Judgment Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Both the accused/appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under go Life Imprisonment by the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2003 passed by Sri Ibrar Hassan, Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2001 | Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2001. They have therefore preferred the instant appeal. 2. The Informant-Lato Mahto is the son of the deceased Laljit Mahto who gave his fardbeyan on 11.10.2000 at 10.00 a.m. before the Officer In-charge of Satgawan Police Station under the District Koderma, which lead to the institution of F.I.R being Satgawan P.S. Case No. 40 of 2000 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution as unfolded through the fardbeyan of the informant inter-alia alleges that the informant-Lato Mahto has a plot on the western side of Pahari Nala at village Jogidih Badhar. On the northern side of his plot there is 'gairmajarua' land cultivated by the accused-appellant Lalo Singh and Lukhari Singh. Four days prior to the recording of the fardbeyan, Lalo Singh was ploughing the field and Lukhari Singh who was cutting the ridge entered into the field of the Informant. Laljit Mahto-deceased , father of the Informant was also ploughing the field and the Informant and his brother Prabhu Mahto were removing grass therefrom. When Lukhari Singh entered into the field of the informant then father of the informant protested but he was abused by both the accused persons and there was a quarrel between the parties. Mahabir Mahto who was working in the adjacent field came there and intervened, as a result of which no assault took place but both the accused persons threatened to kill Laljit Mahto. The Informant and his family members did not take the threat seriously. 3. It is further alleged that since the last 3/4 days before the alleged occurrence Laljit Mahto used to collect cow dung at night for the purpose of manuring the field and used to sleep over the Machan standing over the plot. The Informant and his family members did not take the threat seriously. 3. It is further alleged that since the last 3/4 days before the alleged occurrence Laljit Mahto used to collect cow dung at night for the purpose of manuring the field and used to sleep over the Machan standing over the plot. In the night of 10.10.2000 at around 8.00 p.m the Informant took meal of his father to the field and while Laljit Mahto was taking meal at the Machan, the Informant went to bring water from the side of the Nala situated about 20 yards on the eastern side of the Machan. But when he was returning with the water, accused Lukhari Singh holding farsa and Lalo Singh holding Bhala came from the neighbouring Ahar and went to the Machan. They dragged Laljit Mahto from Machan and forcibly brought him on the 'gairmajarua' land situated near the Nala and there Lukhari Singh assaulted him with farsa as a result of which his head got fractured and he fell down. Lalo Singh poked bhala in his stomach. Lukhari Singh again gave farsa blow on his cheek, which resulted in a cut and by that time Lalo again gave bhala blow on the thigh of the Informant's father. Informant's father, after initial scream, on account of several assault and bleeding fell unconscious. Thereafter, the Informant reached there and assaulted Lukhari Singh with bucket. Lalo also threw his bhala upon the Informant but it did not result in any injury. At that time, it was moon lit night . The informant thereafter ran away from there by raising alarm. Then Mahabir Mahto and Mantu Mahto who were irrigating their paddy fields also came here and thereafter the informant along with them rushed towards Pahari Nala thereafter Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh fled away towards their village hurling abuses. Mantu Mahto and Mahabir Mahto both had seen both the accused running away and had also identified them. Informant and others thereafter came back to his father who was found dead. Since, it was late at night and there was enough water in Sakari river, Informant could not go to the Police Station in the night but on some information the Police came in the morning and thereafter, the instant fardbeyan was recorded at 10.00 a.m. 4. Informant and others thereafter came back to his father who was found dead. Since, it was late at night and there was enough water in Sakari river, Informant could not go to the Police Station in the night but on some information the Police came in the morning and thereafter, the instant fardbeyan was recorded at 10.00 a.m. 4. Upon completion of the investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 27.8.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma after he took cognizance against both the accused persons under Section 307/302/34 of the I.P.C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty, whereafter the trial commenced. The defence has taken a plea of alibi and pleaded innocence stating that Lukhari Singh was at village Bishnidi while the accused Lalo Singh was at Calcutta. The defence has examined 5 witnesses on their behalf. 5. The prosecution has altogether examined 11 witnesses. P.W.1 was declared hostile; P.W.5, Lato Mahto is the Informant and son of the deceased, Laljit Mahto. In his deposition he had stated that on the fateful night at 8 p.m. he had taken meal for his father, deceased-Laljit Mahto at their field where his father was staying for watching the field. After keeping the meal at the field he went to bring water from river but there he heard alarm of his father. When he reached the place of occurrence he saw Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh assaulting his father. Lukhari assaulted with farsa and Lalo poked bhala in the stomach of the deceased. On hulla being raised by the Informant, Mahabir Mahto and Chhottu Mahto saw the two accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. He had further deposed that he remained at the side of his father's dead body during in the night while information was sent to the Nasirganj Police Station on which the Police came in the morning for investigation when Lukhari Singh was caught. He further deposed that four days prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel between the accused persons and his father, who had abused him in filthy language and threatened that he would be killed on the same plot. At that point Mahabir Mahto intervened and separated them. He further deposed that four days prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel between the accused persons and his father, who had abused him in filthy language and threatened that he would be killed on the same plot. At that point Mahabir Mahto intervened and separated them. In his cross examination he has stated that his father were five brothers, Mangal Mahto is his grand father and Mahabir Mahto is his uncle. He further deposed that there is a ridge between their land and 'gairmajarua' land and his father was watching the field since 8 days before the alleged occurrence. The Nala from where he went to bring water is situated at a distance of 50 yards from the place of occurrence. P.W.2, Mahabir Mahto has deposed that on 10.10.2000 at 8.00 p.m. he was irrigating his field at a distance of 10 bamboos from the place of occurrence when he heard hulla of Lato Mahto and rushed to the spot where he saw from the distance of two bamboo Lalo Singh and Lukhari Singh fleeing away. Thereupon he along with Chotu Mahto, Dhaneshwar Mahto and Mantu Mahto chased them to some distance. Lukhari Singh was armed with farsa and Lalo Singh was armed with Bhala. Since they entered Ahar field they could not be apprehended. Thereafter, he came to the place of occurrence and found his brother Laljit Mahto in restless condition. He further stated that Laljit Mahto informed him that Lukhari and Lalo have assaulted him. He found several injuries on the person of Laljit Mahto who however died after half an hour. He has further stated that in the morning villagers informed the police and thereafter when the Police arrived Lukhari was chased and arrested. The dead body of the deceased Laljit Mahto was taken to Nasirganj Police Station and thereafter sent for postmortem examination. He has further stated that there was a quarrel 3/4 days before the alleged occurrence between the accused persons and Laljit Mahto when he had intervened and separated them. On that day accused persons threatened Laljit Mahto that he would be killed. He further stated that the accused persons have their field near the place of occurrence which is in their possession. He has further stated that it was moonlit night on the date of occurrence. On that day accused persons threatened Laljit Mahto that he would be killed. He further stated that the accused persons have their field near the place of occurrence which is in their possession. He has further stated that it was moonlit night on the date of occurrence. P.W.3, Chhotu Mahto has stated that at 8 p.m. on 10.10.2000 while he was irrigating his field he heard hulla of his nephew Lato Mahto. Thereafter, he, Dhaneshwar Mahto, Mahabir Mahto etc. rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh , who were chased by them, however they fled away in the Ahar field. On return he found Laljit Mahto in restless condition and was informed by the injured Laljit Maho that Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh had assaulted him. Laljit Mahto died thereafter within half an hour. He has also stated that 2-4 days before the alleged occurrence there was altercation between the accused persons and deceased-Laljit Mahto when Mahabir Mahto had intervened to save the situation, however the accused threatened to kill Laljit Mahto. P.W.4, Dhaneshwar Prasad Yadav also claims to have gone along with Mahabir Mahto and Chotu Mahto to the field of Laljit Mahto on hearing hulla when he was informed that accused Lalo Singh and Lukhari Singh were fleeing away after assaulting Laljit Mahto. However, he states that he did not see the accused persons fleeing away. P.W.9, Baldeo Mahto has deposed that he is the real brother of the deceased Laljit Mahto and separated from him after partition since long. He claims to have reached the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and had seen the accused persons fleeing away. He also had deposed that there was a quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased about one week before the occurrence when the accused persons had threatened the deceased, Laljit Mahto that he would be killed. He however states that Lato Mahto, informant had informed him that his father was assaulted by the accused Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh by Bhala and Talwar. He however states that Lato Mahto, informant had informed him that his father was assaulted by the accused Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh by Bhala and Talwar. This witness in his cross examination stated that he had gone to the Police Station at 11.00 p.m. in the night but the Office In-charge stated that he would not be able to go in the night rather would proceed to the place of occurrence in the next morning at 8.00 a.m. Then he had stayed at the Dak Bungalow over night and came back in the morning. The Officer-In-charge had left at 8.00 a.m. for the place of occurrence while he had reached on foot. He has further stated that he left for the Police Station at 9.00 in the night and reached there at 11 p.m. It appears from the F.I.R. that the distance of the Police Station is about 10 km from the village Jogidih Badhar i.e. the village of the Informant. P.W.6 Dr. Krishna Prasad is the Medical Officer who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Laljit Mahto and found the following ante-mortem injury on external examination. i. Incised wound over right side of head 2 ½ “ x 3/4” x skin deep. ii. Incised would over left side of neck below ear 3” x 3/4” x skin deep. iii. Incised would over left side of face 1 ½ “ x 1/2” X skin deep. iv. Multiple incised woulds over left side of abdomen and chest 1/2” -1”x 1/4” x skin deep. v. Punctured would over left side of chest near clavicle 2” x 1/4” x Cavity deep. vi. Punctured would over abdomen 1/4” left and above umbilicus 2” x 3/4” x Cavity Deep. vii. Multiple incised wounds over left arm, right forearm and left leg 1/4”-1” x 1/4” x skin deep. On dissection he found as follows:- Head-right chamber contained blood and left chamber was empty. Lung-ruptured and pale. Liver – ruptured and pale Spleen and Kidney-pale Stomach-ruptured and contained semi digested food. Bladder-Empty Brain-pale There was clotted blood present in the abdominal cavity. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock due to aforementioned injuries and within 36 hours of the postmortem examination. Postmortem examination report has been marked as Ext.2. He has further stated that digestion starts soon after taking meal. Bladder-Empty Brain-pale There was clotted blood present in the abdominal cavity. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock due to aforementioned injuries and within 36 hours of the postmortem examination. Postmortem examination report has been marked as Ext.2. He has further stated that digestion starts soon after taking meal. P.W.7, Suresh Dubey, S.I is the Investigating Officer who has stated that he learnt through rumour that on 11.10.2000 at 7.15 p.m. a person has been murdered in village Jogidih Badhar. He recorded the sanha and went with the police party in the said village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, Lato Mahto, which is marked as ext.3. He has also prepared the inquest report, ext.5 in presence of the dead body of the deceased and seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses after preparation of the seizure list, Ext.4. He found the dead body of Laljit Mahto lying at the place of occurrence, which is a 'gairmajaruwa' land in cultivating possession of Chotu Singh of village Bishnidih. He also stated that the field of the deceased Laljit Mahto is on the adjacent side of the place of occurrence. There was ridge which separated the two lands. He also found cow dung in the field of the informant situated at a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence on the western side. There was a machan on the eastern side of the said field. The dead body was laying 50 yards away on the eastern side of the said Machan. There was a Nala at a distance of 10-12 yards from the place of occurrence. P.W.8, Ramesh Prasad singh is the Officer In-charge who took further charge of the Investigation on 6.11.2000 and has submitted the charge-sheet on 3.12.2000 against both the accused persons named in the F.I.R. He further states that he did not record statement of any witness nor arrested any accused. 6. The learned Trial Court found that P.W.5, informant is the eye witness of the alleged occurrence who had seen both the accused Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh assaulting his father with farsa and bhala which resulted in his death. 6. The learned Trial Court found that P.W.5, informant is the eye witness of the alleged occurrence who had seen both the accused Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh assaulting his father with farsa and bhala which resulted in his death. The learned Trial Court also found that P.W.2 and 3 had arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla of the Informant and had seen the accused persons fleeing away being armed with farsa and bhala. Learned Trial Court has considered the deposition of P.W.9 who also is said to have reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla of Lato Mahto and also seen Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh fleeing away. Learned Trial Court took into account the statements of P.W.5, 2 ,3 and 9 who have stated that 4 days before the alleged occurrence there was an altercation between the accused persons and the deceased – Laljit Singh, when they had threatened to kill him. However, it was on the intervention of P.W.2 that they had been separated. The learned Trial Court has also considered the plea raised by the defence witnesses D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.4 and D.W.5 and found their evidences contradictory to each other on the aforesaid point. Their statements were not found to be wholly worthy of credence. Though defence seems to have raised the issue relating to multiple injury found on the deceased by the Doctor in comparison to the testimony of the Informant on the point of infliction of 4 injuries by the accused persons, but the learned Trial Court concluded that the Informant and other witnesses did not state that they had actually counted the injuries inflicted on the dead body of the deceased rather the injuries found on the dead body were due to sharp cutting weapon and were several as found by the Doctor which was corroborating the oral testimony of assault by farsa and bhala by the two accused persons on the deceased. The learned Trial Court also did not find any reason to discredit the prosecution story and the plea raised by the defence relating to the institution of the actual F.I.R. on the ground that information of the alleged occurrence had been given to the Police in the night of the occurrence itself but the fardbeyan was recorded at 10.00 a.m. in the morning. The learned Trial Court on the testimony of the Investigating Officer found that on hearing rumour at 7.am. in the morning the Police had reached to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan on 11.10.2000 at 10.00 a.m. Learned Trial Court was not convinced that minor contradiction as raised by the defence in relation to non production of Sanha said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer before proceeding to the place of occurrence etc. were sufficient to reject the prosecution story as made out in its entirety. It has also come to the conclusion that simply because some of the witnesses were related to the Informant, their presence near the place of occurrence cannot be doubted as it was otherwise natural and have been proved from their individual testimony before the Trial Court. The prosecution witness no. 2 and 3 have categorically supported the prosecution story that they had reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla from their respective fields where they were working. 7. We have analyzed the material evidence on record through the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The relevant material evidences have been reappraised by us minutely in our endeavour to test the truthfulness of the prosecution case to come to a conclusion as to whether the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been proved to the hilt against the two accused persons-appellants herein. From the scrutiny and analysis of the submissions of the prosecution witnesses, as discussed herein above, the presence of the informant, Lato Mahto, S/o deceased Laljit Mahto near the place of occurrence at the time when the assault took place by the accused/appellants cannot be said to be doubtful. It was 8 p.m. in the night and as narrated in the F.I.R, father of the informant was at the Machan for keeping a watch on the field and also for completing the manuring work in the night where he had been staying for the last 3-4 days before the alleged occurrence. It was 8 p.m. in the night and as narrated in the F.I.R, father of the informant was at the Machan for keeping a watch on the field and also for completing the manuring work in the night where he had been staying for the last 3-4 days before the alleged occurrence. 8 p.m. is the night time when people in village usually take their meal and the informant being the son of the deceased, in all natural course is to be believed to have taken the meal for his father to the field where the deceased, Laljit Mahto was staying in the night at Machan built up by them. As has been found from the testimony of the Informant and others that it was moon-lit night and while the Informant had proceeded to bring water from near by river which was 20-50 yards on the eastern side of the Machan, these two accused / appellants namely Lukhari Singh and Lalo Singh had came from their own near by field and had dragged the deceased Laljit Mahto from the Machan and brought him to the 'gairmajarua' land situated near the Nala. Thereafter, the testimony of the Informant is consistent on the point of assault by farsa on the part of Lukhari Singh on the head of his father, Laljit Mahto as a result of which he fell down. The informant's testimony is also consistent on the point of assault by bhala by Lalo Singh on the stomach of the deceased, Laljit Mahto and further followed up by another farsa blow on the cheek by the accused, Lukhari Singh as also further assault of bhala by Lalo Singh on the thigh of the deceased. Thereupon, Informant's father became restless and started bleeding profusely after raising hulla, as a result of which he fell unconscious. Through their testimony P.W.2 and 3 have not only corroborated the testimony of the informant but they also have seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence on being chased upon by them. Thereupon, Informant's father became restless and started bleeding profusely after raising hulla, as a result of which he fell unconscious. Through their testimony P.W.2 and 3 have not only corroborated the testimony of the informant but they also have seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence on being chased upon by them. The injuries sustained on the body of the deceased are a result of several antemortem injuries found on the body of the deceased by the Medical Officer which are corroborative of the repeated assault by the two accused persons on the vital part of the body, such as head, neck, left side face, chest, abdomen, punctured wound left side of abdomen and chest etc. Nature of injuries were such that it can be caused by sharp cutting weapon like farsa and pointed weapon like bhala which is attributed to the accused Lukhari and Lalo Singh by the informant who saw them assaulting his father from a close distance in the moonlit night. From the evidence of P.W.5, informant and the submissions made in the fardbeyan, it is also clear that the police came only in the morning, though P.W.9 is said to have proceeded for furnishing information to the police station situated at a distance of 10/12 km from the place of occurrence in the night and reached there at 11 p.m. The informant's statement in the fardbeyan that since it was night, he had stayed by the side of the dead body of his father and since much water was flowing in Sakari river, he could gave his fardbeyan only on the next morning when the Office In-charge had reached the place of place of occurrence in the morning at 10.00 a.m. cannot said to be creating any doubt relating to the actual institution of F.I.R on next day. The testimony of the informant, P.W.5 when read along with the testimony of P.W.3 and 4 and the fatal antemortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased by the Medical Officer, P.W.6 clearly goes to establish the prosecution story as initially made out in the F.I.R registered on the fardbeyan of the informant that the two accused persons had committed serious assault by farsa and bhala on the father of the informant on the fateful night at about 8 p.m. in the field while the informant had gone to serve meal to his father and was in the process of fetching water from the near by nala on the eastern side of Machan. The plea of alibi is a weak plea raised by the defence to save the accused persons and in this case upon consideration of the all the material evidences and the 4 defence witnesses adduced on this point, we have found that the plea is wholly unacceptable. The statement of D.W.s on this point have rightly been found to be contradictory to each other by the learned Trial Court. Though the D.W.s 1,2,4 and 5 have stated that on 10.10.2000 Lalo Singh was in Calcutta and Lukhari Singh was at village Bishnidih. In cross examination D.W.1 could not reveal as to on which date Lalo Singh came to the village or returned from there during the last five years. He also could not say the dates on which he had gone to village Bishnidih on last two occasion. D.W.1 has claimed himself to be resident of Calcutta but he could not say where Lalo Singh sells Fuchka at Calcutta, though he has admitted that last time he has met Lalo Singh is before 10.10.2000 i.e. the date of occurrence. D.W.2 has failed to say in cross examination as to who among his co-villager were with him and during which period they were with him on 10.10.2000. D.W.4 in his cross examination could not give the date on which Lalo Singh had met him lastly in the year 2000. He is also unable to given other relevant date while put in cross examination. D.W.5's testimony is also doubtful. D.W.4 in his cross examination could not give the date on which Lalo Singh had met him lastly in the year 2000. He is also unable to given other relevant date while put in cross examination. D.W.5's testimony is also doubtful. Though learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously tried to create an element of doubt relating to the first information furnished to the Police relating to the incidence by the Informant i.e. on the night of date of occurrence i.e. 10.10.2000 or actually on the next date, but considering the statement of the informant in his fardbeyan read with the testimony given before the learned Trial Court and the statement of P.W.9, we do not find any ambiguity so far as timing of first information given to the Police is concerned. It is clearly made out from the statement of P.W.9 that though he had gone to the police station in the night of 10.10.2000 but the police actually had gone to the place of occurrence next morning after hearing rumour of killing of a person at village Jogidih Badhar at about 7 a.m. in the morning. Only when the police arrived at the place of occurrence at 10 a.m., the fardbeyan of the Informant was recorded at the village. Therefore, the prosecution story as made out on the basis of said fardbeyan has been consistent during the trial as well and proved to the hilt by the Informant, an eye witness duly corroborated by other witnesses like P.W.2, 3 who had reached the spot upon hearing hulla and also seen the two accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence with farsa and bhala. 8. We are therefore satisfied that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C against the two accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court awarding life imprisonment upon the two accused persons. Consequently, the instant appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.