries. Post Mortem examination report has been proved as Ext. 3/1. 8. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation did record the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against all the appellants as well as one Bifal, who has been reported to have absconded, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellants. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty were put on trial. 9. During trial prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses, of them PW-4 is the informant, who in her examination-in-chief has supported her version as had been given in the fardbeyan. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty were put on trial. 9. During trial prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses, of them PW-4 is the informant, who in her examination-in-chief has supported her version as had been given in the fardbeyan. PW-1 Aashin Kachhap, son of the deceased and husband of PW-4 and PW-2 Hindia Devi, daughter of the deceased claimed themselves to the eyewitnesses and have testified that the appellants by assaulting with Lathi and Stone, committed murder of her father and mother. They further testified that when their father tried to save their mother the accused persons assaulted him with lathi due to which he fell down and then accused Bifal (not the appellant) cut the neck of their mother by 'Dauli' and Jeeta cut the hand, whereas Madi had caught hold of her hand. PW-1 has further testified that his wife Reena (PW-4) had told her that the accused persons by assaulting with stone and bolder committed the murder of his father. Rest of the witnesses PW-3 Madi Oraon, PW-5 Chunda Tirkey (daughter-in-law of the deceased), PW-6 Madan Oraon, uncle of the informant and PW-7 Saom Kachhap, the son of the deceased, are the hearsay witnesses. However, PW-5 has also testified that while she had come to the place of occurrence she saw all the accused persons present over there. The Court having placed its reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses, did find the appellants guilty for committing murder of both the deceased and also for committing the offence under the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid was recorded. 10. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, these six appeals have been preferred on behalf of the appellants. 11. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that PWs 1 and 2 though claimed to have seen the occurrence, but they as per the evidence of PW-4 the informant could never be the eyewitness. In this regard it was submitted that as per the evidence of PW-4 and also the statement made in the fardbeyan she was alone there in the house when the accused persons came and allegedly assaulted the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant. In this regard it was submitted that as per the evidence of PW-4 and also the statement made in the fardbeyan she was alone there in the house when the accused persons came and allegedly assaulted the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant. Only when PW-4 informed to her husband PW-1, he came but PW-1 has testified that the first occurrence took place at 11.30 A.M while he was in the house the accused persons came and assaulted his father and mother and went away. Thereafter, again at 1.30 P.M the accused persons came and committed the offence of murder. On the same line, PW-4 in her cross-examination has testified that the first occurrence did take place at 11.30 A.M, when the accused persons came in her house and assaulted the father-in-law and mother-in-law and went away. Subsequently they came and then committed the murder, which was never the case of the prosecution as had been made out in the fardbeyan and, therefore, none of the witnesses either Pws 1, 2 or even PW-4 are believable and, hence, their testimonies are fit to be rejected. Further, it was submitted that the accused persons, to whom he is representing, are quite innocent and have falsely been implicated. Their innocence would be evident from the fact that these three persons Madi, Lodi and Chhotu Oraon had been arrested from the place of occurrence. Had those three appellants been committed the offence, they would not have present at the place of occurrence when the police had reached over there and this fact alone proves the innocence of the appellants and under the circumstances, they seem to have wrongly been convicted and, hence, they deserve to be acquitted. 12. Mr. Dayal and Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsels appearing for the other appellants, by adopting the submissions advanced earlier, submits that PW-4 never appears to be wholly trustworthy as in the fardbeyan she has given the story of occurrence being taken place at 1.30 P.M, whereas in her evidence she has said that first occurrence took place at 11.30 A.M and second at 1.30 P.M and under the circumstances, the Court should not have placed complete reliance on the testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-4 and, thereby, the learned trial court committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants. 13. 13. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts that it were the appellants, who committed murder of two persons and, therefore, the impugned judgment never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 14. Having heard counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that it is the case of the prosecution as has been narrated by PW-4 in her fardbeyan that while she was in her house, the appellants and one Bifal Oraon (absconded) brother-in-law of Jeeta Oraon, came inside the house and started assaulting her mother-in-law by saying that she practices witch craft. When her father-in-law came to save her mother-in-law, he was assaulted by Lathi and when he fell down the accused persons assaulted her mother-in-law, who fell down and then the three accused cut the neck of her mother-in-law. Thereafter, when the accused persons went away, PW-4 informed her husband. However, her husband PW1 claimed to be the eyewitness as he narrated before the Court that he saw the accused persons committing murder of his father and mother. 15. Similar is the claim of PW-2, who happens to be the daughter of the deceased and lives at another village but it situates nearby as according to PW-2 it takes about 10 minutes in coming to her parent house from her in-laws place. But according to testimony of PW-4, none of the persons, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 was present in the house. Such evidence of PW-4 finds corroboration from her earlier version made in the FIR, wherein she had also stated that she was alone in the house when the occurrence took place. PW4 has also testified that her husband, who was in the village, reached home after knowing about the occurrence. Likewise, as per the evidence of Hindia Devi PW-2 she was at her in-laws place and only after hearing hulla, she came to her parent house. According to PW-2 it takes 10 minutes for coming to her parent house from her in-laws place. In that view of the matter also she could not be the eyewitness. Thus, we find that neither PW-1 nor PW-2 are the eyewitnesses. 16. According to PW-2 it takes 10 minutes for coming to her parent house from her in-laws place. In that view of the matter also she could not be the eyewitness. Thus, we find that neither PW-1 nor PW-2 are the eyewitnesses. 16. Coming to the evidence of PW-4, she has categorically testified that while she was in her house alongwith her father-in-law and mother-in-law, all the appellants came and started assaulting her mother-in-law by saying that she is practicing witchcraft. When her father-in-law came to save her, he was assaulted by Lathi and then he became unconscious. Thereafter, the appellants assaulted her mother-in-law and when she fell down, three persons, i.e. Madi Oraon, Jeeta Oraon and Bifal Oraon (not the appellant) cut the neck of her mother-in-law. 17. Thus, from the evidence given in her examination-in-chief, it does appear that the entire occurrence took place in one go. However, she, in her cross-examination, has testified that at 11.30 the accused persons had come and had assaulted and went away but again came back and then killed her father-in-law and mother-in-law. But that testimony cannot be accepted in view of her earlier statement made in the fardbeyan. Perhaps that appears to be a exaggeration, which may have been brought with a view to support the testimony of her husband PW-1, but that, in view of her earlier statement, cannot be accepted. However, the testimony which has been made in the examination-in-chief, finding corroboration from the earlier version of the witnesses, can be accepted to be true. 18. The testimony of PW-4 further finds corroboration from the medical evidence, whereby the Doctor did find injuries on the persons of the deceased Jhuggu @ Budhuwa caused by hard and blunt substance and also from the Post Mortem examination report of Bailly Devi, whereby the Doctor did find injuries being caused not only by hard and blunt substance but also neck was found cut by heavy and sharp cutting weapon in such manner suggesting three blows being given, which gets confirmed from the testimony of PW-4, wherein she has testified that three persons had cut the neck. However, according to Mr. However, according to Mr. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Jeeta, PW-4 in her testimony at the first instance though has said that three persons cut the neck but immediately thereafter, it has been testified by PW-4 that it was Bifal, who had cut the neck, whereas Madi had caught hold of her and, thereby, no role has been played by the appellant Jeeta in cutting neck of the deceased, but if we will read the testimony in totality and keeping in view the Post Mortem report, testimony of this witness to the effect that three blows had been given for cutting the neck, appears to be absolutely correct. 19. Under the circumstances, there has been no reason at all to discard the testimony of PW-4, rather the testimony of PW-4 gets complete corroboration from the medical evidence and, hence, PW-4 can be said to be wholly trustworthy. 20. In that view of the matter, the trial court is absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid and, hence, it is hereby affirmed. 21. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in any of the appeals and, hence, all these appeals are hereby dismissed. The bail bonds of all the appellants, except appellant Jeeta Oraon of Cr. Appl. No. 941/2004, who is in jail, are hereby cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody for serving out the sentence. Appeals dismissed.