JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7th September, 2004 and order of sentence dated 9th September, 2004 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I at Chaibasa, in Session Trial No.208 of 2003 whereby the appellant, having been found guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default, he has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.09.2003, Shri Abhay Shankar (P.W.11) Officer-in-Charge of Goilkera Police Station, had received information at police station that one woman who sustained serious injuries, was hospitalized at Goilkera Referral Hospital and her treatment was going on. Thereafter, he reached at Referral Hospital at about 3.15 P.M. and found that one injured lady was lying. He recorded the fardbayan of Village Munda namely, Pyare Lal Boipai (P.W.1) in presence of the witnesses and registered Goilkera P.S. Case No.31 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 325, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the Fardbeyan, it is alleged that the husband (present appellant) of the deceased, assaulted the deceased-Menjo Kui with iron rod on her head, as a result of which, she fell down on the ground and thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the Hospital with the help of the villagers and the villagers also caught hold of the accused/appellant and brought him to the police station. Thereafter injured succumbed to her injury and the case was converted into a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The police took up the investigation and after completion of the investigation, ultimately filed charge sheet against the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken against the present appellant. The plea of the defence is completely denial of the allegation. 4. 3. The police took up the investigation and after completion of the investigation, ultimately filed charge sheet against the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken against the present appellant. The plea of the defence is completely denial of the allegation. 4. In order to prove the charge against the accused person, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses including Doctor and Investigating Officer and the trial court after going through the materials available on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has found the charges levelled against the accused to be proved and thereafter sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 5. Basing upon the circumstantial evidence, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned court below on the following grounds:- (I) Though, P.W.7 and P.W.10 are claiming themselves to be the eye witnesses, but their evidences are not reliable; (II) There are major contradictions of the statement of the witnesses; (III) Mother of the accused/appellant was present at the time of occurrence, but she was not examined by the prosecution as the prosecution failed to produce her; (IV) The prosecution has suppressed the material fact and the charge is defective inasmuch as the material object was not produced before the court; (V) P.W.7 and P.W.8 are related and interested witnesses; In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has committed illegality and infirmity in convicting present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and submits that the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.10 are very clear and cogent and as a matter of fact, P.W.7 and P.W.10 had seen the occurrence. P.W.7 and P.W.10 were working in the house of the appellant and they have specifically stated that the accused came with iron rod and assaulted the deceased on her head. The statements of P.W.7 and P.W.10 are corroborated by the statement of the P.W.8-the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, who also proved the post mortem examination (Ext.2). The statements of P.W.7 and P.W.10 are corroborated by the statement of the P.W.8-the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, who also proved the post mortem examination (Ext.2). On the basis of evidence on record, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court, do not require any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the materials available on record. 8. P.W.1-Pyare Lal Boipai is the informant and head of village. He has lodged fardbeyan. He has also proved fardbeyan as Ext.1 as well as seizure list as Ext.4 (iron rod and blood stains earth) 9. P.W.2-Jhargi, P.W.3-Bagun Gorsora, P.W.4 Mata Champia and P.W.6 are the hearsay witnesses. They have stated that on getting information, they have seen the injured. P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest and he has also proved inquest report as Ext.6. P.W.5-Pradhan Ugra Sandil is a tender witness. 10. P.W.7-Somwari Godsora is the eye witness to the occurrence. She has specifically stated about the role played by the present appellant. She has also stated specifically in her examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence, she was thrashing straw of paddy for separating the grain along with Gangu Kui (P.W.10) and Menjo Kui (deceased) at the house of the deceased. All of sudden, accused/appellant (husband of the deceased) came and gave 3-4 blow of iron rod on the head of the deceased and the deceased fell down on the earth and blood was oozing from her head. Thereafter she informed to Munda of that village (P.W.1), who immediately shifted the injured to the hospital and on the same night, the deceased succumbed to her injury. In her cross examination, she specifically stated that her house is located in front of the house of the accused/appellant. Nothing has been elucidated from the cross examination of P.W.7 to demolish the statement of this witness. 11. P.W.10 -Gangi Kui is daughter of P.W.7. She is also an eye witness to the occurrence. In her cross examination, she specifically stated that her house is located in front of the house of the accused/appellant. Nothing has been elucidated from the cross examination of P.W.7 to demolish the statement of this witness. 11. P.W.10 -Gangi Kui is daughter of P.W.7. She is also an eye witness to the occurrence. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that while she was thrashing the straw of paddy to separate the grain in the house of present appellant with the deceased and her mother (P.W.7), at that time, present appellant came with a “Sable” (Iron Rod) and assaulted the deceased on her head, as a result of which, deceased fell down and thereafter, they started shouting. After hearing Hulla, other persons gathered there and when they asked the appellant about the assault to his wife, he told them that his wife was a corrupt lady and she had illicit relationship with others. Thereafter, injured was taken to hospital where she died. This witness in her examination-in-chief, has specifically stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased with iron rod on her head and after seeing assault, she fled away from the spot. 12. P.W.8-is Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante motem injuries:- (a) Lacerated wound of on right side of skull- 4”x1”x4” deep. Bone Fracture. (b) Lacerated wound behind right ear 1”x1/2” bone deep. (c) Bleeding from right ear present. (d) Blackish discoloration around right eye-2” in diameter. On dissection:- (i) Head and Neck-Skull bone Right Temporal fractured, meninges brain tissue lacerated, cavity contains blood. Thorax:- Heart – All chambers empty. Lungs-Pales Abdomen:- Stomach-empty. Liver, Spleen, Kidney-NAD Uterus-Pregnant. Fetus/production of conception is within three months. The Doctor opined that the death was caused due to head injury, hemorrhage and shock because of the injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. He also proved post mortem report (Ext.2) 13. P.W.9-Dono Angaria, who is sister of the deceased. is hearsay witness. 14. P.W.11-Abhay Shankar is the Investigating Officer, who forwarded the accused and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and proved formal fardbeyan/FIR (Ext.5) and other documents. 15. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and after scanning of evidences, it is crystal clear that present appellant assaulted the deceased with iron rod on her head. 14. P.W.11-Abhay Shankar is the Investigating Officer, who forwarded the accused and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and proved formal fardbeyan/FIR (Ext.5) and other documents. 15. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and after scanning of evidences, it is crystal clear that present appellant assaulted the deceased with iron rod on her head. The evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.10 are very clear and cogent to that effect and the statements of P.W.7 and P.W.10 are corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.8 and there is no material before this Court to disbelieve the above evidence. P.W.7 and P.W. 10 are neither related to the deceased nor to the accused and they were found thrashing straw of paddy for separating the grain along with Gangu Kui (P.W.10) and Menjo Kui (deceased) and her mother. 16. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant, who is author of the crime, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. In view of discussions, made hereinabove, this criminal appeal is dismissed.