JUDGMENT By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th June, 2006, passed by the 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 292 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the Court while acquitting the appellant for the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Dukhni Maharani and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/with default clause to undergo S.I. for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the first information report, is that the informant Sanju Maharani (PW6) and also Dukhni Maharani (deceased) had left home on 17/10/1999 in the evening for bringing water. At about 5.15 P.M they reached near a 'Nala' (a stream of water) where the deceased cleaned her Aluminium vessels and then both of them proceeded towards a well for taking water. Meanwhile, the appellant came there and caught hold of Dukhni Maharani and made her to fall on the ground and, thereafter, he committed rape upon her. While the appellant was committing such act, he threatened the informant to leave that place. Upon it, the informant left the place but after coming to some distance she stood standing there and saw from there that the appellant after committing rape twisted the neck of Dukhni Maharani and then brought her to 'Nala' (stream of water) and forcibly put her head into stream of water as a result of which she died. Thereupon, the informant came home and told about the occurrence to her husband and other witnesses. Meanwhile, OfficerinCharge of Gopikander Police Station when received rumour that one lady has been killed, he came to the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Sanju Maharani at 5.00 A.M on 18/10/1999. Upon which a first information report was registered against the appellant and the matter was taken for investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW7) recovered the dead body from the 'Nala' in presence of PWs2 and 5. Thereafter, inquest report was prepared. Subsequently, the dead body was sent for Post Mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Sitaram Sah (PW1), who during Post Mortem examination did find lyrings and trachea full of mud. During investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW7) recovered the dead body from the 'Nala' in presence of PWs2 and 5. Thereafter, inquest report was prepared. Subsequently, the dead body was sent for Post Mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Sitaram Sah (PW1), who during Post Mortem examination did find lyrings and trachea full of mud. Both lungs were found expanded. The abdomen was full of muddy water. However, he did not find any sign of rape nor did he find spermatozoa in the pathological report. Accordingly, Post Mortem report (Ext.1) was issued with an opinion that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. At the same time, it was opined that no definite opinion can be given whether the deceased was raped or not? 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant. When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial, during which the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, of them PWs2 & 5 are the witnesses to recovery of the dead body and are also the witnesses to the inquest. PWs3, 4 & 8 are the hearsay witnesses, who either testified that they came to know from the villagers about the deceased being done to death by the appellant or from the informant PW6. 4. After closure of the case, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, he himself examined as DW1, wherein he stated that he had made statement before the Magistrate and after it was recorded, he signed over it after finding the statement to be correct. 5. The trial court did rely upon that part of the testimony of PW6the informant, whereby she had stated about killing of the deceased by the appellant, which found corroboration from the medical evidence. However, the trial court did not find her testimony reliable regarding rape being committed upon the deceased by the appellant as the informant PW6 when, after seeing the occurrence, came to the village never disclosed to any person that the appellant committed murder of the deceased after ravishing her. Accordingly, the trial court, while acquitting the appellant for the charge under Section 376 IPC, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 6. Accordingly, the trial court, while acquitting the appellant for the charge under Section 376 IPC, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appointed by the JHALSA to defend the appellant, submits that the testimony of PW6 the informant is not worth reliable for the reason that she, in her statement made in the first information report and also in her evidence, had testified that the appellant had twisted the neck of the deceased but no bone was found broken by the Doctor and that if the deceased died on account of twisting the neck, she could not have consumed muddy water but the fact is otherwise where the Doctor has found muddy water in the abdomen and that falsify the entire testimony of PW6 and, hence, the trial court committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence and, therefore, the same be set aside. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the testimony of PW6 finds corroboration from the medical evidence as PW6 has categorically testified that the neck was put to the stream of water on account of which she must have consumed muddy water which the Doctor has found during Post Mortem examination and, thereby, the Court is absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. 9. We are in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the State. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that the appellant brought the deceased to the 'Nala' (a stream of water) and committed her murder by putting her head to the stream of water (Nala). This fact has been testified by the informant PW6 which gets corroboration not only from the FIR but also from the medical evidence as the Doctor during Post Mortem examination did find that layering and trachea was full of mud. Both lungs were found expanded, plura was found conjusted. Stomach was full of muddy water. According to Doctor, the death was caused due to asphyxia . The Doctor in his evidence has clarified that asphyxia is possible if a person catches hold of the neck of another person and forcibly submerge his upper part of body in water. Both lungs were found expanded, plura was found conjusted. Stomach was full of muddy water. According to Doctor, the death was caused due to asphyxia . The Doctor in his evidence has clarified that asphyxia is possible if a person catches hold of the neck of another person and forcibly submerge his upper part of body in water. That apart, the evidence of PW6 further gets corroboration from the testimony of PWs2 & 5, who found the dead body of the deceased at the same place, where the occurrence was committed by the appellant. So far as submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that since the deceased was done to death on account of her neck being twisted, she could not consume water is concerned, that is fallacious. It is never the case of the prosecution that the deceased was done to death on account of twisting of neck rather it is the case of the prosecution that before the head was put to water her neck had also been twisted but that twisting never caused any fracture of cervical bone and hence it could not cause death to the deceased. 10. Under the circumstances, we do find that the trail court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence never warrants any interference by this Court and, hence, it is hereby affirmed. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.