JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th February, 2009 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenught in connection with S.T. Case No.360 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No.707 of 2004, arising out of Nawadih P.S. Case No.104 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life, but no fine has been imposed considering detention of the petitioner in jail custody. 2. The facts appearing from the fist information report is that on 10th September, 2004, at about 10:00 p.m., the appellant-Bhunwa Ghasi armed with an axe came to the house of the informant and caused assault to her husband-Karu Ghansi on his head, while he was sleeping in front of his house. Karu Ghansi died at the spot after receiving injury. The appellant after causing injury to Karu Ghansi uttered that he had not given proper share in maize crop and that is why he has killed him. Thereafter, the appellant fled away. The informant raised alarm, which attracted nearby people, who assembled. On the next day i.e. on 11th September, 2011, the statement of informant-Gujari Devi was recorded and a case, being Tenughat, Nawadih P.S. Case No. 104 of 2004 dated 11th September, 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 707 of 2004, under Section 302 IPC, against sole appellant, was registered. 3. The police after due investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session and registered as S.T. Case No. 360 of 2004. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed on 24th January, 2005 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses and proved the documents like postmortem report, inquest report, seizure list etc. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the evidence and documents, available on record, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. 4. This criminal appeal has been preferred from jail by the appellant and he has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that vital contradictions are appearing in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. Other witnesses, like P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and 7, are hearsay. Shakhi Mahto-P.W.8 has turned hostile. 4. This criminal appeal has been preferred from jail by the appellant and he has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that vital contradictions are appearing in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. Other witnesses, like P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and 7, are hearsay. Shakhi Mahto-P.W.8 has turned hostile. The Investigating Officer has not discharged his obligation properly. No fair investigation has been done by the Investigating Officer to find out the truth. It is submitted that the informant in the first information report has stated that she along with her daughters was sleeping, but she had given a go by to the said statement while examined in Court. In her deposition she says that she was sitting near a cot on which her husband was sleeping. Her daughters were cooking meal inside the house. P.W.2-Devanti Kumari did not corroborate the version of P.W.1. In her cross-examination, in Para-3, she says that she was sleeping at the time of occurrence and she could learn about the incident after her mother made her woke up and informed about the occurrence. That goes to show that P.W.2 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Shambhu Ghansi-P.W.3 is hearsay witness, who had reached to the place of occurrence on Halla. He has stated that he had seen the appellant fleeing from the place having an axe in his hand, but in cross-examination he says that his eye sight is weak and he is hard of hearing. He has also admitted that it was a dark night and, therefore, it was not possible for him to see the appellant fleeing from the place and that too with an axe in his hand. Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not reliable, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not liable to be upheld. No proper investigation has been done and the Investigating Officer-P.W.9, who was all along negligent in conducting investigation, did not bother to recover the weapon of the crime and bloodstain earth from the place of occurrence. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2, who are wife and daughter, respectively, of the deceased, are natural witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the first information report is not an encyclopedia of the entire episode. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2, who are wife and daughter, respectively, of the deceased, are natural witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the first information report is not an encyclopedia of the entire episode. The defence counsel had not taken contradictions from the aforesaid witnesses nor the same were referred to the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be given weight. According to the prosecution case, the husband was killed in presence of his wife and daughter. They have supported the prosecution case. Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh-P.W.4 had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body and the injury noticed during postmortem examination corroborates the ocular statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. The Investigating Officer has proved Fardbeyan, inquest report and witnesses, in whose presence inquest report was prepared, proved their signatures. The prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the points referred from both sides, perused the record and evidences available. From perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and the first information report, it appears that the incident took place in presence of P.W.1 while she was present near the cot on which her husband was sleeping. She had seen the appellant, causing injury to her husband by means of an axe. We do not find that any contradiction has been taken from the mouth of P.W.1 either drawing her attention towards her statement recorded in the first information report or on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The story brought on record by defence counsel in the cross-examination has strengthened the version of the informant instead of discarding it. Devanti Kumari-P.W.2 happens to be daughter of informant and she was present in the house with her mother and she had seen the accused causing injury to her father, but in her cross-examination she says that she was sleeping and she was informed about the occurrence by her mother. We have examined the statements given by P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Out of these witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 5 had seen the appellant fleeing from the place having an axe in his hand. We have examined the statements given by P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Out of these witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 5 had seen the appellant fleeing from the place having an axe in his hand. These two witnesses were attracted towards the occurrence after hearing the alarm raised by the informant. We do not find any material contradictions in their depositions in Court. Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh-P.W.4 has proved the postmortem report-Ext.1 and that corroborates the ocular evidence. The Investigating Officer has supported the investigation done by him. Only because bloodstain earth was not collected and weapon used in the crime was not recovered, the investigation done by him should not be considered perfunctory. We have to keep in mind that P.W.1 is an eyewitness to the occurrence and she has supported the prosecution case and her statement appears to be wholly reliable. We do not find any reason, brought on record, indicating false implication of the appellant. 7. Considering all these aspects of the matter and the evidences available on record, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th February, 2009 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenught in connection with S.T. Case No. 360 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No.707 of 2004, arising out of Nawadih P.S. Case No. 104 of 2004, is hereby upheld. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.