JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment dated 15.12.2017 and order of conviction dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega in Sessions Trial No.133 of 2007. This appellant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the India Penal Code and is sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-and in default further simple imprisonment for one month, which has been awarded by the order dated 16.12.2010. 2. Case of the Prosecution is as under : The case of the prosecution is that on 06-08-2007 at 10.00 hrs.(i.e.10.00 A.M.). the informant Victoria Dungdung (P.W. -10) gave fardbeyan to police that yesterday on 05.08.2007 she had gone to Proah Hat and her husband Albert Dungdung (deceased) and her three daughters Macy Dungdung, Anjela Dungdung and Kristina Dungdung were in the house. At about 4.00 P.M. when she returned to her house, she found her husband dead in injured condition and blood was oozing from his body and her three daughters were crying. On query her daughters told her that at about 2.30 to 3.00 P.M. there was an altercation between their uncle Salestin (accused) and their father for some woods of Mango and their uncle was demanding money for wood. Thereafter Salestin Dungdung brought a Dabia (sharp edged weapon) from his house and assaulted on the head of their father with Dabia several time. Consequently their father fell down near the door of the house and died. The informant further alleged that previously also there was a quarrel between her husband and Salestin Dungdung for land and tree. She further claims that Salestin Dungdung had killed her husband with Dabia. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution P.W.-1 Anjela Dungdung (Age about 14 years) She is the niece of Albert Dungdung (deceased) and is Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.-2 Marcy Dungdung (Age about 12 years) She is the daughter of Albert Dungdung (deceased) and is Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.-3 Kristina Dungdung (Age about 13 years) She is the niece of Albert Dungdung (deceased) and is Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.-4 Shanta Prasad (I.O) He is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W.-2 Marcy Dungdung (Age about 12 years) She is the daughter of Albert Dungdung (deceased) and is Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.-3 Kristina Dungdung (Age about 13 years) She is the niece of Albert Dungdung (deceased) and is Eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.-4 Shanta Prasad (I.O) He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan and has also proved R.O & A.C in his handwriting and signature i.e marked as Ext.1 and 1/1 respectively. He has proved T. Tanger P.S. Case No.40/07 in hi s handwriting and signature and has also proved the formal FIR i.e marked as Ext.1/2 and 2 respectively. He has proved the carbon copy of Inquest report and has also proved the Arrest memo of accused Salestin Dungdung i.e marked as Ext.3 and 4 respectively. He has proved the seizure list of Dabia i.e marked as Ext.5. He has proved the Charge-sheet and forwarding report of accused i.e marked as Ext.6 and 7 respectively. P.W.-5 Joseph Dungdung He is the Hearsay witness. He has proved his signature in the seizure list of blood stained soil and Dabia i.e marked as Ext.8. P.W.-6 Sunil Tirkey He is the Hearsay witness. P.W.-7 Mikhail Tete He is the Hearsay witness. P.W.-8 Dr. Rajesh Kumar He is the Doctor who has conducted the Postmortem of the dead body of Albert Dungdung and has proved the Postmortem report i.e marked as Ext.9. P.W.-9 Lorentus Dungdung He is the Hearsay witness. He has proved his signature in the seizure list and Carbon copy of Inquest report i.e marked as Ext.8/1 and 3/1. P.W.-10 Victoria Dungdung She is the wife of Albert Dungdung (deceased) and is Informant of this case. She is the Hearsay witness. She has proved her signature in the Fardbeyan i.e marked as Ext.1/3. Exhibits Ext.1 Fardbeyan Ext.1/1 R.O & A.C in his handwriting and signature of Shanta Prasad (I.O) Ext.1/2 T.Tanger P.S. Case No.40/07 in his handwriting and signature of Shanta Prasad (I.O) Ext.1/3 Signature of Victoria Dungdung in Fardbeyan Ext.2 Formal FIR Ext.3 Carbon report of Inquest report. Ext.3/1 Signature of Lorentus Dungdung in Carbon Copy of inquest report. Ext.4 Arrest memo of accused Salestin Dungdung Ext.5 Seizure list Ext.6 Charge-sheet Ext.7 Forwarding report of accused. Ext.8 Signature of Joseph Dungdung in the seizure list of blood stained soil and Dabia. Ext.8/1 Signature of Lorentus Dungdung Ext.9 Post-mortem report. 3. Ext.3/1 Signature of Lorentus Dungdung in Carbon Copy of inquest report. Ext.4 Arrest memo of accused Salestin Dungdung Ext.5 Seizure list Ext.6 Charge-sheet Ext.7 Forwarding report of accused. Ext.8 Signature of Joseph Dungdung in the seizure list of blood stained soil and Dabia. Ext.8/1 Signature of Lorentus Dungdung Ext.9 Post-mortem report. 3. Argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there are major omissions and contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that so called eye witnesses, P.Ws. -1, 2 & 3, in fact, are not the eye witnesses at all looking to their cross-examination, as they have not seen the occurrence. Moreover, so called recovery of the weapon has also not been proved by the prosecution. The said weapon was also not presented before the trial court, neither blood stain earth was presented before the learned trial court It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the appellant that not a single prosecution witness much less P.W.s – 1, 2 & 3 has stated as to how many blows have been inflicted on the part of the body of the deceased by sharp cutting weapon Dabia. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there was no intention on the part of this appellant to cause murder of the deceased and there was hot altercation between the deceased and this appellant, and hence also at the highest the case of the prosecution is covered by Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, and this appellant is in custody for the last 10 years. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 796 . Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 796 . It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid evidence on the record that prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant. 4. Argument canvassed by the counsel for the State – Additional Public Prosecutor It is submitted by the A.P.P that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of more than one eye witness who are P.Ws. -1, 2 & 3 and they have clearly narrated the role played by this accused – appellant because the prosecution has proved the date of occurrence, place of occurrence and time of occurrence and discovery of weapon has also been proved which is from the house of the appellant. It is also stated by the A.P.P that after hot altercation the appellant had gone to his house and brought the sharp cutting instrument which clearly reflects the intention and mens rea on the part of this appellant. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. There was no major omissions and contradictions looking to the depositions given by P.Ws. -1, 2 & 3. Moreover, medical evidence given by P.W. -8 is also corroborative to the depositions given by eye witnesses. Similarly, the evidence given by the Investigating Officer, P.W. -4, is also corroborative to the depositions given by the eye witnesses especially, for the place of occurrence, recovery of weapon, proof of first information report and inquest report (punchnama). Looking to these evidences on record, prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant by sharp cutting instrument because of incised injuries on the body of the deceased. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the State – A.P.P that there is nothing in favour of this appellant, looking to the cross-examination of P.W.s – 1, 2 & 3. It is not necessary for the prosecution witnesses especially when they are of 12, 13 and 14 years of age to give mathematical narration. Thus, it is not necessary for the prosecution witnesses to give full account of the injuries which have been inflicted by the appellant accused upon the body of the deceased. It is not necessary for the prosecution witnesses especially when they are of 12, 13 and 14 years of age to give mathematical narration. Thus, it is not necessary for the prosecution witnesses to give full account of the injuries which have been inflicted by the appellant accused upon the body of the deceased. There is no question of mis-identity of the appellant-accused whatsoever arises, because he is the brother of the deceased and the uncle of P.W.s – 1, 2 & 3. The occurrence has taken place at the broad day light. Thus, no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting this appellant for causing murder of the deceased. Reasons : 5. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidence on record, it appears that :- (i) occurrence has taken place on 05.08.2007 at about 2:30 - 3:00 P.M. (ii) Informant, P.W. -10, Victoria Dungdung, who is the wife of the deceased, had given statement before the police on 06.08.2007 that when she returned from the market, her daughter narrated the whole incident as to how this appellant caused murder of the deceased by sharping cutting weapon – Dabia, because of quarrel between them over land and mango tree. (iii) Looking to the depositions of P.Ws.-1, 2 & 3, they have clearly narrated the incident and have stated that this appellant had hot altercation with the deceased about the mango tree and thereafter he had gone to his house and brought a sharp cutting weapon – Dabia and caused sharp cutting injuries upon the body of the deceased so that Albert Dungdung expired on the spot. (iv) We have perused their cross-examination, but nothing is coming out in favour of this appellant-accused. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that these witnesses have not given detailed account of the number of blows given by this appellant-accused upon the body of the deceased. In fact such mathematical narration is not required by the prosecution witnesses. The whole occurrence has taken place on broad day light. These prosecution witnesses have proved the place of occurrence, date of occurrence and time of occurrence. There is no question of mis-identity of the accused whatsoever arises, because they are relative. All the witnesses have clearly stated that this appellant-accused brought sharp cutting weapon – Dabia and caused injuries upon the body of the deceased. These prosecution witnesses have proved the place of occurrence, date of occurrence and time of occurrence. There is no question of mis-identity of the accused whatsoever arises, because they are relative. All the witnesses have clearly stated that this appellant-accused brought sharp cutting weapon – Dabia and caused injuries upon the body of the deceased. Medical evidence given by P.W.-8, Dr. Rajesh Kumar, who has carried out the postmortem of the body of the deceased, reveals following injuries upon the body of the deceased :- (a) External injury :- (i) Incised wound 2” long and ½ “ deep over left pariato occipital region. Scalp deep. (ii) Incised wound 3½” long x ½” deep x deep over left occipital area. (iii) Incised wound 4½” long x ½” deep x bond deep over occipital area of scalp. (iv) Incised wound 3½” x ½” x bone deep over left occipital area. (v) Incised wound 1½” long x ½” deep over left parito occipital area with fracture of occipital and parital bone was present. (v) Incised wound 2½” long x ½” wide x 2” deep with fracture fronto periatel bone left side of skull. (b) Internal Examination -On opening of skull cavity laceration of brain and meninges over the pariato occipital posterior part and fronto part of brain with collection of blood over the left occipital region. (c) All visceras was found congested. Heart – Both chamber empty. Urinary bladder empty. Small intestine with digested food and gases. Large intestine fical matter and gases. (d) Nature of Injury – All injuries were antemortem caused by sharp and may be cutting weapon. Time elapsed since death within 24 hours. (e) Opinion – The cause of death coma and syncope due to head injury. (v) Looking to the medical evidence given by P.W. -8, all the injuries were ante-mortem and were capable of being caused by sharp cutting weapon. There were incised wounds upon the body of the deceased. Thus, medical evidence is corroborative to the depositions given by the eye witnesses, P.W.s – 1, 2 & 3. Thus, prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Looking to the evidences given by P.W.-1, P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 they are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Medical evidence is corroborative to the evidences given by Eye Witnesses. Thus, prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Looking to the evidences given by P.W.-1, P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 they are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Medical evidence is corroborative to the evidences given by Eye Witnesses. (vi) Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that there was no intention on the part of the appellant-accused to cause murder of the deceased. We are not accepting this argument mainly for the reason that this appellant, after hot altercation, had gone at his residence and brought the sharp cutting instrument – Dabia from his house and came at the house of Albert Dungdung (deceased) and has caused injuries upon Albert Dungdung. All the injuries are head injuries and there are as many as six incised wounds. Thus, looking to the number of blows given by this appellant and he has brought specific weapon from his house, this reveals the intention on the part of the appellant-accused. Thus, mens rea was present on the part of this appellant-accused, and hence, the case of the prosecution is not falling within Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, on the contrary it is covered by Section 300 of Indian Penal Code which is punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (vii) It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that weapon recovered was not presented before the court. This argument is not helpful to this appellant mainly for the reason that prosecution witnesses have proved the seizure list even the Investigating Officer has also narrated clearly that the weapon, sharp cutting instrument – Dabia was recovered from the house of this appellant-accused immediately after the F.I.R was lodged, i.e., 06.08.2007. Error on the part of the Investigating Officer is not the innocence of the accused. Even if, the Investigating Officer has committed slight error no benefit be given to this appellant-accused, because other than eye witnesses, there are prosecution witnesses, who have proved the seizure and seizure list, who are P.Ws. - 5, 6 & 9. 6. Error on the part of the Investigating Officer is not the innocence of the accused. Even if, the Investigating Officer has committed slight error no benefit be given to this appellant-accused, because other than eye witnesses, there are prosecution witnesses, who have proved the seizure and seizure list, who are P.Ws. - 5, 6 & 9. 6. Thus, looking to the totality of the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant-accused and no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidence in Sessions Trial No.133 of 2007 and convicting this appellant for life imprisonment for causing murder of the deceased. Hence, there is no substance in this appeal and accordingly the same is, hereby, dismissed.