ORDER : This Criminal Appeal is directed against the the judgment of conviction dated 14.02.2006 and order of sentence dated 18.02.2006 passed by Shri Arun Kumar Datta, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Ghatshila in Sessions Trial Case No.103 of 2000 (Split up record), arising out of Musabani P.S. Case No.39 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No.244 of 1999, whereby and where under the appellant has been held guilty under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307/34 of the IPC and S.I. for one month under Section 341/34 IPC with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08/07/1999 at about 10.00 a.m., the informant-Arsu Murmu (P.W.2) along with her son-Anta Murmu (deceased) and her halwaha (ploughman) Burha Murmu (P.W.3) came to plough her field situated at Mariyadih, Bale Murmu (appellant) along with co-accused, Sanjay Murmu armed with arrows and tangi came there and objected the ploughing of field and as such, an altercation took place in between both the parties. During the course of altercation, the accused-Bale Murmu shot an arrow which got penetrated on the left thigh of Anta Murmu. The accused, Bale Murmu shot another arrow on the left side of chest of Anta Murmu. After receiving injuries, Anta Murmu started running towards the east side. Thereafter, the informant asked the accused persons as to why they have shot arrows on the deceased and then the accused, Sanjay Murmu assaulted with a Tangi on her abdomen. The informant raised alarm upon which the villagers started gathering there and then the accused persons fled away from there. In the meantime, the daughter-in-law of the informant, namely, Manko Murmu (P.W.1) and the daughter of the informant, namely, Budhu Murmu came there and saw the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant proceeded towards the place where her son, Anta Murmu had gone and when she reached near a banyan tree, she found the dead body of the deceased lying there. 3. Thereafter, the informant proceeded towards the place where her son, Anta Murmu had gone and when she reached near a banyan tree, she found the dead body of the deceased lying there. 3. That on the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, a First Information Report being Musabani P.S. Case No.39 of 1999 was registered under Sections 302/341/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. After investigation of the case, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons, namely, Bale Murmu (present appellant) and Sanjay Murmu. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was numbered as Sessions Trial Case No.103 of 2000 (split up record). 4. Charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant and the co-accused, Sanjay Murmu to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses including the I.O. and two Doctors. P.W.1 is Manko Murmu. P.W.2 is Arsu Murmu (informant). P.W.3 is Karan Mardi. P.W.4 is Hidayat Hussain is a witness of seizure of bows, arrows and tangi. P.W.5 is Noori, another witness of seizure of bows, arrows and tangi. P.W.6 is Rajender Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.7 is Dr. Nawal Kishore Sinha who was posted as Medical Officer, In-charge, P.H.C., Ghatshila and P.W.8 is Dr. Swapan Kumar Majhi who had examined the injuries on the informant and he has also proved the injury report. The defence has examined none. 6. The learned Trial Court who tried the case examined 7 prosecution witnesses. After examination of the 7 witnesses, the present appellant absconded from the trial and the case was proceeded against the co-accused, Sanjay Murmu. This accused was convicted under Sections 302/34 and allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code. 7. That after the present appellant was apprehended, a split up case, numbered as S.T. Case No.103 of 2000 (split up record) was committed to the Court of Sessions. 8. That after hearing the arguments and considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the present appellant, Bale Murmu under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. That after the present appellant was apprehended, a split up case, numbered as S.T. Case No.103 of 2000 (split up record) was committed to the Court of Sessions. 8. That after hearing the arguments and considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the present appellant, Bale Murmu under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, Bale Murmu was convicted imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sections 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 9. Mr. Mahatha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds :- (a) The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.2 and in his statements, vital contradictions are there. Conviction cannot be based upon the evidence of P.W.2, a witness and the informant of this case. (b) There are major contradictions in the First Information Report and in the oral evidence as well as in the 'fardbeyan'. The informant has specifically stated that she saw the dead-body of his son (deceased), but in oral evidence, she specifically stated in the examination-in-chief that she heard death of her son in the Hospital and, therefore, basing upon such evidence, conviction cannot be sustained. (c) P.W.3 has also given altogether a different story and in the testimony, he specifically stated that Sanjay gave the arrow blow and not the present appellant and, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained basing upon two eye-witnesses. (d) P.W.4 and P.W.5, the seizure witnesses only proved the seizure list and their testimonies do not disclose the weapons like arrow, bow and axe which were recovered from particular accused persons in their presence. They also admitted in the cross-examination that bow, arrow and axe were kept in the Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police obtained their signature, therefore, the Court should not have relied upon the seizure-list (Ext.6). (e) P.W.2 is a partition and interested witness. P.W.3 is the servant of P.W.2 and is an interested witness and therefore, his evidence should be discarded in toto. The Sub-Inspector of Police obtained their signature, therefore, the Court should not have relied upon the seizure-list (Ext.6). (e) P.W.2 is a partition and interested witness. P.W.3 is the servant of P.W.2 and is an interested witness and therefore, his evidence should be discarded in toto. (f) The independent witnesses were available, but they were not examined by the prosecution, which is fatal for the prosecution case. Mr. Mahatha learned counsel for the appellant relying upon above grounds submits that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be released forthwith. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently argued that there is no illegallity and infirmity committed by the trial court. P.W.2, an eye-witness specifically stated implicating the present appellant who assaulted the deceased with arrow. The other co-accused person assaulted the P.W.2 with tangi on belly. The Doctor (P.W.7) conducted the post-mortem examination and found the injuries of arrow mark on the vital part of the body and also the another Doctor, P.W.8 proved the injury report of the injured witness (P.W.2) which was caused on the vital part of the body i.e. belly and, therefore, the instant Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court has examined the evidences and documents available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. 12. Principle has been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that on the ground of interestedness, the witnesses cannot be thrown out, but their evidence should be scrutinized properly. By taking into account, the above principle, this Court examined the evidence of the witnesses. 13. Dr. Nawal Kishore Sinha (P.W.7) had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased-Anta Murmu and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased. (i) Sharp cutting wound on the left side of middle of the chest. Arrow was incised in the chest -1”X1/2”X4” (ii) Sharp cutting wound on the left side of the thigh. Arrow was inserted in the wound -1½”X1”X5”. On Dissection :-Dr. (P.W.7) has found :- (i) Arrow entered in the left side of chest and piercing the chest ruptured the left side of lung. (ii) Arrow entered in the left side of the thigh rupture the muscles and vessels. According to the Doctor, all the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Arrow was inserted in the wound -1½”X1”X5”. On Dissection :-Dr. (P.W.7) has found :- (i) Arrow entered in the left side of chest and piercing the chest ruptured the left side of lung. (ii) Arrow entered in the left side of the thigh rupture the muscles and vessels. According to the Doctor, all the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The doctor has opined that the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by above injuries with sharp cutting weapon (arrows). The doctor has further opined that death occurred within six hours of post-mortem examination. The doctor (P.W.7) has also proved the post-mortem report (Ext.7) in his evidence. 14. P.W. 1 (Manko Murmu) is the witness who reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. She deposed that on hearing noise, she reached at the place of occurrence and saw that Sanjay was armed with Tangi and Bale Murmu was armed with arrow. P.W.2 (Arsu Murmu) is an injured eye-witness of the occurrence. She deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 10.00 a.m., her servant Bula was ploughing the field and the deceased was with him. She further deposed that she was standing at the village road. In the meantime, Sanjay armed with Kulhari and Bale armed with bow and arrow came on the field. Bale shot with arrow on the left thigh and the chest of the deceased. Sanjay Murmu assaulted with kulhari (axe) on the abdomen of this witness. P.W.3 (Karan Mardi) is the another eye-witness of the occurrence. He deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was with the deceased. Sanjay armed with bow and arrow and Bale armed with Tangi came there. Sanjay shot with arrow on the chest and thigh of the deceased and consequently, he died. P.W.4 (Hidayat Hussain) and P.W.5 (Noori) are the seizure witnesses and they have proved their signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exts.1 and 1/1. However, during cross-examination, they deposed that bow, arrow and Tangi were kept at Police Station from before. P.W.6 (Rajeshwar Singh) is the investigating officer of the case who has proved the 'fardbeyan', formal F.I.R. and endorsement on the F.I.R. which were marked as Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 respectively. He deposed that he had arrested the accused, Bale Murmu with arrow and Sanjay Murmu with Tangi and prepared seizure-list in presence of two independent witnesses. P.W.6 (Rajeshwar Singh) is the investigating officer of the case who has proved the 'fardbeyan', formal F.I.R. and endorsement on the F.I.R. which were marked as Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 respectively. He deposed that he had arrested the accused, Bale Murmu with arrow and Sanjay Murmu with Tangi and prepared seizure-list in presence of two independent witnesses. He further proved the inquest report and seizure list which were marked as Exhibit-5 and 6 respectively. P.W.7 (Dr. Nawal Kishore Sinha) is the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead-body of Anta Murmu. He found two arrow injuries on the dead body of the deceased, one on the left side of middle chest and other on the left side of the thigh. He opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage caused by above injuries with sharp cutting weapon. He further proved the post-mortem report which is marked as Exhibit-7. P.W.8 (Swapan Kumar Manjhi) is the another doctor who had examined the informant, Arshu Murmu. He found one penetrating wound on the left side of abdomen. He further opined that the injury was grievous in nature and caused by sharp object may be possible by Tangi. He further proved the injury report as Exhibit-8. 15. From scanning of the above evidences, there is no dispute that P.W.2, an injured eye-witness, saw the occurrence and specifically stated that the arrow blow was given by the present appellant on the chest and thigh and she specifically stated that the other accused person, Sanjay gave tangi blow to her belly. She further stated that after hearing hullah, P.W.1, P.W.2 and others came to the spot where P.W.3 was present. P.W.1 specifically corroborated the statement of P.W2 and she had specifically deposed in examination-in-chief that she had seen the accused/appellant, Bale Murmu armed with arrow and Sanjay armed with tangi at the place of occurrence. Dr. (P.W.7) specifically stated that injuries were sufficient to cause death to the deceased as arrow was found inserted in the body. P.W.8, another doctor who also proved injury report of the P.W.2 he specifically stated that the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting object. 16. PW.3 was an illiterate villager and was not a reliable witness and, therefore, this Court discard the evidence of P.W.3. 17. P.W.8, another doctor who also proved injury report of the P.W.2 he specifically stated that the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting object. 16. PW.3 was an illiterate villager and was not a reliable witness and, therefore, this Court discard the evidence of P.W.3. 17. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the entire evidence, the present appellant is guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Considering the evidence of P.W.2, an injured eye-witness, the injury to her was caused by Sanjay, the co-accused and there is no material that the present appellant acted with the co-accused, Sanjay, this Court is not inclined to convict the present appellant under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, this Court acquitted the present appellant under Section 341/34 of the IPC and convict the present appellant under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 19. With the modification, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.