JUDGMENT Ananda Sen, J. (CAV) - The sole appellant has been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. It has been ordered that in case of nonpayment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 2. Against the said Judgment of conviction dated 21st April, 2006 and Order of sentence dated 22nd April, 2006 passed in Session Trial No. 171 of 2004 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, this appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant. 3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of P.W.7, the wife of the deceased, which was recorded on 03.03.2004. Matilda Bara, wife of the deceased Patras Tigga stated that on 02.03.2004, the son of the informant Ajit Tigga went to graze the bull. He returned and informed that the bull got lost. On the next day, the informant and her husband Patras Tigga went to Munda Chatam to get the bull. The bull was found in the house of Chaitu Oraon. After taking the bull, she returned, but, her husband stayed back. At about 10 O'' clock her nephew Sunit Tigga came to her and informed that her husband has been murdered by Augustus Beck, son of Francis Beck by means of an axe and the deadbody is lying in the open field of Sukhram Oraon @ Sukra Munda. On receipt of said information, the informant, along with her elder brother-in-law, George Tigga, nephew Sunit Tigga rushed to Munda Chetam where, in the open courtyard of Sukra Munda, they found the deadbody of the deceased. There was mark of assault on the head and eye. The body was drenched in blood. She was informed that Augustus Beck was in the Village and was trying to flee. Then they chased and caught hold of this appellant and informed the matter to the Police. The reason of this occurrence, as per the informant, is that Augustus Beck suspected that the deceased was instrumental in putting fire on the macha of this appellant and this appellant had an impression that the deceased had beaten his bull. She suspected that because of these incidents, the appellant has committed murder of the deceased. 4. The reason of this occurrence, as per the informant, is that Augustus Beck suspected that the deceased was instrumental in putting fire on the macha of this appellant and this appellant had an impression that the deceased had beaten his bull. She suspected that because of these incidents, the appellant has committed murder of the deceased. 4. On the basis of her fardbeyan, Bishunpur Police Station Case No. 10 of 2004 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against this appellant, as the sole accused. 5. The police investigated the case and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the appellant finding the allegations to be true. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Session. Charge was framed against Augustus Beck, the appellant on 01.09.2004 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thus, he was put on trial. 6. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge levelled against the appellant. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. 7. The Investigating Officer Nawal Kishore Prasad was examined as a Court Witness. Several signatures and documents were also exhibited. 8. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the defence and the State and after analysing the evidence and going through the records, convicted the appellant (sole accused) for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by a Judgment of conviction dated 21st April, 2004 and sentenced him by an Order dated 22.04.2004 to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. It was been ordered that in case of non-payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 9. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the evidence is scrutinised in a proper manner, it will be clear that P.W.6 is not a reliable witness. 9. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the evidence is scrutinised in a proper manner, it will be clear that P.W.6 is not a reliable witness. It is submitted that P.W.6 claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence, but, as per P.W.5, the P.W.6 was inside the house, so, she could not have seen the occurrence at all. It is argued that if the evidence of P.W.6 is discarded, then it is P.W.5, who is the only witness, who claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence, but, surprisingly, P.W.8 does not whisper about presence of this P.W.5 at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel submits that this also creates a doubt as to whether P.W.5 was an eye witness or not. He submits that except this witness, all other witnesses are hearsay witnesses and their source of information about the occurrence is only from P.W.5 and P.W.6. As per the counsel for the appellant, since P.W.5 and P.W.6 cannot be said to be reliable witnesses, the appellant is liable to be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. It is also submitted that the place of occurrence is shown as open courtyard of P.W.5 and P.W.6, thus, when the deadbody was found in the land belonging to these witnesses, i.e., P.W.5 and P.W.6, the onus is upon these witnesses to explain as to how the body was found over the property belonging to them. It is submitted that to save their skin, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have falsely implicated this appellant. It is further argued that the allegation against the appellant is that he assaulted the deceased with an axe, but, the said axe was never sent to the Forensic Laboratory and thus, whether that particular axe, which was recovered, was the weapon used in the murder, has not been established. It is also argued that the motive, which has been put forth by the prosecution for committing the murder is very trivial and on that trivial motive no one can be murdered. On this basis, the appellant prays for acquittal. 11. Learned A.P.P. submits that the eye witnesses, P.W.5 and P.W.6 stood firm in their examination during trial. It is also argued that the motive, which has been put forth by the prosecution for committing the murder is very trivial and on that trivial motive no one can be murdered. On this basis, the appellant prays for acquittal. 11. Learned A.P.P. submits that the eye witnesses, P.W.5 and P.W.6 stood firm in their examination during trial. There is nothing to suggest from their deposition to conclude that these two eye witnesses are not reliable. It is argued that even on the basis of testimony of a sole eye witness, the accused can be convicted, provided the statement of the sole eye witness does not suffer from any ambiguity or infirmity. He submits that in this case, both P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the eye witnesses and their evidence corroborates each other. As per the A.P.P., the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case and thus, there is no other alternative than to hold the appellant guilty of committing murder of the deceased. 12. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the records of this case, we find that in all there are 12 witnesses. 11 witnesses were produced by the prosecution and one, who was the investigating officer of the case, is the Court Witness. In this case, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the only eye witnesses. (A) P.W.1 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries: - (i) Lacerated injury just above eye left side, size 2" x 1" x 2". (ii) Incised injury on scalp extending above ear lobule to occipital region on left side, size 3" x 2" x 3" and brain matter coming out of the wound. (iii) Fracture of the pareto occipital bone left side. All the above injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp substance, may be ''tangi'' (axe). He opined that the injury No. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature and may cause death in ordinary course of time, either singly or in combination. The cause of death as per the doctor is hemorrhage and shock. The postmortem report has been marked as Exhibit 1. (B) P.W.2 is Onus Tan Toppo. He is a signatory to the inquest report. He admitted that he had put his signature on the inquest report and he identified the inquest report and his signature thereon. The cause of death as per the doctor is hemorrhage and shock. The postmortem report has been marked as Exhibit 1. (B) P.W.2 is Onus Tan Toppo. He is a signatory to the inquest report. He admitted that he had put his signature on the inquest report and he identified the inquest report and his signature thereon. He stated that Sunit Tigga is also a signatory to the said report. The said inquest report was marked as Exhibit 2. He has also put his signature on the seizure list, which is marked as Exhibit 3. According to this witness, both the reports are prepared by Inspector of Police, Pramod Kumar. (C) P.W.3 is Norbet Karketta, who is a signatory to the seizure list along with P.W.2. He identified his signature over the same. (D) P.W.4 is Sunit Tigga. (E) P.W.9 is George Tigga, who stated that the informant and the deceased went in search of their bull. The informant returned with the bull, but, the deceased stayed back. His nephew Sunit Tigga informed that Patras has been murdered and his body is lying outside the house of Sukra Munda in the open space. On receipt of the said informant, this witness, along with the informant, went and saw the dead body. Mangri Mundain and Manrakhi Devi (P.W.5 and P.W.6) told him that this appellant has first assaulted the deceased with a stick and when he fell down, by taking the axe of the deceased, he assaulted the deceased on the head and on the left eye and murdered him. He stated that he has seen stains of blood on the earth. Police, thereafter came and took the body. The fardbeyan of Matilda was recorded by the police. Matilda put her thumb impression on the fardbeyan and this witness put his signature. He identified his signature, which was marked as Exhibit 3/1. He also identified the appellant in the Court. He stated that Matilda is his sister-in-law. He gave the description of the place of occurrence. He stated that Chintu Oraon and another person was sent to inform the police. The deadbody was sent to Gumla. He stated that he had seen the injuries on the eye of Patras and there was a incised wound on the back side of the head of the deceased. He gave the description of the place of occurrence. He stated that Chintu Oraon and another person was sent to inform the police. The deadbody was sent to Gumla. He stated that he had seen the injuries on the eye of Patras and there was a incised wound on the back side of the head of the deceased. He showed his ignorance on the point as to whether there was any dispute between this appellant and himself. (F) P.W.10 is Sukra Munda. The deadbody of the deceased was found in front of his house in his open court yard. He stated that he went to another village to attend a marriage ceremony and when he returned at about 12.00 noon, he saw the dead body. His wife Manrakhi informed him that Augustus had committed the murder of the deceased. He was informed that the deceased was first attacked by the stick and when he fell down, an axe blow was given on his head and the axe belonged to the deceased himself. This witness stated that he had seen injury on the eye and on the back of the deceased. He also saw stains of blood on the earth. In cross examination, he deposed that he went to the house of Jana Oraon as he was invited. He left about 5-6 a.m. in the morning. He stated that he never met Patras, the deceased. He also gives the description of the place where the body was found lying. (G) The informant in this case is P.W.7, Matilda Tigga, who is the wife of the deceased. She states that she and her husband went in search of the bullock, which got lost. The bullock was recovered from the house of Chaitu of Purna Chatam village. She returned with the bullock but her husband Patras stayed back. Sunit Tigga came and informed that the deceased had been murdered at Munda Chatam in the house of Sukra. The informant then, along with her brother-in-law, Sunit and other villagers went near the house of Sukra and saw the dead body lying there. There were injuries on the left eye and on the back side of head. Manrakhi (P.W.6) informed her that this appellant has killed the deceased. She identified the appellant in Court. She stated that this appellant blamed her husband of lighting fire on the hay and also for beating his bullock. There were injuries on the left eye and on the back side of head. Manrakhi (P.W.6) informed her that this appellant has killed the deceased. She identified the appellant in Court. She stated that this appellant blamed her husband of lighting fire on the hay and also for beating his bullock. She stated that she had given fardbeyan before the police and her elder brother-in-law had also put his signature. She stated that she had no enmity with the appellant. Nothing more could be extracted from her evidence. (H) As mentioned earlier, this case hinges upon the evidence of two eye witnesses, who are P.W.5 - Mangri Mundain and P.W.6 - Manrakhi Devi. (i) P.W.5 is Mangri Mundain, who is the mother-in-law of Sukra. She was present in the house of her son-in-law (P.W.10) and daughter (P.W.6). She says that in the morning Chapey has killed Patras and she has seen the assault. She states that with the help of an axe he was assaulted on the head. After the assault Patras died. She stated that this incident had occurred just outside the house of Sukra. She identified Augustus, i.e., the appellant as Chapey and she stated that this person has committed murder of Patras. In cross examination, she has stated that she has given her statement before the police. She stated that she is of a different village and her daughter and son in-law reside in Chatam. She says that she regularly visits the house of her daughter and son-in-law. She says that at the time of occurrence, she was standing near the door. She also says that the deceased went in search of the bullock and was returning from the north direction. She stated that when the deceased reached the open place, which is near the house of Sukra, then he was assaulted. She stated that first assault was from behind and when Patras fell down, he was again assaulted. Lot of blood had fallen on the ground. She stated that she could not save the deceased because she was alone there. She stated that her son-in-law was not present. He stated that her daughter was inside the house preparing rice. She stated that the nick name of the deceased was Chapey and she knew that from before. (ii) P.W.6 is the daughter of P.W.5. She stated that Patras was murdered by Augustus in front of her house. She stated that her son-in-law was not present. He stated that her daughter was inside the house preparing rice. She stated that the nick name of the deceased was Chapey and she knew that from before. (ii) P.W.6 is the daughter of P.W.5. She stated that Patras was murdered by Augustus in front of her house. She stated that he was also known as Chapey. She states that the deceased was murdered with the help of an axe. In cross examination, she stated that she had not met the police. She states that she had seen the assault. She stated that she was inside and was preparing rice and upon hearing voice of Chapey, she came and saw the assault. She stated that she shouted not to kill. She deposed that her mother was also standing there. She stated that before she shouted, the assault had already taken place and the deceased fell down. She stated that with a stick he was assaulted from behind and when he fell down, then the assault was on the back of his head. The axe belonged to the deceased. She stated that with the sharp side of the axe, the deceased was assaulted. (I) P.W.8 is Sunit Tigga. As per the informant (P.W.7) and George Tigga (P.W.9), it is Sunit Tigga, who informed them about the murder of the deceased. Sunit Tigga has been examined in this case as P.W.4 and also as P.W.8. In the judgment at paragraph 14, it has been wrongly typed that P.W.8 is Sumit Tigga. Thus, in this case, Sunit Tigga has been examined twice, firstly as P.W.4 and secondly as P.W.8. These two are the same person as it will be evident from the fact that while deposing, P.W.4 stated that he has signed the inquest report. P.W.8 also deposed that he also had signed the inquest report with Kolistan Toppo. When we peruse the inquest report, we find that there are only two witnesses, namely, Sunit Tigga and Kolistan Toppo. There is no third signatory. Thus, from this fact, it is substantiated that Sunit Tigga has been examined twice as P.W.4 and then again as P.W.8. P.W.4, on 16th September 2004 has only proved his signature on Exhibit 2. Save and except identifying his signature, no question was put to him. There is no third signatory. Thus, from this fact, it is substantiated that Sunit Tigga has been examined twice as P.W.4 and then again as P.W.8. P.W.4, on 16th September 2004 has only proved his signature on Exhibit 2. Save and except identifying his signature, no question was put to him. While being examined as P.W.8, this person stated that he was returning from the field when he saw the dead body of deceased in the open court yard of Sukra. He, then came and informed the informant. Thereafter, along with Matilda Bara and Jeevan Masi Toppo, went to the place of occurrence. When he reached, there, he got information that Augustus has committed the murder. He stated that P.W.6 told him that this appellant has murdered the deceased. He stated that George Tigga was also there. He stated that police came and prepared the inquest report and he put his signature along with Kolestan Toppo. He stated that he had seen no one near the dead body. He stated that the deceased was assaulted on the left side with an axe. 13. A procedural irregularity has been committed in this case while examining Sunit Tigga. He could not have been examined twice, once as P.W.4 and thereafter as P.W.8. He is a prosecution witness. As per Section 137 of the Evidence Act, a witness is examined in chief by the party who calls him. He is cross examined by the adverse party and can be re-examined. Section 138 of the Evidence Act deals with the order of examination. As per the said Section, witness shall be first examined in chief, then cross examined by the adverse party then he can be reexamined by the party calling him, if it is necessary to re-examine him. So far as re-examination is concerned, the witness shall be directed to explain the matters referred to in cross examination and if any new matter is introduced by permission of the Court in re-examination, then adverse party may further examine the said witness upon the new matter. 14. In this case, the examination of Sunit Tigga as P.W.8 is not a reexamination. It is a fresh examination of this witness. The defence also did not oppose the examination of Sunit Tigga as P.W.8, rather the defence has cross-examined him at length. 14. In this case, the examination of Sunit Tigga as P.W.8 is not a reexamination. It is a fresh examination of this witness. The defence also did not oppose the examination of Sunit Tigga as P.W.8, rather the defence has cross-examined him at length. If it was necessary to recall Sunit Tigga, it should have been done after taking permission from the Court, which has not been done here. As mentioned earlier, the examination of Sunit Tigga as P.W.8 was accepted by the defence and he was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination. He deposed only on the point that he had informed the informant and P.W.9 that the deceased was murdered. This fact has also been admitted by P.W.7 and P.W.9. Thus, examination of Sunit Tigga as P.W.8 will not make any major difference in this case, which can be said to go at the root of the case. Even if his examination as P.W.8 is not taken into consideration, then also not much difference will be caused to the prosecution case or to the defence. 15. The investigating officer, who actually investigated the case, i.e., Naval Kishore Prasad, Officer-in-Charge, Bishunpur Police Station was examined as Court Witness No. 1. In his evidence, he has stated that on getting information that a man was killed at Chetam, after making entry in the station diary, he went to the place of occurrence at 15.10 Hrs. along with Pramod Kumar, S.I. (P.W.11), who had recorded the fardbeyan of Matilda Bara (P.W.7), which is Exhibit 3. This witness has stated that P.W.11 had also prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit 2), had recorded the confessional statement of the accused as also had prepared the seizure list (Ext. 7) showing seizure of the axe. He has stated that the axe was recovered on the confession of the accused. This witness had recorded the restatement of the informant as also had recorded the statements of witnesses Sunil Tigga, George Tigga, Mangri Mundain, Manrakhi Devi and Sukra Munda. He had also inspected the place of occurrence and has described the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place, where the deceased was murdered and the dead body of the deceased was lying, is the open courtyard of Sukra Munda at about 10'' from the main door of the tiled house. He has stated that the said place was in use for cleaning utensils. He has stated that the place, where the deceased was murdered and the dead body of the deceased was lying, is the open courtyard of Sukra Munda at about 10'' from the main door of the tiled house. He has stated that the said place was in use for cleaning utensils. This witness has stated that the appellant was caught hold by the villagers and he took him in custody. 16. Now, after perusing the evidence, which is led by the prosecution, we find that there are two eye witnesses, who have seen the occurrence. P.W.6 clearly stated that she was standing in front of the door, when she saw this appellant assaulted the deceased by lathi and then gave axe blow. She stated that her daughter P.W.6 was inside the house preparing rice. She also stated that though she is from another village, yet she knew this appellant both by his nick name and also as Augustus. P.W.6, who is the daughter of P.W.5, admits that she was inside the house preparing rice. She heard the voice of Augustus and came out and saw the assault. She stated that her mother was also present there. These two witnesses clearly stated on which part of the body the assault had taken place. Both of them stated that on the left side near the eye the deceased was assaulted and thereafter on the back, by axe. The injuries get corroborated from the postmortem report and the evidence of the doctor also. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6, we find that there is no discrepancy in their statement and statement of one corroborates the statement of other. As per the evidence of the doctor, the injuries were sufficient to cause death. The other witness, P.W.9 and P.W.7 (informant) states that being informed about the occurrence by Sunit Tigga, they reached to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body. They also stated that P.W.5 had informed that deceased was murdered by this appellant. 17. We also find that the investigating officer, who actually investigated the case, i.e., Court Witness No. 1 confirmed that fardbeyan of Matilda Bara was recorded by P.W.11 Pramod Kumar. He stated that this appellant was caught hold by the villagers and he took him in custody. He also deposed that the murder weapon, axe was recovered at the instance of this appellant. 18. He stated that this appellant was caught hold by the villagers and he took him in custody. He also deposed that the murder weapon, axe was recovered at the instance of this appellant. 18. From the evidence led by the prosecution, especially, from the deposition of P.W.5 and P.W.6, we see no ground to disbelieve them. These two witnesses are independent witnesses and are also eye witnesses. Prosecution has not been able to discredit their testimony. Their evidence is consistent. Since there is nothing to discredit these two witnesses, their evidence must be accepted. They have proved that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased. 19. Thus, from analysis of the evidence and as per the eye witnesses, we find that there is no element of doubt that this appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. We come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of murder of the deceased, and there is no ground to set aside the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has correctly found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 20. This appeal, thus, lacks any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is already in custody, serving the sentence. 21. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. H.C. Mishra, J. - I agree.