JUDGMENT By Court: This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.06.2007 and 25.06.2007 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI, Hazaribag in connection with Sessions Trial No.476 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. Case No.53 of 1989 arising out of Chouparan P.S. Case No.16 of 1989 whereby sole appellant Chhatra Yadav @ Chhatradhari Yadav has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine to the tune of Rs.3000/- and in case of default in making payment of fine, further S.I. for six months. 2. Prosecution case, as it appears from the First Information Report of Jhari Yadav is that on 30.01.1989 at about 4.30 p.m. while the informant was returning home from the forest and reached near Charkathwa dam, he was informed by wife of Chintaman Mahto that his mother has been killed by Chhatra. After receiving such information the informant rushed to the place and found some villagers assembled over there. He had seen dead body of his mother lying in pool of blood. The matter was reported to the police and a case being Chouparan P.S. Case No.16 of 1989 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Chhatra Yadav @ Chhatradhari Yadav. The Police, after due investigation, submitted chargesheet. Accordingly, cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No.476 of 1989. After framing of the charge, the appellant was put on trial. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses to substantiate the charge. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and documents on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as indicated above, hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed gross error by holding the appellant guilty for the offence of murder by placing reliance on solitary eye witness P.W.1 Saroj Devi. It is submitted that statement of PW1 is not reliable and convincing. The place of occurrence is nearer to the house of PW1 but no other family members has come forward to corroborate the version of PW1. It is submitted that statement of PW1 is not reliable and convincing. The place of occurrence is nearer to the house of PW1 but no other family members has come forward to corroborate the version of PW1. She has admitted in her cross-examination that 23 more houses are situated near her house but she does not know name of the occupants. The First Information Report lodged by Jhari Yadav PW2 is based on the information received from Saroj Devi PW1 but this fact is not corroborated by Saroj Devi. She did not say that she ever informed or talked to Jhari Yadav about the incident. Land dispute between informant and appellant is admitted and they are agnates. The remaining witnesses are either hearsay or formal in nature. The doctor who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased has not been examined rather another doctor Sunil Kumar Singh has proved the post mortem report. Non-examination of doctor who had conducted autopsy has caused prejudice to the appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence which is based on the solitary testimony of eye witness Saroj Devi, PW-1 is not tenable. 4. Learned A.P.P. Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwary has opposed the argument and submitted that PW1 Saroj Devi is an independent witness and she has given true picture of the occurrence without any exaggeration. Simple perusal of deposition of PW1 would suggest that she is a truthful witness. PW1 has clearly stated that after seeing the occurrence she run towards the village and raised hulla. The statement of PW2 Jhari Yadav appears natural when he says that in course of returning home when he reached near Charkathwa dam, he saw the people assembled and there was hue and cry. When he reached to the place, he saw his mother having injuries on her person and lying in pool of blood. He could learn from Saroj Devi that the appellant, by means of tangi, caused injury to the mother of informant and killed her. There is consistency in the statement of PW1 and PW2. PW3 Pokhan Yadav has also corroborated this fact that there was hue and cry near the place of occurrence. Saroj Devi informed about the occurrence to the people present over there. He had seen the dead body and noticed injuries on the head. He is also witness to the inquest report and the seizure list. PW3 Pokhan Yadav has also corroborated this fact that there was hue and cry near the place of occurrence. Saroj Devi informed about the occurrence to the people present over there. He had seen the dead body and noticed injuries on the head. He is also witness to the inquest report and the seizure list. PW4 Sheo Dayal Yadav, PW6 Rupan Yadav and PW7 Baleshwar Yadav are formal witnesses and they have also given hearsay account of the occurrence. The doctor has proved the post mortem report and the appellant did get opportunity to cross-examine him. 5. We have gone through the impugned judgment, lower court record, deposition of witnesses and documents too. Admittedly, prosecution case is hinges on the solitary testimony of PW1. She is the only eye witness to the occurrence. She has stated that at about 4.00 p.m. she was indulged in collecting cow dung cake at a place situated near her house. Near the vicinity deceased Kunwari Devi was grazing goat. In the mean time, accused Chhatra Yadav armed with tangi appeared at the place of occurrence and gave repeated blows to Kunwari Devi by means of tangi. Seeing the assault she ran towards the village and raised hulla. This witness has been cross-examined in detail but we do not find any material contradiction in her statement. The statement, while she was running from the place of occurrence to the village, she did not meet informant Jhari does not appear to be of much importance. To make this point clear, we have gone through the statement of Jhari Yadav. He did not say that on the way he met with PW1 rather he says that in course of returning home from forest he had seen people assembled near the place of occurrence and PW1 was disclosing name of the assailant and also about the occurrence. Post mortem report has been proved by a competent doctor who is acquainted with the handwriting of the doctor who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Kunwari Devi. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had had an opportunity to cross-examine him but no cross-examination on the point of weapon used or nature of injury was put to the doctor. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had had an opportunity to cross-examine him but no cross-examination on the point of weapon used or nature of injury was put to the doctor. It is not a case in which post mortem report has been proved by a person who is not a medical expert and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no prejudice in such situation has caused to the appellant. The ocular version of PW1 find support from the post mortem report because the doctor has noticed: (i) sharp cut injury on right side of head extending from right frontal region to the temporal region underneath the bone is cut and fractured; (ii) lacerated cut injury on the mid of skull and both sides temporal bone fractured and fractured portion of the bone is missing. From that injury brain substance has come out; (iii) sharp cut injury on the root of the nose extending towards the left side of chick. The doctor has further opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and caused by sharp heavy weapon. We do not find any exaggeration in the statement of informant and the statement of PW1 also appears to be independent and uninfluenced. 6. In the circumstances and discussion made above, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby upheld. This appeal stands dismissed. 7. Since the appeal was preferred from jail, Sri Sanjay Saxena has been appointed to assist the court. Accordingly, the Member Secretary, JHALSA is requested to pay required fee to learned advocate Sri Sanjay Saxena. Appeal dismissed.