JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 27.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Gumla, in S.T. No. 240 of 2005, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, for the aforesaid offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Jatru Oraon, the son of the deceased Gomma Oraon, recorded near Rani Bagicha field of village Lohri, P.S. Basia, District Gumla, on 26.07.2005 at about 8:00 A.M., wherein the informant has stated that on the previous day, i.e., on 25.07.2005 at about 4:00 P.M., his father Gomma Oraon had gone towards Rani Bagicha field for cutting fire wood from a Karanj tree in his field. The informant was tending the cattle nearby. When his father started cutting the wood, the accused Bando Oraon, Gandhi Oraon and Soma Oraon, who were planting ragi (marua) in the nearby field, came there and they started assaulting his father. They snatched away the axe of his father and they started assaulting him by spades causing bleeding injuries on him. The informant raised alarm and ran towards the place where his father was being assaulted, whereupon the accused persons fled away. He saw the injuries on the body of his father who had died. His sister and mother also came there, and saw the occurrence. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Basia P.S. Case No. 35 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 498 of 2005, was instituted against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the three accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the three accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-3 Budhuwa Oraon has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 5. P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon is the informant of the case and the son of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 25.07.2005 at about 4:00 P.M. He was tending cattle in the agriculture field and his father was cutting the wood. His father was at a distance of about 50 yards from him. In the meantime these three accused persons came there armed with spades and they snatched the axe of his father and all the three persons started assaulting his father due to which his father fell down and the accused persons fled away. He has stated that he had seen the accused persons assaulting his father by spades and by the time he reached near his father, his father had died. This witness has stated that he had seen bleeding injuries on the head and neck of his father. On the next day the police arrived and recorded his fardbeyan, on which he had put his thumb impression. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, in which he has stated that the land of accused persons was towards the eastern side of the place of occurrence and there are lands of other persons also nearby. He has stated that he was tending the cattle in the western side of the place of occurrence, and there were other persons also present there, whom he has named. He has stated that the accused persons were planting ragi in their field. He has also stated that several assaults were made by the accused persons by spades and also by stone and there was lot of blood at the place of occurrence. He has stated that the accused persons were planting ragi in their field. He has also stated that several assaults were made by the accused persons by spades and also by stone and there was lot of blood at the place of occurrence. After the occurrence, he went to the Police Station with the Choukidar, where the Choukidar had informed about the occurrence. Later the police came to his house and recorded his statement, on which he had put his thumb impression. He has also stated that no statement was recorded at the Police Station and the statement that was recorded by the police was as explained by the Choukidar on which he had put his thumb impression. This witness has also stated that by the time the police had arrived, they had brought the dead body at his house. The police had taken away the dead body for post-mortem examination from his house. He has stated that he had enmity with the accused persons, and he has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 6. P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan is the mother of the informant and wife of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about five months ago, on a Monday at about 4:00 P.M. Her husband had gone to bring the fire-wood from Rani Bagicha where one tree had fallen down. He has stated that the accused persons were armed with spades and lathi and they snatched away the axe of her husband and they started assaulting her husband causing bleeding injuries, and even when her husband fell down, the accused persons continued assaulting him, due to which he died at the spot. She had seen the occurrence from some distance, and has stated that the accused Bando, Soma and Gandhi had assaulted her husband. She had identified the accused persons in the Court. This witness was put to cross-examination, in which she has stated that Rani Bagicha is towards the eastern side of her house, situated at a distance of about 50 metres, and there is no house in between Rani Bagicha and her house. She had also gone towards the field alongwith with her daughters-in-law for planting ragi and by the time of occurrence, they had planted ragi in the half of their field. The accused persons were also planting ragi in their own field. She had also gone towards the field alongwith with her daughters-in-law for planting ragi and by the time of occurrence, they had planted ragi in the half of their field. The accused persons were also planting ragi in their own field. At the time of occurrence, she rushed towards her husband raising alarm, but by the time she reached near her husband, he had died. Upon her alarm no one had assembled there. People assembled at the place of occurrence after the occurrence. Her brother had also come upon getting the information, and he had brought the dead body to the house. This witness has also stated that her son and the Choukidar had gone to the Police Station and the police had arrived at about 7:00 A.M. in the next morning. The police had arrived at her house and had recorded the statements. The police had taken away the dead body for post-mortem examination from her house. She had given the statement before the police that the accused persons were having spade and lathi in their hands. She had also given the statement to the police that she was also planting ragi on the day of occurrence. However, the fact that she was also planting ragi on the day of occurrence, was taken in her cross-examination and she had not stated this fact in her examination-in-chief. She has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 7. P.W.-6 Birendra Oraon is the other son of the deceased, who has only stated that the accused persons had assaulted his father, causing his death, and he had seen them fleeing away from a distance of about 10 feet, when he was going towards the agriculture field, after he returned from his school. 8. P.W.-2 Sonmait Oraion is a hearsay witness, and she has stated in her cross-examination that she had not seen the occurrence. 9. P.W.-5 Dr. A.D.N. Prasad had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 26.07.2005, and had found the following injuries on the dead body :- (i) Lacerated injury below the Chin 2½ inch x 1 inch x ¾ inch with fracture of Mandible. (ii) Lacerated wound above right eye brow 2 inch x ½ inch x ½ inch with fracture of skull. (iii) Large haematoma on left side of neck with subcutaneous haematoma. (iv) Sharp cut wound at base of neck. (ii) Lacerated wound above right eye brow 2 inch x ½ inch x ½ inch with fracture of skull. (iii) Large haematoma on left side of neck with subcutaneous haematoma. (iv) Sharp cut wound at base of neck. 3 inch x 1 inch x ¾ inch with fracture cervical vertebra. This witness has stated that all the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature, leading to shock and hemorrhage which was the cause of death. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-1. 10. P.W.-7 Ram Avadh Paswan is the I.O of the case. This witness has stated that on 26.07.2005, he was posted as A.S.I. at Basia Police Station. He got the rumor that one person was murdered in village Lohri, whereupon he went to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-2. He has also stated that he prepared the inquest report of the dead body, but it appears that the photostat copy of the inquest report has been marked Exhibit-3 in the case. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He has given the details of the place of occurrence, which is the agriculture field. This witness has also proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. He received the post-mortem report. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that before going to the place of occurrence, the sanha entry was made, but the details thereof are not mentioned in the case diary. He has stated that he was not knowing the informant from before, and he had met the informant on the road of the village alongwith four to five persons, thereafter he proceeded towards the place of occurrence. He had not recorded the statements of the owners of the nearby fields. He has also stated that he had seen the dead body in the agriculture field and blood was also there on the spot, but he had not seized the blood stained soil. He had not recorded the distance between the house of the deceased and the place of occurrence, and he had also not recorded the statements of the independent witnesses. He had not recorded the distance between the house of the deceased and the place of occurrence, and he had also not recorded the statements of the independent witnesses. Some contradictions have been taken from this witness about the evidence given in the Court by P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan and the informant P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon, but these contradictions relate to the statements in the cross-examination and not in the examination-in-chief. 11. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. No defence witness was examined by the prosecution. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, even if the prosecution case is accepted in to-to, the occurrence had taken place in the spur of moment, and the assaults were not made with the intention to cause the death of the deceased, as such, the offence is not made out under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rather, the offence, if any, is made out only under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, for which the appellants have sufficiently remained in custody. Learned counsel submitted that P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan who is the wife of the deceased, has clearly stated that while she had gone towards the field she was accompanied with her daughters-in-law, and P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon the informant, has also stated that at the place where he was tending the cattle, there were other persons present, but those persons have not been examined by the prosecution and this creates doubt about the prosecution case. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the witnesses P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan as well as P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon have stated that after the occurrence the dead body was brought to their house, the statement of the informant was recorded at the house and the dead body was also taken away for post-mortem examination from the house of the informant, but the I.O. P.W.-7 Ram Avadh Paswan has admitted in his cross-examination that he had found the dead body at the place of occurrence and not at the house of the accused. In fact, even the fardbeyan would show that it was recorded at the place of occurrence and not at the house of the informant. Learned counsel also submitted that the I.O. has also admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any independent witness and he had not seized the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence, which also create doubt about the prosecution case. Learned counsel lastly submitted that it is a fit case in which the appellants ought to have been given the benefits of doubt, and in any case, the conviction be converted into one, under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that that P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan and P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon have fully supported the prosecution case as eye witnesses to the occurrence, and there is nothing in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimony. It is submitted that P.W.-6 Birendra Oraon had also seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence from the distance of about ten feet. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. A.D.N. Prasad and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-1, which show that two lacerated wounds were found on the vital part of the dead body of the deceased causing fracture of skull and mandible, as also the incised wound in the neck cutting the neck and fracturing the cervical vertebra. Learned counsel submitted that the nature of injuries clearly shows that the assaults were made with the intention to cause the death of the deceased and it cannot be said that that assaults were not made with the intention to cause the death of the deceased. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, and 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 prosecution case is supported by two eye witnesses, who are P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan, the wife of the deceased and P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon, the son of the deceased. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is supported by two eye witnesses, who are P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan, the wife of the deceased and P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon, the son of the deceased. One son of the deceased, namely, P.W.-6 Birendra Oraon had seen the accused persons fleeing away from the field. The eye witnesses have clearly stated that all the three accused persons snatched away the axe of the deceased and assaulted him by spade causing bleeding injuries on him, due to which he died at the spot. Though these witnesses are highly interested witnesses, but they are the natural eye witnesses to the occurrence, and nothing could be taken in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimony. There may be some discrepancies here and there in their evidence, which is only natural and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. Though this is a fact that the I.O. has stated that he had found the dead body at the place of occurrence and he had also recorded the statement of the informant at the place of occurrence, which fact is also supported by the fardbeyan proved in the case, and the witnesses P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan and P.W.-4 Jatru Oraon have stated that after the occurrence they had brought the dead body to their house, where the statement of the informant was recorded and the dead body was taken for post-mortem examination from their house, but the fact remains that the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained by the assaults made by these accused persons has been proved in this case beyond all doubts, and only due to this contradiction, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved altogether. The fact that the independent witnesses have not been examined in the case appears to be a fault on the part of the I.O., as he has admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any independent witness and for this fault also we cannot discard the evidence of P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan and P.W.-4, Jatru Oraon altogether, particularly in view of the fact that there is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment and without the intension to cause the death of the deceased, cannot be accepted in view of the nature of the injuries found by P.W.-5 Dr. A.D.N. Prasad on the dead body of the deceased, which he has proved, and is also supported by the post-mortem report proved as Exhibit-1. The skull of the deceased was found fractured, the neck injury was deep enough and the cervical vertebra was fractured. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that such injury was caused without any intention to cause the death of the deceased. On the basis of the evidence on record, we find that the offence is clearly made out under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against these appellants, and it is not a case in which their conviction can be converted into the one, under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against all the three accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgment, calling for any interference by this Court. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 27.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Gumla, in S.T. No. 240 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellants Ghandhi Oraon @ Gandhi Oraon, Bando Oraon and Soma Oraon, for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. All these three appellants are already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 16. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.