JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2004 and 11.02.2004 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Chaibasa, in connection with Sessions Trial No.178 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No.233 of 2003, arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No. 13 of 2003, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. No fine amount is imposed on him. 2. Prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of one Guruwari Doraiburu, PW2, is that on 26.06.2003, at around 8:00 p.m., her husband was sitting beside the stove in the courtyard and cooking meat. Birsa Doraiburu, son of Surja was also sitting there on a cot in the courtyard. She was also sitting on the floor in the courtyard. All of a sudden, Birsa Doraiburu, s/o Late Sulub Doraiburu (appellant herein) came with an axe in his hand with the intention of killing his husband and assaulted her husband, due to which, skull of her husband got fractured and blood started flowing out. Her husband fell unconscious and dropped to the floor beside the stove, due to which, his right hand was also burnt. Appellant-accused Birsa Doraiburu fled away after the assault with the axe. She and other Birsa Doraiburu, son of Surja raised alarm, at which, other villagers, namely, Siram Doraiburu, PW8; Sadhucharan Doraiburu, PW9 and others gathered and they have been informed about the incident. She has further narrated that they are having land dispute with the appellant-accused. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Guruwari Doraiburu, PW2, Tonto P.S. Case No. 13 of 2003 under Sections 447, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. 4. The police, after due investigation, submitted chargesheet under Sections 447, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.178 of 2003. 5. Charge under Section 302, IPC against appellant Birsa Doraiburu was framed, which was read over and explained to the appellant-accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. 5. Charge under Section 302, IPC against appellant Birsa Doraiburu was framed, which was read over and explained to the appellant-accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses and proved the documents like fardbeyan, inquest report, post mortem report etc. Learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. PW2, Guruwari Doraiburu, who is the wife of the deceased as well as informant, has deposed that on the particular night between 7:00-8:00 p.m. incident occurred. At that time, she was in the house. Her husband was sitting in the courtyard and cooking meat. Birsa Doraiburu, son of Surja was also sitting in the courtyard. Just then Birsa Doraiburu, s/o Late Sulub Doraiburu, entered into the courtyard carrying an axe in his hand and assaulted her husband. He hit on the head of her husband, due to which, her husband fell down in front of stove, due to which, his hand was also burnt. Blood began flowing from the head, then Birsa Doraiburu, son of Surja raised alarm, at which, many persons from the village came. Cause of the assault is that there was a land dispute between the accused and her husband going on for a very long time. She has further deposed that Munda, Dakua and others came. She saw her husband was unconscious and she informed the police regarding the incident. The police came at 9:30 a.m. She narrated the incident in Ho language and the village headman (Munda) translated it into Hindi language. After the Munda had explained, she gave her thumb impression. She took her husband along with the police to the hospital at Chaibasa. Her husband died on Friday in the hospital itself. In the cross-examination, she has stated that during the incident, she was in the house and that just before the incident, Birsa, son of Surja was sitting in the courtyard. The utensil for cooking meat was on the stove. She had seen the accused-appellant approaching and carrying an axe, which was around 1 ½ ft. long and made of iron. Birsa-appellant assaulted three times and then he fled away with the axe. She has further deposed that Birsa-appellant had assaulted on the head of her husband only. The utensil for cooking meat was on the stove. She had seen the accused-appellant approaching and carrying an axe, which was around 1 ½ ft. long and made of iron. Birsa-appellant assaulted three times and then he fled away with the axe. She has further deposed that Birsa-appellant had assaulted on the head of her husband only. She has further stated that she does not know whether there was any case going on regarding the land dispute or whether any panchayati was ever done. 8. PW4, Birsa Doraiburu, son of Surja, has stated that the incident is of Thursday. It had not become night as yet but it was evening. He was in the house of Guruwari and Harinath to have a food. Harinath was sitting in the courtyard. Harinath had put the cooking utensil on the stove. Just then, Birsa Doraiburu, s/o Late Sulub Doraiburu carrying an axe in his hand entered and assaulted Harinath on his head. Seeing the assault, he ran away with fear. Police had come on Friday and had questioned him. He had given a similar statement to the police. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that when he saw the assault taking place, he became fearful and ran away. He has deposed that he had seen the first assault and when the second assault was being made, in fear he ran away. He does not know the reason for assault. 9. PW5, Bagun Doraiburu, has stated that he is the Munda of Barakochiya village. The incident is about 67 months ago and he was in his house. One Sadhucharan informed him that Birsa has assaulted Harinath. On receiving information, he went to the house of Harinath and on enquiry from the wife of Harinath, she stated that Birsa had assaulted her husband with an axe and her husband Harinath was then unconscious. There was injury on the head. The police had come to the village on Friday and taken the statement of Guruwari, which she had given in the Ho language and he had translated it into Hindi language and explained to her, which Guruwari had found correct and then she has given her thumb impression and he had also signed on it. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.1/4. He has then deposed that Harinath was taken to hospital. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.1/4. He has then deposed that Harinath was taken to hospital. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had received the information at 8:30 p.m. and just then gone to the house of the Harinath. Harinath was on the cot and unconscious and cloth was tied on his head. Police had come at 8:00 a.m. He does not know why Birsa had assaulted and does not know whether there was any dispute regarding the land. 10. PW3, Rajesh Purty, is a witness of inquest report and he has proved his signature on the inquest report, which is marked as Ext. 1/2. He has also proved the signature of Madhusudan Sundi in the inquest report, which is also marked as Ext.1/3. 11. PW6, Madhusudan Sundi, is also a witness of inquest report and he has proved his signature on the inquest report, which is marked as Ext. 1/3 and he has proved the signature of Rajesh Purty on the inquest report, which is marked as Ext.1/2. 12. PW8, Siram Doraiburu, is a co-villager. He has deposed that incident is of 56 months ago. On Thursday at night, on hearing the crying of wife of Harinath, he went to her house. He saw the cut and wound of Harinath by axe. He had wounds on his head. A lot of blood was flowing. Birsa, son of Surja, informed him that Birsa, son of Sulub had assaulted Harinath with Tangi and he had witnessed the assault. Even wife of Harinath told him that Birsa, son of Sulub had assaulted her husband. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the assault and that Birsa, son of Surja had come to his house and informed him. It was 8:00 p.m. As soon as he had heard, he had reached the house of Harinath. He had seen Harinath on the cot. 13. PW7, Dr. Umendra Prasad, who has conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Harinath Doraiburu. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 27.6.2003 he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. It was 8:00 p.m. As soon as he had heard, he had reached the house of Harinath. He had seen Harinath on the cot. 13. PW7, Dr. Umendra Prasad, who has conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Harinath Doraiburu. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 27.6.2003 he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. On that date, he conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Harinath Doraiburu, S/o Late Pundu Doraiburu of village Bada Kuchiya, PS Tonto, District W. Singhbhum and found the following ante mortem injuries: “External: (i) Lacerated wound on scalp left side 3”x 1 ½” x ¾”. (ii) Cut injury on scalp right side 2 ½” x1”x ½” bleeding from ear and nose. Burned scar below the right elbow 6”x 4”x skin deep. On Dissection: Skull Blood in creneal cavity with brain matter lacerated. Chest Heart Both chamber empty. Lung Liver Spleen N.A.D. Other viscera Intact. Stomach and Bladder Empty.” He opined as to cause of the death is due to haemorrhage and shock. Nature of weapon-Hard and blunt substance and sharp cutting substance, may be Tangi. Time since death Within 12 hours. He further opined that injuries are sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. He proved and confirmed P.M. report, which was prepared by him in his pen and signature, which marked (Ext.3). In his cross-examination, he stated that injury No.1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and no weapon was produced before him. 14. PW1, Mikhael Tigga is officer-in-charge of the PS. He has stated that on 27.06.2003 he was posted at Tonto police station as officer-in-charge. He received information at about 6:30 a.m. on rumor that some one was seriously injured in village Barakochiya. He made station diary entry and proceeded towards the village along with ASI Hari Narayan Ram and police force. He has deposed that on reaching the house of Harinath, he found Harinath in injured and unconscious state. He was not in a position to speak. He recorded the fardbeyan of wife of the injured person, namely, Guruwari Doraiburu. According to her narration, in presence of village headman (Munda), namely, Bagun Doraiburu, fardbeyan was read over and explained to her and on finding it correct, she put her thumb impression on it. Bagun Doraiburu had also put his signature on the fardbeyan. He recorded the fardbeyan of wife of the injured person, namely, Guruwari Doraiburu. According to her narration, in presence of village headman (Munda), namely, Bagun Doraiburu, fardbeyan was read over and explained to her and on finding it correct, she put her thumb impression on it. Bagun Doraiburu had also put his signature on the fardbeyan. PW1 has proved the fardbeyan, which was written in his pen and contained his signature, which has been marked as Ext.1. He has also proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan and formal FIR, which was also in his hand writing and contained his signature and which were marked as Ext. 1/1 and Ext.2. He has further stated that he had submitted charge sheet after receiving supervision note of his high officers. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he had reached the village Barakochiya, he had found the injured lying in a cot with head injury. 15. PW10, Ayaat Ahmad, is an Advocate Clerk and a formal witness. He has proved the inquest report, prepared by Mohan Lal, S.I, which is marked as Ext.4. 16. Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there is an absence of motive on the part of the appellant and nothing regarding enmity exists because nothing on that kind has been brought on record by the witnesses, except the wife of the deceased stated in the fardbeyan that there was a prior land dispute, but she does not say so in her deposition. Even PW4 and PW5 do not know the reasons for assault or whether there was any dispute over the land. So in absence of motive, the murder of the deceased cannot be attributed to the appellant. Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that there is no seizure of the weapon of the assault or the axe that has been alleged to have been used and neither it has been produced in Court. In absence of weapon of assault and its non-production in Court, this also adds another gap in the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused or appellant cannot be established. In absence of weapon of assault and its non-production in Court, this also adds another gap in the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused or appellant cannot be established. It has further been argued by the learned amicus curiae that it is on record that the incident is of 26.6.2003 at around 8:00 p.m. and that the police came at 9:30 a.m., which would mean the next day and then the husband was taken to hospital where he died during treatment. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that the death was due to late treatment. Injury was not serious but they took the husband to hospital after more than 12 hours, which resulted in his death. If he had been taken earlier, no death could have occurred and then, no case would be established against the appellant. 17. Learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that this case is very convenient to prove because there are two witnesses and that too reliable witnesses to the incident i.e. PW2 & PW4, who have witnessed the incident on their own eyes and are reliable and natural witnesses. Hence, the case is fully established against the appellant. Moreover, learned A.P.P. has further submitted that the husband was found severely injured in the house and then taken to hospital and nobody has alleged that any other person than the appellant is responsible. Hence, he is guilty and conviction needs to be uphold. 18. After going through the arguments, records of the case and in the facts and circumstances, we have seen the following: First and foremost, of course, there are two eye witnesses to the incident. One is PW2, wife of the deceased, who was there on the fateful night at about 7:00 p.m.8:00 p.m. in her house, which is most natural situation of her to be in. It is night and she would be engaged in household chores; so she was in the house at that time. Other witness PW4, Birsa Doraiburu, son of Surja, who was also in the house. It seems that he was a friend of the couple and meat was being cooked by husband-Harinath; so he may have been a close friend of the couple or invited for a special means. Other witness PW4, Birsa Doraiburu, son of Surja, who was also in the house. It seems that he was a friend of the couple and meat was being cooked by husband-Harinath; so he may have been a close friend of the couple or invited for a special means. So it was in their presence and they have testified in their depositions that the assault by the appellant was made on late Harinath; so they are wholly natural and reliable witnesses to the act of assault. So it will be difficult to discount their versions of events. Also both of them have stated that police came on the next day i.e. on Friday. They have stated that they came on immediate alarm and saw the situation soon after the assault. PW5 is Bagun Doraiburu. He is a responsible person of the village. He is the Munda (traditional chief or headman of the village). He has deposed that the informant told him about the assault and he saw the injury on the head. He also supports that the police came on Friday and that being able to understand Hindi language as well as his own tribal or indigenous language, he translates orally, fardbeyan of the informant into Hindi, on which, he has also put his signature, which he has also proved as Ext.1/4. It also seems that in natural sequence of events, he has translated, what the wife has to say in the tribal or indigenous language, into Hindi language. So he is, in fact, corroborator of the prosecution story. Similarly, PW8, Siram Doraiburu, is a covillager. He has deposed that on hearing the crying of wife of Harinath, he went to her house or place of occurrence. There he saw the wound on the head of Harinath and also saw Birsa, son of Surja, who had also witnessed the assault and this Birsa informed him that Birsa, son of Sulub had assaulted Harinath with axe (Tangi). So we have two witnesses, who have supported the prosecution story soon after the assault and they are believable witnesses. PW7, Dr. Umendra Prasad, who has conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Harinath Doraiburu has deposed that he found the aforesaid ante mortem injuries and also given his opinion that cause of the death is due to haemorrhage and shock. PW7, Dr. Umendra Prasad, who has conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Harinath Doraiburu has deposed that he found the aforesaid ante mortem injuries and also given his opinion that cause of the death is due to haemorrhage and shock. Nature of weapon is hard and blunt substance and sharp cutting substance, may be Tangi. He has also confirmed the post mortem report. PW1, Mikhael Tigga is officer-in-charge of the PS and also the IO of the case. He has deposed that on reaching the house of Harinath, he found Harinath in injured and unconscious state and was not in a position to speak. He recorded the fardbeyan of wife of the injured person in presence of village headman (Munda) and that it was read over and explained to her and on finding it correct, she put her thumb impression on it and that Bagun Doraiburu had also put his signature on the fardbeyan. PW1, Mikhael Tigga has proved the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.1. 19. In view of the discussions made above and evidences available on record, we do not feel inclined to set aside the conviction and order of sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Chaibasa. 20. So after having gone through the records, the depositions, the arguments and in the facts and circumstances, the appellant's conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Chaibasa, in connection with Sessions Trial No.178 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No.233 of 2003, arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No. 13 of 2003 is upheld. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.