JUDGMENT By Court : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th June, 2004 passed by the then learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Case No. 130 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the court, having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Miru Hansda by taking her to be a witch, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Dian) Practice Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-with default clause and further to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Dian) Practice Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.2003 at about 6.00 – 6.30 p.m while the deceased was returning home from field and reached near the farm (Khalihan) of this appellant, the appellant assaulted her with lathi causing injury resulting into his death. When this information was given to the informant-Motilal Hansda, the brother of the deceased, by Matur Murmu (P.W 7), the informant (P.W. 6) came to the place of occurrence and found his sister-Miru Hansda dead. There he was informed by Piyush Murmu (P.W. 4) and Sunil Soren (P.W. 1) that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased, when the deceased came near the Khalian of the appellant, as the appellant was taking the deceased to be a witch. On 24.07.2003, when Lakshmi Kant (P.W. 10), S.I. Maheshpur Police Station received rumour that one lady had been killed at villge Kutubpur, he came over there and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Motilal Hansda (P.W. 6). 3. The I.O. (P.W. 10) undertook investigation, during which, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext. 4). After holding inquest, dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat (P.W. 9). On holding autopsy, the doctor did find the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (i).One lacerated wound at right ear 1” X 1/2” (ii).One lacerated wound on right temporal bone 2” X 1/2” X 1/2” (iii).One lacerated wound at forehead 1” X 1/2” X 1/2”. Lalit Kumar Bhagat (P.W. 9). On holding autopsy, the doctor did find the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (i).One lacerated wound at right ear 1” X 1/2” (ii).One lacerated wound on right temporal bone 2” X 1/2” X 1/2” (iii).One lacerated wound at forehead 1” X 1/2” X 1/2”. (iv).One lacerated wound at upper part of chest 1”X 1/2"X1/2". On dissection of Head and neck:- Scalp bone was found fractured at right temporal regional and frontal region causing brain injury and death. The doctor (P.W-9) issued post-mortem examination report (Ext-2) with an opinion that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock on account of fracture of skull bone and injury to brain caused by hard blunt substance. 4. Meanwhile, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also arrested the accused, who confessed his guilt and his confession led to recovery of a Danda, in presence of P.W. 2-Robin Murmu and P.W 8 Maheshwar Tudu, over which, blood mark was there. 5. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet, upon which, cognizance of the offence was taken. 6. In due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial, during which, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Of them, P.W. 2-Robin Murmu, P.W. 3-Maheshwar Murmu, P.W. 5-Parmeshwar Hembrom, P.W. 6-Motilal Hansda, P.W. 7-Matur Murmu and P.W. 8-Maheshwar Tudu are the hearsay witnesses, who did testify that when on coming to know that the deceased has been killed by the appellant, came to Khalihan of the appellant, where they found the deceased dead. P.W. 1-Sunil Soren and P.W. 4-Piyush Murmu are the eye witnesses who did testify that while they were near a hand-pump, they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased, at his Khalihan, with a lathi, while she was in a way of her home, as a result of which she died. 7. The trial Court having placed it reliance on the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, the eye witnesses, getting corroboration from the medical evidence did find the appellant guilty and accordingly recorded the order of conviction and sentence, which is under challenge. 8. Mr. 7. The trial Court having placed it reliance on the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, the eye witnesses, getting corroboration from the medical evidence did find the appellant guilty and accordingly recorded the order of conviction and sentence, which is under challenge. 8. Mr. Lakhan Sharma, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits that P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 though have claimed to have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased causing injuries resulting into her death but it was a dark at the time of occurrence, which the P.W. 1 himself admits and, thereby, he would not have been in position to identify the assailant as they at the time of occurrence was near the hand-pump, which was quite away from the place of occurrence where deceased was done to death and, thereby, the Court should not have placed reliance on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. But as the Court has placed its reliance on the testimonies of those witnesses, it has committed illegality and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. 9. As against this, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is true that P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has testified that it was dark but by saying so he never meant that it was dark at the time when the deceased was assaulted as P.W. 1 has stated that occurrence took place in the evening at about 4.00 O’Clock, and that, the testimony of P.W. 1 gets corroboration from other eye-witness P.W. 4-Piyush Murmu and further from the medical evidence as the doctor did find injuries being caused by hard blunt substance and, thereby, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 8. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that the case of the prosecution, as has been testified by the eye-witnesses, P.W. 1-Sunil Soren as well as by P.W. 4-Piyush Murmu, is that while the deceased was returning home from the field and came near the Khalian (farm) of this appellant, the appellant assaulted her with lathi, as a result of which the deceased suffered injuries over her scalp and also on other parts which proved to be fatal on account of which she died at the spot. It be stated that the eye witness, Piyush Murmu (P.W. 4) has not been cross-examined exhaustively rather only on one point he has been cross-examined whereby the witness did testify that for the first time he has been making statement and no one did disclose him about the occurrence. Perhaps, the conducting lawyer taking this witness to be the person who for the first time has come to the Court did not cross-examine supposedly for the reason that his earlier statement may not have been recorded by the police. But if we will look to the fardbeyan it would appear that he had disclosed about the occurrence to the informant and thereby he cannot be taken to be stranger. Going further in the matter it be stated that it is true that P.W. 1 in his cross-examination had testified that it was a dark but it never seems to be in the context of the time of the occurrence as this witness in his examination-in-chief has disclosed that the occurrence has taken place in the evening at about 4.00 O’Clock. There may be some differences on the point of time but he was quite categorical that while he was washing off his hands at the hand-pump he saw this appellant assaulting the deceased with lathi. Nothing has been elicited to make a dent over the truthfulness of the testimony of either P.W. 1 or P.W. 4 and, thereby, we do not find anything to disbelieve the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 whose testimonies gets corroboration from the medical evidence as the doctor did find scalp bone being fractured, caused by hard blunt substance. Furthermore, the motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased has also been established. Furthermore, the motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased has also been established. The Appellant as per the evidence of P.W. 3, the Pradhan of the village, had made complaint against the deceased of killing his wife by practicing witchcraft. That was the reason for committing murder of the deceased. 9. In such event, we do find that the trial Court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence, it is hereby affirmed. In the result, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.