JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16th July, 2005 and order of sentence dated 18th July, 2005, passed by Sri Raghubar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been found guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he is further directed to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief as per the fardbeyan of Raghunath Manjhi, son of late Ram Kishor Majhi, Village-Gulu, P.S.-Anandpur (Manoharpur), District-West Singhbhum recorded by S.I., S. Priyadarshi of Manoharpur Police Station is that on 18.04.2004 he and his brother Brajnath Majhi had come to his father-in-law's house at village Tormunda, P.S.-Manoharpur to attend the marriage ceremony of his brother-in-law, Ramesh Amat. On 17.4.204 at around 14 hours, Saturday, they were getting ready and wearing cloths to go in the marriage procession of his brother-in-law. Just then, from the adjacent north courtyard, a sound of crying and screaming could be heard. They came out from the house and saw his eldest brother-in-law Gopal Amat attacking Ramesh Amat with a sward on his neck and temporal region under the marriage ceremonial canopy, blood was dripping from the sward which Gopal held in his hand, blood was spraying from the neck of Ramesh and soon thereafter, Ramesh Amat died. When Gopal Amat was asked for the reasons for his assaulting then he replied that the deceased did not give him respect as elder brother and he had not invited him for the marriage, hence, he murdered him. Gopal took the sward and went to his house. He along with his relatives Ghasi Amat went to the police station and gave the information. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal FIR was lodged bearing Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2004 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 92 of 2004. He along with his relatives Ghasi Amat went to the police station and gave the information. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal FIR was lodged bearing Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2004 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 92 of 2004. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Gopal Amat, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions as S.T. No. 221 of 2004. The charge was framed and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses to substantiate the charge as levelled against the accused. They are PW 1 Dr. V.K. Pandit, PW 2 Parso Amat, PW 3 Dineshwar Amat, PW 4 Raghunath Manjhi, the informant, PW 5 Ranglal Amat, PW 6 Kartik Amat, PW 7 Kursho Amat, PW 8 Gurucharan Amat, PW 9 Ghashi Amat, PW 10 Lunkeshwar Amat and PW 11 Shri Amrendra Kumar Singh S.I. and I.O. 5. After going through the evidences on records, after examining all records and going through the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Chaibasa convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he is further directed to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal. 6. PW 4 is Raghunath Manjhi, He is the informant and brother-in-law of the deceased. He has stated that his father-in-law house is situated at village Tormunda and he has come to his father-in-law's house on 16.4.2004, the occasion was the marriage of his brother-in-law Ramesh Amat. It is further stated that the occurrence took place at around 2 p.m. on 17.4.2004. He has further deposed that the preparation of marriage procession of Ramesh Amat was going on, when Gopal Amat, elder brother of Ramesh Amat had assaulted with a sword strike on Ramesh Amat as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury on his neck extending to his temporal region. He has further deposed that the preparation of marriage procession of Ramesh Amat was going on, when Gopal Amat, elder brother of Ramesh Amat had assaulted with a sword strike on Ramesh Amat as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury on his neck extending to his temporal region. The blood was oozing from the injuries, sustained by Ramesh Amat and he died. He has further deposed that Gopal had killed Ramesh because he did not give him due respect. He has further deposed that the next day, the police came and recorded his fardbeyan according to his dictation and it was explained to him and he put his signature on it which was marked as Ext.-2/2. He has proved this exhibit. 7. PW 2 is Parso Amat. He has stated in his deposition that the occurrence took place seven months ago on a Saturday. He has further deposed that Ramesh Amat was dressed up for marriage and wore bridegroom's dress. At that time, Gopal Amat came armed with a sward and gave a sword blow at the neck and temporal region of Ramesh Amat. He further deposed that Gopal Amat had told that Ramesh Amat did not pay respect to him. He has further said that the police came on Sunday and arrested Gopal Amat and Gopal Amat had shown the sword to the police in his house. The police had seized the sword and prepared seizure list, on which, he put his thumb impression and also one Ranglal had also put his thumb impression. He has identified the accused standing in the dock. 8. PW 5 is Ranglal Amat. He has deposed that the occurrence took place about eight months ago on a Saturday, it was between 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. and he was present in the courtyard of Ramesh Amat where there was ceremony of marriage at the house of Ramesh Amat. Gopal Amat had inflicted a sharp cut injury on Ramesh Amat due to which Ramesh Amat had died. He further deposed that police came in the village on Sunday and he identified the accused in the dock. In his cross examination, he stated that he does not know as to why Gopal Amat had murdered his brother Ramesh Amat. 9. PW 3 is Dineshwar Amat. He further deposed that police came in the village on Sunday and he identified the accused in the dock. In his cross examination, he stated that he does not know as to why Gopal Amat had murdered his brother Ramesh Amat. 9. PW 3 is Dineshwar Amat. He has also deposed that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.04.2004 on a Saturday at about 2 p.m. He has deposed that he was informed by the villager about the incident. The police had come and prepared inquest report and he has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.-2. He has also proved the signature of Kartik Amat on the inquest report which is marked as Ext.-2/1. 10. PW 1 is Dr. V.K. Pandit. He has deposed that he has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh Amat and found the following:- Head and Neck-Incised wound obliquely placed on the back of the neck and on right side up to the anterior border of right eye cutting all the soft tissue, blood vessels and ¾ area of cervical vertebra at the level of C5 and C6. Size 6” long and 4” deep leaving only 1/5 portion of the Antero lateral aspect of soft tissue of the neck. Abdomen-Stomach-empty, Heart-Both chamber empty, other viscera intact but pale. He has opined as to cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock of injuries caused by sharp and heavy object may be Talwar. He has further opined as to time since death in between 06 to 36 hours. He has further opined that rigor mortis present. He has further opined that injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has proved Postmortem Report, which was prepared by him and bears his signature, which marked Ext.-1. 11. PW 11 is Amrendra Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge & I.O. of the instant case. He has deposed that on that day, Ghashi Amat had come to the police station and informed that his cousin was murdered by his real brother. He made S.D. Entry of the information and then along with other police personnel including S.I. Somya Priyadarshi reached the place of occurrence. He has deposed that on that day, Ghashi Amat had come to the police station and informed that his cousin was murdered by his real brother. He made S.D. Entry of the information and then along with other police personnel including S.I. Somya Priyadarshi reached the place of occurrence. Fardbeyan of Raghunath Manjhi was recorded in the pen and signature of Somya Priyadarshi in his presence, according to dictate of informant, which was explained to the informant who put his signature on the bardbeyan. Fardbeyan is marked (Ext.3). Malti Amat, mother of the deceased has also put her T.I. on the Fardbeyan. Endorsement on the fardbeyan was recorded in his pen and signature which marked (Ext-3/1). Thereafter, inquest report of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in carbon process in his presence in the pen and signature of S.I. Somya Priyadarshi in present of two independent witnesses, namely, Dineshwar Amat and Kartik Amat. Independent witnesses have put their signature on the inquest report, which marked (Ext.-4). Thereafter, he arrested accused in the village and recorded confessional statement of the accused in his pen and signature which marked (Ext.-5) and on the basis of disclosure of the fact and in the direction of the accused, weapon of assault, Sword was discovered from the house of accused in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Ranglal Amat and Parso Amat. Seizure list of bloodstained sword was prepared in presence of independent witnesses namely, Ranglal Amat and Parso Amat, who put their T.I. on seizure list which was prepared in his pen and signature which marked (Ext.-6). Copy of the seizure list was given to the accused and accused had put his signature on the seizure list in receipt of receiving copy of the seizure list. Thereafter, he inspected P.O. He described place of occurrence is Canopy situated in the Angan of the house of Ramesh Amat, deceased in the village Toramunda (Pachpahiya). He has stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in the Canopy and much blood was floated there on the ground. There was a severe cut injuries at the neck and temporal region of the dead body and blood was oozing. Crown of bridegroom was also found near the dead body. Thereafter he reached the police station along with accused and recorded formal F.I.R.. There was a severe cut injuries at the neck and temporal region of the dead body and blood was oozing. Crown of bridegroom was also found near the dead body. Thereafter he reached the police station along with accused and recorded formal F.I.R.. Formal F.I.R. was recorded in the handwriting of literate constable Shankar Ram and bears the signature of P.W. 11, which is marked as (Ext-7). He forwarded the accused to the Court. He sent the discovered sword for examination in Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi. A letter in Carbon process to send the seized sword to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi was prepared in the handwriting of literate constable Shankar Ram and bears the signature of the then S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa Sri Kamal Nayan Pandey, a carbon copy of the letter marked (Ext-8). 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has said that the appellant is not guilty because no motive has been attributed to him. In fact, the I.O. in his evidence has said that there was no enmity between the deceased and the appellant, hence, if there was no enmity and the deceased was also his own brother, there is no reason for the appellant to assault and kill his brother. The killing must be done to some other reasons and by some other persons. Counsel for the defence has also said that the confessional statement of the appellant cannot be relied upon, since it self incriminates him and it has been recorded by the police. He further argued that the seized sword is said to have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but he says, no report was returned from the F.S.L., so in the absence of report on so called murder weapon, the alleged murder does not stand proved, hence appellant is not guilty. 13. Learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State has said that there is no one witness of the instant murder but three and that a most all aspect of the investigation are complete. 13. Learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State has said that there is no one witness of the instant murder but three and that a most all aspect of the investigation are complete. The fardbeyan was taken from an eye witness so the case is water tight and the person giving the farebeyan was also examined in court and gave his evidence which corroborate his fardbeyan so he is most reliable and moreover it does not have any motive to cook up false story against the appellant and the entire incident took place in a private function of marriage which is not denied by anyone. Two other eye witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. The murder weapon, sword has also been seized and proved, hence for all the aforesaid reasons, the appellant conviction and sentence deserve to be upheld. 14. After having gone through the records, evidences of the case and the arguments, it is seen that gist of the case is that there was preparation for the marriage of Ramesh Amat, the deceased and naturally due to that family and relatives would be there and the incident which is the unfortunate assault of the would be bridegroom himself has taken place in the midst of such preparations. Due to it being a time of preparation of marriage, persons were invited for attending the marriage and amongst them is Raghunath Manjhi (P.W. 4) who had come to his father-in-laws place to attend the marriage. He is also the brother-in-law of the deceased and the informant. He has supported his fardbeyan and said that the occurrence took place on 17.4.2004 at 2 p.m. and that Ramesh Amat's elder brother Gopal Amat had assaulted with a sword strike on Ramesh Amat resulting in grievous injury of his neck extending to his temporal region and due to which he died. He has further said the motive for killing Ramesh Amat was because he did not give due respect to Gopal Amat, his elder brother. He has deposed that police came next day and recorded his fardbeyan and he has proved the same as Ext.-2/2. P.W. 2 is Parso Amat. He has also supported the case of the prosecution and deposed similarly as has been deposed by Raghunath Manjhi (P.W.4). He has deposed that police came next day and recorded his fardbeyan and he has proved the same as Ext.-2/2. P.W. 2 is Parso Amat. He has also supported the case of the prosecution and deposed similarly as has been deposed by Raghunath Manjhi (P.W.4). He specifically also said that Gopal Amat had revealed his motive of lack of respect to him by Ramesh Amat is being the reason driving him to commit the heinous assault. In addition, he has said that the police had come next day and Gopal Amat was arrested and police had seized the sword and prepared the seizure list and he and one Ranglal Amat both had affixed their thumb impression on the seizure list of the weapon of assault. P.W. 5 is Ranglal Amat. He has also deposed that the incident took place between 2.30 to 3 p.m. On the day of occurrence he was present in the courtyard of Ramesh Amat and Gopal Amat had inflicted sharp cut injury on Ramesh Amat due to which he had died. So it seems apparent that they were eye witnesses to the assault on Ramesh Amat by Gopal Amat and these three witnesses P.W. 4, 2 and P.W. 5, witnessed the event so the prosecution case is very credible and sustainable. P.W. 1 is Dr. V.K. Pandit, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body and he has opined the cause of death due to haemorrhage and shock for injuries caused by sharp and heavy object, may be Talwar or Sword and also said that the injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has proved the Postmortem Report which has been marked as Ext.-1. So, it is seen that the doctor supports the injuries and has said that it may be cause by sword and more particularly said that the injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, so in that case the sharp cutting weapon of assault was used causing injuries, sufficient to cause death. P.W. 11 Amrendra Kumar Singh is the S.I. and I.O. of the instant case and he has said that he was informed by one Ghashi Amat about the incident that his cousin was murdered by his real brother, so then making the S.D. Entry and taking S.I. Somya Priyadarshi, they reached to the place of occurrence. P.W. 11 Amrendra Kumar Singh is the S.I. and I.O. of the instant case and he has said that he was informed by one Ghashi Amat about the incident that his cousin was murdered by his real brother, so then making the S.D. Entry and taking S.I. Somya Priyadarshi, they reached to the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan of Raghunath Manjhi was recorded in the pen and signature of Somya Priyadarshi and he has proved the fardbeyan, which is marked as Ext.-3. He has further deposed that then the inquest report was prepared in carbon process in the pen and signature of S.I. Somya Priyadarshi in the presence of two independent witnesses, Dineshwar Amat and Kartik Amat and the independent witnesses have put their signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext-4. He has also arrested the accused person and then recorded the confessional statement of the accused in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext-5. He had also seized the sword from the house of the accused in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Ranglal Amat and Parso Amat. The seizure list of the sword, prepared in his pen and signature, was proved by him as Ext.-6, so it is seen that the objection of the defence counsel because no clear motive can be attributed is answered by the fact that the motive may have not been very substantial but apparently the elder brother harbored some negative feelings which he considered as being lack of respect shown to him by his younger brother and he has also said that he did not even invite him for the marriage and so even though it may appear trivial but this was the reason given by the accused/appellant himself to have committed the murder. Counsel for the defence has also said that the confessional statement of the appellant cannot be relied since it self incriminatory to which it is answered that in that case there was three witnesses who have already witnessed the incident directly and their version of events would be sufficient and the confessional statement is not needed at all. Counsel for the defence has also said that the confessional statement of the appellant cannot be relied since it self incriminatory to which it is answered that in that case there was three witnesses who have already witnessed the incident directly and their version of events would be sufficient and the confessional statement is not needed at all. However, a reference is made to it because it seems to have made on just the next day in the village when other witnesses to the event and family and relatives and others from the village would have been present and it does not appear to be tainted or suspicious in nature. Regarding his argument that no report on the sword was returned from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the eye witnesses account of the direct witnesses would be sufficient. 15. Therefore, based on these records, evidences and reasonings, the conviction of the appellant Gopal Amat, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine amount, further under go Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is upheld. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed