JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J : The appellant is suffering conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence for life imprisonment; he has been further convicted under section 341of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; both sentences to run concurrently. Being aggrieved of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2002 and 20.12.2002 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 2001, he has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 2. FIR in the instant case was lodged on 14.04.2001 at 16.30 hrs on the fardbeyan of Lav Kumar Goswami (informant /deceased) recorded on the same day at 1.15 AM in the night at Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad in an injured condition. It is alleged therein that while he was returning to his house with his friend Dhananjay Kumar Mahto from Kandra Basti at about 10.00 PM in the night, when he reached near the street of his house, one Chhedi Goswami, son of Banwari Goswami accosted him by using filthy language as to who is he. The injured disclosed himself as Lav Kumar Goswami and asked him why he was abusing. Thereupon, the accused appellant herein, took out a Bhujali from his waist and with an intention to kill him, gave a blow near his waist, as a result of which, blood started oozing out. The informant raised hulla and upon hearing it, his father Fani Bhushan Goswami ran out of his house and tried to catch the accused, whereupon the appellant accused assaulted his father with the intention to kill him with the Bhujali on his chest which however impacted upon the left side of the stomach. As a result thereof, he received a cut injury and profuse bleeding started and his father fell unconscious. Thereafter, the accused on seeing other persons coming there, fled away. The informant and his father were taken to the Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad in the injured condition, whereafter their treatment started. 3. Initially, FIR being Baghmara P.S. Case No. 79/2001 was registered under section 341, 324 and 307 IPC, but later on, charge under sections 302 and 341 IPC was framed as the informant’s father Fani Bhushan Goswami succumbed to the injury on 30.04.2001 while the informant Lav Kumar Goswami also succumbed to the injury on 18.05.2001. 3. Initially, FIR being Baghmara P.S. Case No. 79/2001 was registered under section 341, 324 and 307 IPC, but later on, charge under sections 302 and 341 IPC was framed as the informant’s father Fani Bhushan Goswami succumbed to the injury on 30.04.2001 while the informant Lav Kumar Goswami also succumbed to the injury on 18.05.2001. The appellant / accused pleaded not guilty of the charges of sections 302 and 341 IPC framed upon him, where-after trial was commenced. 4. Altogether ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW1-Dr. Satendra Kumar is the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the two deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami and Lav Kumar Goswami, father and son and has also proved the post-mortem reports which are also marked as exhibit 1 and 1/1. 5. PW2-Sharda Devi is the wife of the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami and mother of the informant who claims herself to be the eyewitness to the occurrence, having come out of the house on hearing noise of the informant, she saw her son Lav Kumar Goswami (informant) falling down due to the injury and her husband Fani Bhushan Goswaki being assaulted by the accused. 6. PW3-Laxman Kumar Goswami is the brother of the informant Lav Kumar Goswami and son of the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami, who also claims to be the eyewitness to the occurrence and has deposed that he saw the accused assaulting his father in stomach with Bhujali. 7. PW4-Shashi Bhushan Goswami and PW5-Prem Bala Devi are hearsay witnesses. 8. PW6-Tarni Goswami is also a hearsay witness and has proved the signature of Lav Kumar Goswami on fardbeyan which is marked as Ext. 2. 9. PW7-Dhanajay Mahto is an independent eyewitness to the occurrence who has deposed that while returning to the house along with Lav Kumar Goswami, when he reached near to his house, Chhedi Goswami, the accused/appellant, assaulted the informant in his stomach with Bhujali. Thereafter, they raised hulla. He further deposed that on hearing hulla, father of the informant Fani Bhushan Goswami and his wife came running and then the accused appellant assaulted Fani Bhushan Goswami also with Bhujali in his stomach. 10. PW8-Sunder Lal Mahto is a formal witness who has proved the inquest report which is marked as Ext.3. 11. PW9-Atwari Dom is a hearsay witness. 12. 10. PW8-Sunder Lal Mahto is a formal witness who has proved the inquest report which is marked as Ext.3. 11. PW9-Atwari Dom is a hearsay witness. 12. PW10-Bateshwar Shukla is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has proved the carbon copy of requisition for injury report of both the deceased which are marked as Ext.4 and Ext.4/1 and also proved the injury report of both father and son which are marked as Ext.5 and 5/1. He has also proved the carbon copy of inquest report of both the deceased which are marked as Ext. 6 and 6/1. 13. Defence had examined one Suba Devi as sole witness in their favour who is the mother of the accused Chhedi Goswami and also of the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami. She has stated that there was a fight between the deceased persons and Chhedi Goswami because of which, deceased persons got injured and there was no weapon in the hand of the accused Chhedi Goswami. The said witness is of 70 years of age and she claims to have seen the occurrence while she was sleeping in the vehicle of the accused Chhedi Goswami at that point of time in the night. Her statement has not been found to be credit worthy by the learned Trial Court as it is highly unlikely that she being the aged lady of 70 years would be sleeping in the vehicle with an object of guarding it. She otherwise also appears to be the mother of the appellant and one of the deceased. She being an interested witness, her statement to save his accused son is not worthy of being believed. Learned Trial Court on appraisal of the material evidence on record, has found the testimony of PW7-Dhananjay Mahto who was accompanying the informant at the time of assault, as wholly trustworthy. Learned Trial Court also came to the conclusion that PW2-Sharda Devi, wife of the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami and PW3Laxman Kumar Goswami, brother of the informant, have come out unscathed even after cross-examination regarding their presence at the time of occurrence and having seen the assault made by the appellant while the informant Lav Kumar Goswami was also found lying with injury caused by the accused/appellant. Learned Trial Court found that when PW4 reached the place of occurrence upon hearing hulla, he found his father Fani Bhushan Goswami and his brother Lav Kumar Goswami were lying injured. PW6 is also found to have stated that the informant Lav Kumar Goswami had told him that the accused inflicted injuries upon him. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the medical evidence adduced through the doctor (PW1) who had conducted post-mortem on the two deceased persons along with the oral testimony of the aforesaid eyewitnesses, came to the conclusion that the accused / appellant had inflicted serious sharp cutting injuries on the vital part of the body of the informant and his father which was the ultimate cause of their death. Injuries inflicted upon the deceased persons were by a sharp cutting weapon which corroborated the accusation made by the informant himself of use of Bhujali by the appellant in causing the said injuries. Though, defence tried to make out a case that the death was caused after considerable lapse of time in respect of both the persons which could not be attributed solely to the injuries caused, but the learned Trial Court had no reason to believe the submission of defence as it found that the accused / appellant has caused sharp cutting injuries on both father and son which resulted in their death. 14. We have re-appraised the material evidence on record in order to satisfy whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges of murder against the appellant beyond realm of any reasonable doubt? From the statement of PW7Dhananjay Mahto, an independent eyewitness and PW2 and PW3, mother and brother of the deceased informant who were also eyewitnesses to the assault on the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami , it appears that the allegations made by the informant after receiving injuries near his waist which proved to be fatal, by the accused appellant, is fully substantiated and proved. Statement of the informant clearly refers to the presence of PW7 accompanying him while returning to his house at around 10.00 PM from Kandra Basti and that just near the street of his house, the appellant Chhedi Goswami who happens to be his own uncle, accosted him using filthy language to inquire as to who is he. Statement of the informant clearly refers to the presence of PW7 accompanying him while returning to his house at around 10.00 PM from Kandra Basti and that just near the street of his house, the appellant Chhedi Goswami who happens to be his own uncle, accosted him using filthy language to inquire as to who is he. PW7 fully corroborates the statement of the informant in the first information report about the manner, time and place of occurrence and also assault made by the appellant on the injured despite the informant disclosing him that he is Lav Kumar Goswami. From the statement of PW7 read with the statement of PW2 and PW3, it appears that these two persons also reached immediately on hearing hulla at the place of occurrence, after coming out of their house. This statement fully supports the prosecution case of further assault by the accused / appellant upon Fani Bhushan Goswami who himself came out on hulla of his son (informant) to rescue him. Both PW2 and PW3 also deposed to have seen the informant lying injured and the accused assaulting Fani Bhushan Goswami with sharp cutting weapon on his chest which got impacted on his stomach and caused severe bleeding injury on the vital part of the body and had rendered him unconscious. In the wake of the aforesaid consistent strong prosecution story being proved by these eyewitnesses, there appears to be no reason to doubt the involvement of the accused / appellant in having caused bodily injury to these persons, informant and his father, with deliberate intention which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused appellant being the real brother of the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami and uncle of the informant, despite being told about the identity of the informant as Lav Kumar Goswami and that too just near to his house, chose to intentionally inflict injury on the vital part of the body of both the informant and his father who came to his rescue which proved to be fatal to these two unfortunate son and father. The accused / appellant therefore cannot also be given any leeway on the point that he was trying to question any stranger coming at 10.00 PM in the night near his house. The accused / appellant therefore cannot also be given any leeway on the point that he was trying to question any stranger coming at 10.00 PM in the night near his house. The accused / appellant was carrying a dangerous sharp cutting weapon in his waist which he used in a brutal manner to inflict serious injuries on the informant and his father which despite the medical intervention, could not save their lives. The post-mortem report proved by the conducting doctor (PW1) shows the following injuries upon the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami and Lav Kumar Goswami. Injuries found on the body of Fani Bhushan Goswami : (i) Stab wound 1 ½ “x ¼ “ into cavity deep on 9th postural cartilage over left side front of chest. (ii) Stab would ½ “x ¼ “ into cavity deep located to the ½ “ below to injury no. 1. (iii) Stitched wound 2”long with 3 stitches on lower part left side front of chest. (iv) Stitched wound 5” long with 8 stitches on the upper part left side front of abdomen. (v) Bed sore 2”x2” into partially skin deep over sacheral region. Meninges of both the stab wound were sharp cut. Injuries found on the body of the deceased Lav Kumar Goswami. (i) Stitched wound 5” long with 6 stitches in right paramedian line just above the umbilicus. It was healed in the upper portion but gaping in lower 3”. Foul smelling pus was coming out of the gaping wound. Bed sore – 4”x4” upto bone deep over sacheral regional. It was infected and full of foul smelling pus. 15. The Medical Officer on dissection found presence of foecal matter all over abdominal cavity and walls of stomach were found surgically repaired while cuts were found in the loops of intestine and Colon through which foecal matter was coming out. From perusal of the external injuries found on the body of the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami as also the internal examination on dissection of his dead body by the Medical Officer, it appears that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased were of a serious nature on vital and delicate part of the body i.e. stomach and abdominal cavity. From perusal of the external injuries found on the body of the deceased Fani Bhushan Goswami as also the internal examination on dissection of his dead body by the Medical Officer, it appears that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased were of a serious nature on vital and delicate part of the body i.e. stomach and abdominal cavity. That intestine and colon were cut at several places and there was stab wounds on the left and front side of the chest which though were attended to medically, but despite medical intervention, these injuries were sufficient to cause his death. Presence of foul smelling pus only shows that the medical intervention was not enough to save his life as it has spread all over the entire abdominal cavity and intestine and colon had also been cut in its loops. From the post-mortem report of the deceased Lav Kumar Goswami (informant) also, it appears that there were serious sharp cut wounds which was found to be stitched 5” long just above the umbilicus. In his case also, abdominal cavity on internal examination was found to be having several stitches in the ascending coloum which shows that despite surgical intervention, injuries were so deep over the delicate part of the body that the injured informant could not survive. Merely because there was some lapse of time before the ultimate death of these two injured persons, the accused / appellant cannot be absolved of the charge of murder as injuries which he had inflicted intentionally upon the son and the father being the brother and uncle of the two deceased persons with full knowledge of their identity as his own relative, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Merely possibility of other causes supervening during the hospitalization of the deceased, cannot be a safe premise for deciding whether the two injured persons would not have died on account of serious injuries sustained by them on vital parts of the body, at the hands of the accused. Cause of death is to be determined on broad probabilities and not academic possibilities, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Hiralal Joitaram versus State of Gujarat [(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 22]. Para-16 and 18 of the judgment is quoted hereunder. 16. Cause of death is to be determined on broad probabilities and not academic possibilities, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Hiralal Joitaram versus State of Gujarat [(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 22]. Para-16 and 18 of the judgment is quoted hereunder. 16. Harping on an answer given by PW 12 in cross-examination that death of the deceased had occurred due to “septic” learned Senior Counsel made out an argument that such septic condition could have developed on account of other causes. Mere possibility of other causes supervening during her hospitalisation is not a safe premise for deciding whether she would not have died due to the burns sustained on 21-10-1988. The cause of death can be determined on broad probabilities. In this context we may refer to a passage from Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, dealing with death by burns: “As already mentioned, death may occur within 24 to 48 hours, but usually the first week is the most fatal. In suppurative cases, death may occur after five or six weeks or even longer.” 18. It is preposterous to say that the deceased in this case would have been healed of the burn injuries and that she would have contracted infection through some other causes and developed septicaemia and died of that on 15-11-1988. Court of law need not countenance mere academic possibilities when the prosecution case regarding death of the deceased was established on broad probabilities as a sequel to the burns sustained by her. Hence we repel the contention of the learned counsel on that score.” 16. The question to be answered in the instant case is, whether the appellant-accused did the act with the intention of causing such bodily injuries, as was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In line with what have been discussed herein-above, the answer to the question in the factual backdrop of this case and on the basis of the material evidence on the record has to be in affirmative. The plea of the defence that the accused was without any weapon and that there was a fight between the deceased and the accused, as a result of which, the accused person had got injured himself, is not at all a probable explanation on the part of the defence which can be accepted. 17. The plea of the defence that the accused was without any weapon and that there was a fight between the deceased and the accused, as a result of which, the accused person had got injured himself, is not at all a probable explanation on the part of the defence which can be accepted. 17. In such circumstances, guilt of the accused / appellant of the charges of murder under section 302 IPC and section 341 IPC for wrongful restraint is established beyond any iota of reasonable doubt by the prosecution. We therefore do not find any infirmity either on fact or in law in the judgment of the learned Trial Court. We therefore uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the sole accused / appellant herein for the charges of murder and for wrongful restraint. 18. Hence, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.