JUDGMENT PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 4.2.2003 and the order of sentence dated 7.2.2003 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.1, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T.No.485 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Kailash Bhuiya convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.8.1997 at about 5 p.m. while the informant, Dhanmania Devi (P.W.1) was sitting in front of her house along with her husband Kailash Bhuiya (deceased), the appellant, Sukat Bhuiya @ Rameshwar Bhuiya, Raju Pandey and Suresh Bhuiya came over there and caught hold of her husband. They started abusing him by saying that he does practice witchcraft. They even assaulted and took him about 100 yards away near a tree where the accused persons made him to fall on the ground and chopped off his neck. 3. On the next day, i.e. 4.8.1997 at about 12.15 p.m. when Sub-Inspector, Ramashish Ram came to the house of the informant, Dhanmania Devi, she gave her fardbeyan (Ext.3) to the effect as stated above, upon which a formal FIR (Ext.2) was drawn. The Investigating Officer (not examined) in course of investigation held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4). Thereupon the dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr.Birendra Prasad (P.W.3). On holding autopsy, he found the following ante mortem injuries. (i) Rigor mortis was absent in the upper lip but present in the lower lip. (ii) The head cut at neck completely separated from the rest of the body. 4. All the structures at neck were cut like aorta, nerves, trachea etc. All the surrounding areas were stained with blood. 5. Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.1) with an opinion that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock on account of above mentioned injury caused by heavy sharp cutting instrument like tangi. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of other witnesses including Gaura Devi (P.W.2), the daughter of the deceased. 6. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, whereas two accused were shown as absconder. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of other witnesses including Gaura Devi (P.W.2), the daughter of the deceased. 6. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, whereas two accused were shown as absconder. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and when the case was committed to the court of sessions, the appellant was put on trial, during which four witnesses were examined. Of them, the informant, Dhanmania Devi, (P.W.1), the wife of the deceased and Gaura Devi, (P.W.2), the daughter of the deceased are the eye witnesses whereas P.W.4, a formal witness has proved fardbeyan, formal FIR and inquest report as Exts.3, 2 and 4 respectively. 7. After closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating evidences were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he denied it. 8. The defence has also examined one Ram Laxman Singh as D.W.1, who has proved paragraph 10 of the case diary of Panki Police Station case no.24 of 1997 as Ext. A. 9. The court having found the informant, P.W.1 and P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased to be trustworthy whose testimonies getting corroboration from the medical evidence recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant which is under challenge. 10. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that P.W.1, the informant, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, Gaura Devi, the daughter of the deceased have been examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses but they never seem to be the eye witnesses as the fardbeyan (Ext.3) does indicate that Gaura Devi was not present in the house at the time of occurrence and thereby her name does not find figure in the fardbeyan, still she in her evidence has claimed to be an eye witness but she cannot be taken to be an eye witness. Similarly, the informant also does not seems to be an eye witness as the testimony of P.W.1 does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. 11. In this regard, it was submitted that P.W.1 has testified that before the neck of the deceased was severed off, he was assaulted by tangi on his head but the doctor has never found such injury which does suggest that P.W.1 had no occasion to see the occurrence. 11. In this regard, it was submitted that P.W.1 has testified that before the neck of the deceased was severed off, he was assaulted by tangi on his head but the doctor has never found such injury which does suggest that P.W.1 had no occasion to see the occurrence. Under the circumstances, testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 should have been rejected by the trial court. 12. Further it was submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and hence, the court in view of discrepancies which have been pointed out above should have held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. Further it was submitted that the Investigation Officer has not been examined and thereby attention of the witnesses of their earlier statements would not be drawn and as such, the case of the appellant can be said to have been prejudiced. 14. As against this, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there has been no reason to discard the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, though the name of P.W.2 never appears to be there in the fardbeyan but she appears to be a natural witness and thereby the court has rightly put reliance of the testimonies of both the witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2. 15. Further it was submitted that though the submission was advanced on behalf of the appellant that non-examination of Investigating Officer prejudice has been caused to the defence but nothing has been placed as to in what manner the case of the appellant has been prejudiced and thereby such submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is fit to be rejected. 16. Further it was pointed out that the testimonies of the witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence and thereby the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 17. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that Dhanmania Devi (P.W.1), the informant has testified that when she was sitting in front of her house along with her husband, Kailash Bhuiya (deceased) and daughter, Gaura Devi (P.W.2), the appellant as well as two other persons, Suresh Bhuiya and Raju Bhuiya (Pandey) came over there and the appellant, who has having tangi with him started abusing the deceased by saying that he does practice witchcraft. The accused persons did assault her husband there and then took the husband of the appellant 100 yards away near a tree where the appellant chopped off the neck of the deceased by giving blow of tangi. 18. Almost similar is the testimony of P.W.2, though she did not testify that before the head was chopped off, any blow was given over the head. Since the P.W.1 has testified that before the neck was chopped off, the accused persons assaulted the deceased on his head but corresponding injury was not found by the doctor, submission has been advanced that P.W.1 could not be an eye witness. Submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable for the reason that initially the case made out in the FIR is that when the appellant and other two accused took the deceased 100 yards away near a tree, there they chopped off the neck of the deceased. In the fardbeyan, no such statement is there that before the deceased was chopped off, the appellant assaulted on the head. Similar is the testimony of P.W.2 who has never testified that the deceased was never assaulted on his head. Under the circumstances, we can easily say that that part of the evidence of P.W.1 where she says that the accused persons also assaulted on the head can be said to be an exaggeration. 19. Further submission which was advanced is that P.W.2 could not be an eye witness as P.W.1 in her fardbeyan had stated that Gaura Devi was also sitting there along with the informant and the deceased and as such, when she was not there at home, she cannot be an eye witness. 20. It is true that the name of P.W.2 does not find figure in the fardbeyan but the fardbeyan can never happens to be an encyclopedia of the entire case. It be recorded that it was evening time and P.W.2 happens to be the daughter of the informant and thereby in all probability it is expected that she must be at home, only her name was not given in the fardbeyan as witness to occurrence. 21. Furthermore, nothing has been elicited from P.W.2 so as to raise doubt over her testimony for she being present in the house at the time of occurrence. 21. Furthermore, nothing has been elicited from P.W.2 so as to raise doubt over her testimony for she being present in the house at the time of occurrence. Even suggestion to that effect that she was not present in the house has not been given. Under the circumstances, the submission advanced that P.W.2 never happens to be an eye witness is not acceptable. 22. Going further in the matter, we do find that the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the effect that the appellant gave tangi blow over the neck, as a result of which, it separated from the body finds support from the medical evidence. 23. Under the circumstances, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. Hence, the impugned judgment/order never warrants to be interfered with. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed. 24. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.