ORDER : Mr. H.C. Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the surviving appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 20.02.1992, passed by the learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 207 of 1982/87, whereby the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Kuldeep Mahto and Man Raj Mahto were also found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the appellants Jitbahan Mahto, Asman Mahto and Lenga Mahto (alias name of Udai Nath Mahto) have been convicted also for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed for the offences under Sections 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the very outset it may be stated that originally there were nine appellants in the case, but during the pendency of this appeal four appellants, namely, Jibu Mahto, Shibu Mahto, Kapil Mahto and Dukhan Mahto died, and accordingly, this appeal stood abated qua them. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by one Pratima Devi, daughter of the deceased Nageshwar Rai, wherein it is stated that on 16.09.1980 at about 4:00 p.m. the informant had gone to the market for purchasing household articles, where she met her father. After making the purchases she was returning back with her father, and by the time of sunset, as soon as they came near the house of the accused Jibu Mahto, all the accused persons, namely, Kapil Mahto, Kuldeep Mahto, Shibu Mahto, Sohrai Mahto, Dukhan Mahto, Jitwahan Mahto, Asman Mahto, Jibu Mahto, Man Raj Mahto and Lenga Mahto (alias name of Udai Nath Mahto), came variously armed and they chased the father of the informant for assaulting him. Her father tried to flee away, but he was apprehended by the accused persons at some distance and they started assaulting her father. Her father tried to flee away, but he was apprehended by the accused persons at some distance and they started assaulting her father. Kapil Mahto assaulted the father of the informant by sword on his head, Kuldeep Mahto assaulted him by balua at his shoulder, Jibu Mahto assaulted by ballam and other accused persons also started assaulting him, whereupon the informant ran towards her house and informed her family members. By the time she returned back with other persons, she found her father dead in the pool of blood. As to the cause of occurrence, it is stated that the accused Jibu Mahto had some altercation with the villagers and the accused persons were under the impression that it was the deceased who had instigated the villagers against them. On the basis of the information given by the informant, Ratu P.S. Case No. 06 of 1980, corresponding to G.R. No. 2531 of 1980, was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 5. After the commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons, including these surviving appellants, for the offences under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 6. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined and P.W.-2 Kishun Rai was only tendered by the prosecution. 7. P.W.-4 Pratima Devi is the informant of the case and the daughter of the deceased. Her age has been recorded as about 18 years on the date of her examination, i.e., 26.4.1988, and she has stated that the occurrence had taken place about eight years ago in the year 1980. It was on Tuesday, she had gone to the market along with her father and was returning with her father and when they reached near the house of Jibu Mahto the accused persons namely Kapil Mahto, Kuldeep Mahto, Jibu Mahto, Dukhan Mahto, Man Raj Mahto, Lenga Mahto (alias name of Udai Nath Mahto), Sohrai Mahto, Jitwahan Mahto and Asman Mahto came there. Kapil Mahto was armed with sword, Kuldeep Mahto was armed with balua, Jibu Mahto was armed with ballam, Man Raj Mahto was armed with knife, Lenga Mahto was armed with garansa and others were armed with lathi. Kapil Mahto assaulted the father of the informant by sword on his head, Kuldeep Mahto assaulted him by balua at his shoulder, Jibu Mahto assaulted him by ballam, Man Raj Mahto assaulted her father by knife, Lenga Mahto assaulted him by garansa and other accused persons assaulted him by lathi. Thereafter she ran to the house and informed her mother and other family members and by the time they returned back, they found her father dead with bleeding injuries on his body. Thereafter, she came to the Police Station along with Kishun Rai and Mohit Rai and gave the information which was written by the police officer and read over to her, and upon finding it to be true, she put her thumb impression thereon. She has stated that Jibu Mahto had enmity with the villagers and the accused persons were under the impression that her father was instigating them. She has identified the accused persons present in the Court. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that in the fardbeyan it was stated that she had gone to the market for purchasing household articles and she met her father in the market, whereas in her evidence she has stated that she had gone to the market along with her father. She has stated that she was a child at the time of occurrence. She has also stated in her cross-examination that she was knowing the accused persons from before and she could not name any other villager of her village except these accused persons. In her cross-examination she has further stated that the accused persons were chasing her father from behind at a distance of 100 yards and after a distance of about 100 yards her father was apprehended and he was assaulted. She has also stated that the accused persons had come from behind and upon seeing them she ran towards her house to inform the family members. She has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 8. P.W.-3 Phuleshwari Devi is the mother of the informant and the widow of the deceased. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1980 on a Tuesday. She has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 8. P.W.-3 Phuleshwari Devi is the mother of the informant and the widow of the deceased. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1980 on a Tuesday. It was about quarter to seven in the evening and she was present in her house when her daughter Pratima came running from the market shouting that the accused persons were assaulting her father. This witness has named all the accused persons. She has stated that thereafter she went there and saw the dead body of her husband. She also saw the accused persons fleeing away. She has stated that there were several injuries on the dead body of the husband and the occurrence had taken place due to previous enmity. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that on the day of occurrence there was heavy rain and it was already dark. She has also stated that at the time of occurrence her daughter Pratima was aged about 6-7 years. This witness has further admitted in her cross-examination that her husband was an accused in a murder case and he had also gone to jail, but he was granted bail in that case. Her attention was drawn towards the statement given by her before the police, wherein she stated that she had given the statement before the police that she had seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 9. P.W.-1 Mohit Rai and P.W.-5 Jyotish Chandra Rai are also only the hearsay witnesses and they have stated that at the time of occurrence Pratima came to her house running from the market and informed them about the occurrence, whereupon they went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. 10. P.W.-6 is Dr. K.P. Srivastava, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had found the following ante-mortem injuries :- A - Incised wound - (i) 9 c.m. x 2 c.m. situated over right temporal parietal area of head. The weapon had cut the right temporal parietal bone, meninges and brain underneath (ii) 9 c.m. x 1½ c.m. situated over right temporal parietal area of head. The weapon had cut the right temporal parietal bone, meninges and brain underneath. The weapon had cut the right temporal parietal bone, meninges and brain underneath (ii) 9 c.m. x 1½ c.m. situated over right temporal parietal area of head. The weapon had cut the right temporal parietal bone, meninges and brain underneath. The brain matter was found portending out through above noted two injuries and a portion of brain was found missing. (iii) 4½ c.m. x 1 c.m. situated over right parietal area of head. The weapon had cut the right parietal bone, meninges and brain underneath. (iv) 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. x 2½ c.m. situated over right shoulder and arm posteriorly. The weapon had cut the acronium process completely and portion of head of humerus bone. (v) 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. situated over back of left forearm. (vi) 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 4½ c.m. and 7 c.m. x 1½ c.m. x 4 c.m. situated over lower part of neck on the back and upper part of chest on the back situated in a cross like manner and had cut the vertebral bones and soft tissues underneath. (vii) 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x ½ c.m. over left scapular region. (viii) 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 1½ c.m. on right side of chest over back and lower part. The weapon had cut a portion of 10th and 11th ribs. (ix) 2½ c.m. x 1 c.m. x ¾ c.m. over left chest, back lower part. (x) 2 c.m. x ½ c.m. x 1½ c.m and 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. and 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. and 3 c.m. and 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. and 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. over right glutaeal area. (xi) 9 c.m. x ¾ c.m. x 1 c.m. over right leg middle part postero-lateral side (xii) 8 c.m. x 1½ c.m. x 1 c.m. situated over back of right foot and right leg lower part. The weapon had cut the soft tissue and a portion of calcanium bone completely. (xiii) 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 4 c.m. over medial side of left leg lower part. The weapon had cut the tibia and fibula bones completely. (xiv) 5 c.m. x 1½ c.m. x 3 c.m. situated over medial side of left foot. The weapon had cut 1st and 2nd metatarsal bones underneath. (xiii) 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 4 c.m. over medial side of left leg lower part. The weapon had cut the tibia and fibula bones completely. (xiv) 5 c.m. x 1½ c.m. x 3 c.m. situated over medial side of left foot. The weapon had cut 1st and 2nd metatarsal bones underneath. (xv) 1 c.m. x ½ c.m. x ½ c.m. over left arm lateral side. B- Abrasion- (i) 1½ c.m. x 1 c.m. over left forearm. (ii) 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. over back of left hand. (iii) 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. over left cheek prominence. He has stated that all the incised wounds could be caused by sword and balua and all the abrasions could be caused by lathi. He has also stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the death was due to the above notes injuries. This witness has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-1. This witness was cross-examined on the point of nature of the weapons of offence, namely, balua and ballam, which he has answered in his deposition. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the entire prosecution case rests only upon the evidence of one eye witness, namely, P.W.-4 Pratima Devi, who admittedly at the time of occurrence was a child, aged about 6-7 years, as admitted by her mother P.W.-3 Phuleshwari Devi. It is submitted by learned counsel that the vivid details of the occurrence that has been given by the child informant before the police and also in her evidence, were not possible for a child of her age and this clearly shows that this child witness is a tutored witness. It is submitted that though P.W.-3 Phuleshwari Devi, the wife of the deceased has stated that when she came to the place of occurrence, she saw the accused persons fleeing away, but this is an improvement made by her in her statement given before the police, as no such statement was given by her before the police. It is submitted that though P.W.-3 Phuleshwari Devi, the wife of the deceased has stated that when she came to the place of occurrence, she saw the accused persons fleeing away, but this is an improvement made by her in her statement given before the police, as no such statement was given by her before the police. Though her attention was drawn in her cross-examination towards this statement, but the necessary contradiction could not be taken from the police officer, due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and this has caused serious prejudice to the defence case. Learned counsel also submitted that as admitted by the wife of the deceased in her evidence, the deceased himself was an accused in a murder case and in that view of the matter, the deceased must have several enemies and further in view of the admitted fact that on the day of occurrence there were heavy rains and it had become dark, the identification of the accused persons is absolutely doubtful. Learned counsel has also submitted that though there were several injuries on the dead body of the deceased, but there was no piercing injury on the dead body, which could be caused by ballam, though there is specific allegation of assault by bullam also, which is a sharp pointed weapon, and this also casts doubts on the prosecution case. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that even though the child witness has supported the prosecution case, but in the facts of this case, it could not be ruled out that she is not a tutored witness, and her evidence being not at all reliable, the appellants ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no doubt, the case is based only on the sole eye witness, i.e., P.W.-4 Pratima Devi, but this witness has fully supported the prosecution case as she is the only person who was present with her father at the time of occurrence. She has named all the accused persons, the weapon with which they were armed, as also the role played by the accused persons vividly in her evidence, and nothing could be taken in her cross-examination so as to discredit her testimony. She has named all the accused persons, the weapon with which they were armed, as also the role played by the accused persons vividly in her evidence, and nothing could be taken in her cross-examination so as to discredit her testimony. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.-4 Pratima Devi, even to suggest that she is a tutored witness, and she has fully supported the prosecution case being a natural witness, who was the only person present at the time of occurrence with her deceased father. Learned counsel also submitted that the ocular evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. K.P. Srivastava, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice could be said to have caused to the defence for non-examination of the I.O., in the case, as nothing could be taken from P.W.-4 Pratima Devi which was contrary to her statement given before the police. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the case is supported by the sole eye witness P.W.-4 Pratima Devi, who at the time of occurrence was a child. At the time of recording her evidence, her age has been assessed by the Court below as 18 years and the occurrence had taken place about eight years ago, in the year 1980, meaning thereby, she was aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence. Her mother has also stated that the age of her daughter was 6-7 years at the time of occurrence. As such, it can be safely inferred that this witness was aged somewhere about 6-10 years at the time of occurrence. This witness has given the vivid details of the occurrence, such as, names the accused persons, the weapons which they were carrying, and also the roles played by them, in her evidence. Though she has been put to extensive cross-examination by the prosecution, but the only thing that could be taken in her cross-examination was, whether she had gone to the marked along with her father or she had gone to the market separately, and had met her father in the market. Though she has been put to extensive cross-examination by the prosecution, but the only thing that could be taken in her cross-examination was, whether she had gone to the marked along with her father or she had gone to the market separately, and had met her father in the market. There is nothing in her cross-examination to show that at the time of occurrence she was not present with her father. She has given the vivid details of the occurrence and the minor discrepancies in her evidence, as to when she came running to her house for informing the family members, i.e., when the deceased was being assaulted by the accused persons, or when he was being chased by the accused persons, cannot mean that she had not seen the occurrence. The ocular evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6, Dr. K.P. Srivastava and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-1, which clearly shows that there were 15 sharp cut injuries on the dead body of the deceased, including the injuries on his head causing the brain matter to come out, apart from the injuries caused by the hard and blunt substance. The informant has clearly stated that her father was assaulted on head and other parts of the body, by sharp cutting weapon as well as by lathi, and the medical evidence on record fully corroborates it. 15. We are of the considered view that P.W.-4 Pratima Devi, has fully stood the rigors of the cross-examination and she could not be shaken by the defence. The fact, however, remains that the fact that P.W.-3 Phuleshwari Devi had actually not seen the accused persons fleeing away, could not be ascertained due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, but that is not of much importance, in view of the un-shattered evidence of P.W.-4 Pratima Devi. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the surviving accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the surviving accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 20.02.1992, passed by the learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 207 of 82/87, convicting and sentencing the surviving appellants Kuldeep Mahto, Jitbahan Mahto, Asman Mahto, Udai Nath Mahto and Man Raj Mahto, for the offences as aforesaid, which we hereby, affirm. 17. All the appellants are on bail and their bail bonds, are hereby, cancelled. The accused appellants are directed to surrender forthwith in the Court below to serve out the sentence. The Trial Court below is also directed to forthwith issue process compelling the production/surrender of the appellants for serving out the sentence. 18. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment.