JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08th June 2006 and 09th June, 2006 respectively, passed by Sri Anand Kumar Gupta, the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Gumla in Session Trial No. 63 of 2004, arising out of Raidih P.S. Case No. 61/2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 790 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court having found the sole appellant guilty for committing murder, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution as per written statement of the informant Vikash Mallah @ Jhora is that at the night of 11.12.2003 he slept with his family members in his house. The mother of the informant, the deceased namely Lodo Devi, three brothers, one sister and father were sleeping. The informant was sleeping in another room. In the morning at about 5 O'clock on 12.12.2003 his younger brother Krishna raised alarm, hearing which, he woke up and went to his mother's bedroom and saw that his father Topa Mallah @ Jhora was standing with an iron sabal (an iron crowbar or lever) in his hand, which was blood stained. His mother (namely Lodo Devi) was lying dead on the bed with head injury. The informant went to his aunt (elder aunt/Bari Maa), namely, Sukra Devi and told her that his father killed his mother by giving a blow from iron Sabal. Then, his aunt (elder aunt) and nearby people assembled hearing hulla. The persons residing in nearby areas/neighbours, then caught hold of his father. According to the informant, the bone of contention between his mother and father were as to why his sister Asha Kumari has been sent to Delhi for working. On the basis of the said written report, an FIR being Raidih P.S. Case No. 61 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 790 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Session. Charge was framed under Section 302 IPC against the sole accused, which was read over and explained to him, but the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 4. 3. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Session. Charge was framed under Section 302 IPC against the sole accused, which was read over and explained to him, but the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case, twelve witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution, who are P.W.1- Md. Kamruddin Khan, PW.2- Keshwari Sahu, P.W.3- Vikash Mallah, the informant of this case, P.W.4- Bahura Mallah, P.W.5-Sukuaro Devi, P.W.6- Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, P.W.7- Krishna Mallah, P.W.8- Arjun Mallah, P.W.9- Rewati Devi, P.W.10- Kailash Mallah, P.W.11-Shyam Prasad and P.W.12- Md. Saiyad Ansari. Some documents were also marked as Exhibits. 5. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. The trial court, after hearing the arguments on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, vide judgment dated 08.06.2006, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 7. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2006 and 09.06.2006 respectively, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Addl. P.P. We have also scanned the evidences and gone through the lower court records. 9. The counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and P.W.-7 cannot be said to be an eye witness, as he was sent outside the room by the appellant before the assault was committed. It is also submitted that the appellant was of unsound mind and thus he is entitled to be acquitted. He also submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case as there were differences between the appellant and the informant. He lastly submits that the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses and therefore, their evidences cannot be relied upon. 10. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, as the evidences of the witnesses are consistent. He lastly submits that the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses and therefore, their evidences cannot be relied upon. 10. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, as the evidences of the witnesses are consistent. He further submits that inspite of the differences between the informant and the appellant, P.W.7- the younger son of the appellant, is the eye witness to the occurrence. He also submits that all other witnesses categorically stated that the appellant was seen with the murder weapon, which was blood stained, immediately after the occurrence and the deceased was lying dead. He also submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was mentally unsound. He lastly submits that in view of the evidences gathered in this case, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. In this case, as mentioned earlier, there are 12 prosecution witnesses who have been examined. P.W.-1 Md. Kamruddin has stated that he reached the house of the informant after hearing scream. He saw the mother of the informant sustained head injury and was lying in bed. He further saw that the accused being confined by the persons present there. He also deposed that the appellant was possessing an iron rod, which was blood stained. He stated that the informant told him that his father has murdered his mother. The police prepared the seizure list in his presence and he has put his signature upon it, which was marked as Exts. 1 and 1/1. He also stated that his house is hardly 100 yards from the house of the accused. He further stated that though he has not seen the actual assault but had seen the blood stained weapon, which was seized in his presence and he had also seen the accused-appellant, who was kept in confinement. He also stated that several other persons were also present there. P.W.-2 is Keshwari Sahu, who deposed that he also reached the place of occurrence after hearing scream and saw the deceased with injury on her head. He stated that the appellant was possessing iron sawal (iron rod) which was blood stained. He also got information from the informant about the occurrence, who told that the present appellant has committed the murder. This witness is also a seizure list witness. He stated that the appellant was possessing iron sawal (iron rod) which was blood stained. He also got information from the informant about the occurrence, who told that the present appellant has committed the murder. This witness is also a seizure list witness. P.W.-3 is Vikash Mallah, who is the informant in this case. This witness stated that he was sleeping in another room and his younger brother-Krishna woke up him and he went to the other room and saw the appellant (his father) standing with an iron sawal in his hand, which was blood stained and his mother dead and from her head, blood was oozing out. This witness went on to his aunt and narrated the story. The villagers assembled there on hearing hue and cry. He stated that he along with Kamruddin confined the appellant and tied him with a post. He also stated that the police arrived there and thereafter seized blood stained straw. He admitted that he had put his thumb impression after reading his statement. He stated that he did not see the actual assault and he also stated that he has differences with his father. P.W.-4 is Bahuran Mallah, who deposed in the same line as that of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He further state that he had seen the appellant with the murder weapon in his hand and the deceased was lying dead. He further went on to say that this appellant always used to quarrel with his wife for the reason that the daughter of this appellant was residing in Delhi, which was not liked by this appellant and there was dispute amongst them on this issue. P.W.-5 Sukuaro Devi, is related to the deceased and the informant. She also reached the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry and saw the deceased lying dead and the appellant was standing at the place of occurrence with sawal (murder weapon). According to her also, the reason for dispute was that the daughter of the deceased and this appellant had gone to Delhi, who was not being traced, for which often the appellant and the deceased used to quarrel. She further stated that the appellant was not in his proper sense and always used to quarrel with several persons. P.W.6 is Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased. She further stated that the appellant was not in his proper sense and always used to quarrel with several persons. P.W.6 is Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased. (I) lacerated injury on right parital region of the skull with depressed fracture and laceration of brain - 3” x1” x 1.5” (II) Lacerated injury just behind the right pina 1.5”x1”x 2” with fracture of right mastoid bone with laceration of brain. (III) Lacerated injury on right zygoma with fracture of zygomatic bone 1.5”x0.5”x1”. The Doctor has opined that the cause of death of the deceased is because of above antemortem injury combined together causing head injury. He also opined that the above injury may be possible by sawal blows. P.W.7 Krishna Mallah is the eye witness and is minor. The court after being satisfied with his capacity to understand has come to a conclusion that he is capable to depose only thereafter his deposition was recorded. This witness is the younger son of the appellant and the brother of the informant. He was sleeping with his mother. He stated that in the morning when he woke up, his father sent him out of the room for urinating and shut the door of the room. Thereafter his father had given blow on his mother's head by sabal, resulting into her death. He stated that blood was oozing out from the head of his mother. He also stated that he woke up his brother Vikash Mallah (the informant). He also stated that his uncle had come to the place of occurrence. In cross examination, he stated that when his father was assaulting his mother, he opened the door and went inside and saw the occurrence. P.W.-8: is Arjun Mallah, who also deposed that he had seen the deceased lying dead when he went to her house. He also stated that the appellant was standing with sabal in his hand and he was confined. He also gave the reason of quarrel between the husband and the wife as it was narrated by other witnesses. This witness clearly stated that the appellant was not mad. He further stated that he had not seen the actual assault but he had seen the appellant standing with sabal. He has put his signature on paper in police station. He also gave the reason of quarrel between the husband and the wife as it was narrated by other witnesses. This witness clearly stated that the appellant was not mad. He further stated that he had not seen the actual assault but he had seen the appellant standing with sabal. He has put his signature on paper in police station. P.W.-9 is Khebi Devi, who deposed that she had seen the appellant with the murder-weapon. She further stated that the relationship between the appellant and the informant was not good and that may be the cause to implicate the appellant in this case. P.W.10- Kailash Mallah, who reached the house of the appellant after hearing hue and cry and narrated that he had seen the deceased lying dead and the blood was oozing out from her head and the informant told him that his father has committed the murder of the deceased. This witness is a signatory to the inquest report. P.W.-11 is Shyam Prasad, who deposed that he heard the occurrence from the informant and hearing this, he went to the house of the informant and saw the deceased was lying dead. He also stated that he saw blood oozing out from her head and the appellant was standing there possessing a sabal, which was blood stained. This witness is a signatory to the arrest memo. This witness has stated that the mental condition of the appellant was not good and the appellant has also assaulted a child earlier with an axe but for the said occurrence, no case was lodged. P.W.12 - Syed Ansari: This witness is the I.O. of the case. He stated that on 12.12.2003 at about 8 O’clock in the morning, after receiving rumor that a woman has been killed in Bargitand village, he reached the place of occurrence. He stated that he made entry in the Station Diary. On reaching the place of occurrence, he recorded the fardbeyan of Vikash Mallah and obtained his signature. He also confirmed that Arjun Mallah has put his signature on the fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.7. He also exhibited formal FIR (Ext.8) and the endorsement as Ext.7/1. He stated that the accused was confined by the villagers. On reaching the place of occurrence, he recorded the fardbeyan of Vikash Mallah and obtained his signature. He also confirmed that Arjun Mallah has put his signature on the fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.7. He also exhibited formal FIR (Ext.8) and the endorsement as Ext.7/1. He stated that the accused was confined by the villagers. He also stated that he prepared the seizure list, which is marked as Ext.9 and the Inquest Report was also prepared in presence of Bahuran Mallah and Kailash Mallah, which is marked as Ext.10. He further stated that he also prepared the arrest memo, which is marked as Ext.11, he seized the blood stained sabal in present of Kamruddin Khan and Keshari Sahu and prepared the seizure list, which is marked as Ext.9/1. He stated that blood stained straw was also seized, which is marked as Ext.9/2. He thereafter, recorded the statements of witnesses and gave the description of the place of occurrence. He admitted that the blood was spread at the place of occurrence and the bed appeared to be in a pool of blood. 12. Thus, from analyzing the evidences, we find that the witness Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 reached the place of occurrence soon after hearing the scream and they saw the deceased lying in pool of blood with head injury. They also saw the appellant was standing near the deceased with sabal, whom the witnesses and others took in confinement. There is no contradiction in the statements of any of these witnesses on the aforesaid point. P.W.3 is the informant, who states that he was sleeping in the next room and his younger brother woke him up and told him about the said occurrence. He immediately went in the room and saw the deceased lying in the pool of blood, ‘dead’ and this appellant was standing with blood stained sabal. There were no other person in the room, except the appellant and the deceased. The child witness (P.W.7) is the eye witness and as per his evidence, it is clear that he was sent out by the appellant from the room but he sneaked into the room when the assault was being made by this appellant on the deceased. There were no other person in the room, except the appellant and the deceased. The child witness (P.W.7) is the eye witness and as per his evidence, it is clear that he was sent out by the appellant from the room but he sneaked into the room when the assault was being made by this appellant on the deceased. In his cross-examination, the defence has taken out this point, which suggests that this witness (P.W.-7) was telling the truth, which makes him an eye witness. There is no contradiction in the statement of this witness also. Medical evidence also support the prosecution case. 13. Thus, from the aforesaid evidences, led by the prosecution, it is quite clear that the appellant has assaulted the deceased, resulting into her death. According to the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, the appellant was of unsound mind. This submission has not been supported by any cogent evidence and there is not a single chit of paper, which suggests that the appellant was of unsound mind. Though, two of the witnesses have stated that the appellant was not in a stable state of mind but one of the witness P.W.8 stated that he was not mad. Mere statement of any witness is not sufficient to declare a person to be of unsound mind. There must be more cogent evidence in support of such defence, which is missing in the instant case. The ocular evidence clearly matches the medical evidence, as the Doctor has found injury on the parital region of the skull and laceration of brain with fracture of right mastoid bone and the prosecution witnesses are consistent that the assault was made on the head of the deceased, which has been thus proved. 14. Thus, it can be safely held that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, which does not entitle acquittal of the accused-appellant. This appeal lacks merit and is thus dismissed. 15. The appellant is already in custody. He is to serve out rest of the sentence. 16. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.