JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 20th February 2007 and Order of sentence dated 21.02.2007, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No.460 of 1996, whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Bharti Tuddu, wife of Balram Tuddu, recorded on 8.06.1996 at about 2:00 P.M., at her house situated in Village Jhujhka, Tola Meghadah, P.S. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, wherein she has stated that on the previous day, i.e., on 7.06.1996, she had gone to the forest along with her sister-in-law (nanad) Chunni Tudu and one Parvati Majhian, where they were plucking the leaves. At some distance, one person, aged about 30 years, was cutting the wood and that person caught hold her sister-in-law Chunni Tuddu with bad intention, and upon the alarm raised by her, the informant Bharti Tuddu and Parvati Majhian came to her rescue. The unknown person could be identified by Parvati Majhian and she asked him as to why, he was behaving like that. Whereupon, that person assaulted Parvati Majhian by axe, severing her head from the trunk, due to which, she dropped dead at the spot itself. Upon seeing this, the informant started fleeing away with her sister-in-law Chunni Tuddu, but the accused assaulted Chuuni Tuddu from behind, by axe, injuring her on her head and back. Anyhow, they came to house. As her sister-in-law was in precarious condition, she was sent to the nearby hospital at Bandwan, where she was undergoing treatment. The villagers searched the culprit in the forest, but he managed to flee away. The informant claimed to identify the accused upon seeing him. Anyhow, they came to house. As her sister-in-law was in precarious condition, she was sent to the nearby hospital at Bandwan, where she was undergoing treatment. The villagers searched the culprit in the forest, but he managed to flee away. The informant claimed to identify the accused upon seeing him. On the basis of her fardbeyan, Patamda P.S. Case No.14 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No.1122 of 1996, was instituted against unknown for the offences under Sections 354, 302, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the accused. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 354, 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused''s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. It may be stated that the informant of the case died in the meantime and as such, she could not be examined in the case. Even the I.O., and the Doctor treating Chunni Tuddu were also not examined, nor any injury report, or document showing her treatment was proved. The Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased has been examined. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Lakhi Ram Tuddu and P.W.-2 Bolo Hari Tuddu have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. 5. P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu has supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place about nine years ago, and she had gone along with Bharti and Parvati to Makarchora Forest for plucking leaves. She has stated that Jiten Mardi came and caught her hand, and upon the alarm raised by her, Parvati came there and as Parvati was knowing the accused, she asked him as to why he was behaving like that, and started calling other persons, whereupon Jiten Mardi assaulted Parvati by axe, severing her head from trunk. Thereafter, he also assaulted this witness by axe, causing injuries on her head and back. Parvati died at the spot. This witness was treated in Bandwan hospital. This witness has stated that she was asked to take part in TIP, wherein she had identified the accused Jiten Mardi. Bharti had also identified the accused. Thereafter, he also assaulted this witness by axe, causing injuries on her head and back. Parvati died at the spot. This witness was treated in Bandwan hospital. This witness has stated that she was asked to take part in TIP, wherein she had identified the accused Jiten Mardi. Bharti had also identified the accused. She has stated that she can identify the accused in the Court. Since, on the date of her examination, the accused was represented through advocate, the identification the accused was waived. In her cross-examination, she has stated that Jiten Mardi was the resident of Tumboguru village, but she did not know as to in which tola, he was residing. She was knowing Jiten Mardi only from the date of occurrence, and prior to that, he was not known her. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place at Makarchora Forest, which falls in the State of Bengal and after the occurrence, she and Bharti ran to Sakiyavasa village, which is also in the State of West Bengal. From Sakiyavasa, she was taken to Bandwan hospital. She did not remember, whether Bandwan police had reached there or not, as she was unconscious. She has stated that while Jiten Mardi was assaulting her, Parvati had uttered his name and at that time Bharti Tuddu was at some distance. Bharti Tuddu had also identified the accused in jail. She has stated that the informant Bharti Tuddu had died four years ago. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that she was not present, when the statement of Bharti was recorded, as she was in the hospital. She was admitted in hospital for three to four days. She has stated that the accused had assaulted her by axe on her head and back and thereafter, she had fled to Sakiyavasa and thereafter, she did not know, what happened to her. She has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused. 6. P.W.- 3 Balram Tuddu is the brother of the victim Chunni Tuddu. He has stated that he was informed by Chunni Tuddu that she had gone to forest for plucking leaves along with Parvati Tuddu and Bharti Tuddu, his wife, who died about four years ago. They had gone to Makarchora Forest for plucking leaves, when Jiten Mardi tried to ravish her and all the three ladies objected to it. He has stated that he was informed by Chunni Tuddu that she had gone to forest for plucking leaves along with Parvati Tuddu and Bharti Tuddu, his wife, who died about four years ago. They had gone to Makarchora Forest for plucking leaves, when Jiten Mardi tried to ravish her and all the three ladies objected to it. He has stated that he was informed that Jiten Mardi assaulted his sister by axe on her head and he also assaulted Parvati by axe severing her head from trunk, due to which, she died at the spot itself. He had gone to the forest and had seen the dead body of the deceased. His sister was admitted in Bandwan hospital. He also claimed to identify the accused, but the accused was represented through advocate. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not seen the occurrence. He had seen Chunni Tuddu in the hospital, where he was informed about the occurrence. 7. P.W.-5 is Dr. Y. Nath, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 9.06.96 (wrongly written in the evidence as 19.6.96, as is apparent from the post-mortem report) and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- (A) The head was lying separately from the rest of trunk. (B) Abrasion: (i) 4 x 1/2 cm, 3 x 1/2 cm, 2x1/4 cm several pea size over left thigh and right thigh. (ii) 6 x 4 cm right knee front (iii) 1 x 1 cm and 1 x cm left knee front (iv) 5 x 1/4 cm, 4 x cm right thigh mideal side (v) 4 x 2cm left upper arm upper part (vi) 4 x 2 cm, 4 x 1-1/2 cm, 5 x 2 cm left upper arm middle part medial side (vii) Dragging abrais right thigh back (viii) Multiple abrasion ranging from 4 x cm, to 2 x 1 cm left face (ix) 6 x 3 cm right face. (C) Incised wound: (i) 3 x 2-1/2 cm x bone deep over right wrist obliquely placed lateral side. (ii) 3 x 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm, 2 x cm left hand back (iii) 3 x cm soft tissue, 4 x 1 cm x soft tissue right shoulder joint. (C) Incised wound: (i) 3 x 2-1/2 cm x bone deep over right wrist obliquely placed lateral side. (ii) 3 x 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm, 2 x cm left hand back (iii) 3 x cm soft tissue, 4 x 1 cm x soft tissue right shoulder joint. (iv) 6 x 2 cm x 3 cm inter scapular area (v) 3 x 1 cm x soft tissue left scapula (vi) 5 x 2 x 1 cm left breast upper (vii) 3 x 2 cm x scalp deep left perietal scalp (D) The wound separately in the head and rest of the trunk measured 8 cm and 11 cm antero posterior 14 cm size to size and 12 cm antero posterior (E) Internal there was contusion of sternum, right, chest with cut fracture of II and III rib and external fracture of 4 6 ribs. He has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injuries (A), (C) and (D) were the result of heavy sharp cutting weapon. Rest all the injuries were of hard and blunt substance. The death was due to separation of head from the rest of the trunk and the head and trunk belonged to one person. He has identified the post mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext. -1. 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below. The Trial Court below has also noted the fact that part of the Makarchora Forest lies in the territory of West Bengal and part thereof lies in the State of Jharkhand. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted 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, the FIR was lodged against unknown and the informant and I.O. have not been examined in the case. Though P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu had claimed to have identified the accused in TIP also, but the T.I. Chart has also not been proved in the case and even the Magistrate conducting the T.I. Parade, has not been examined. Though P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu had claimed to have identified the accused in TIP also, but the T.I. Chart has also not been proved in the case and even the Magistrate conducting the T.I. Parade, has not been examined. Learned counsel submitted that it has come in the evidence of P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu that at the time of occurrence, the deceased had uttered the name of the accused. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion for lodging the case against unknown. It has also been submitted by learned counsel that due to non-examination of the I.O., the defence has been vitally prejudiced in the case, in as much as, it is not clear whether the place of occurrence lies in the State of Jharkhand or in the State of West Bengal, and accordingly, whether the Trial Court below had the jurisdiction to try the case or not. Had the I.O. been examined in the case, this fact could be established, which has remained un-established due to non-examination of the I.O. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that according to the FIR, it is alleged that the appellant had given only one axe blow upon the deceased severing her head, but apart from that, the Doctor conducting the post mortem examination had found several other injuries on the dead body, which are not explained. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that though the victim has supported the prosecution case, but in the facts of this case, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the case is fully supported by P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu. She has stated that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased by axe severing her head from trunk, when she came to her rescue while the accused had caught her, and while they were fleeing away, the accused assaulted and injured her also. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Y. Nath and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1, which clearly shows that apart from other injuries on the dead body, head of the deceased was severed. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Y. Nath and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1, which clearly shows that apart from other injuries on the dead body, head of the deceased was severed. Learned counsel submitted that though the I.O. has not been examined in the case and the informant could not be examined due to her death, the prosecution has been fully able to bring home charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. On the point of jurisdiction of the Trial Court, learned counsel for the State has drawn our attention towards Sections 178 and 462 of the Cr.P.C., submitting that Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. provides that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas, and Section 462 of the Cr.P.C., provides that no finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside only on the ground that the trial was undertaken in a wrong Sessions Division. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be set-aside on this score also. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that it is a fact that the I.O., the informant and the Doctor, examining the victim Chunni Tuddu, have not been examined in this case, nor any document has been proved to support the allegation that Chunni Tuddu was also injured in the occurrence. This is the reason that the accused has only been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and not for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, for which also, he was charged. The fact remains that P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu has fully supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence, giving the details as to how the accused had assaulted the deceased severing her head, when the deceased had come to her rescue, and as to how she was also assaulted by the accused. She has claimed to identify the accused in the Court, but the accused was not present on that date and the identification had been waived. She has claimed to identify the accused in the Court, but the accused was not present on that date and the identification had been waived. The plea now cannot be taken that this witness could not identify the accused. The question of identifying the accused in T.I.P. becomes immaterial, in view of the fact that the witness has claimed to identify the accused in the Court itself. The FIR was lodged against unknown, as the accused was not known to the informant, and though it has come in the evidence of the victim Chunni Tuddu that the deceased had uttered the name of the accused, but she has stated that at that time, the informant was at some distance. The plea taken by learned counsel that there were several other injuries upon the deceased apart from severing her head, can be of no help to the defence, in as much as, the main allegation that due to the assault made by the accused, the head of the deceased was severed and she died at the spot, is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Y. Nath and the post mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1. We do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the defence in view of non-examination of the I.O., in as much as, no question was put to P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu in her cross-examination, so as to show that any statement made by her in the Court, was not made before the I.O. We have looked into the case diary also, and we find from the case diary that her statement was recorded by the I.O. As regards the evidence of P.W.-4 Chunni Tuddu that Makarchora Forest, falls within the territory of West Bengal, we find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the trial is vitiated on that count, in view of Sections 178 and 462 of the Cr.P.C., which read as follows:- "178. Place of inquiry or trial. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. *** *** *** 462. Proceedings in wrong place. No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice." A plain reading of these provisions clearly show that, even the doubt in place of occurrence whether the place of occurrence was within the State of Jharkhand or within the State of West Bengal, is not going to make any difference in the case, as in such a case the trial could be held at either of these places. We rather, find from the impugned Judgment that the Trial Court below was aware of this situation and has explained that part of Makarchora Forest falls in the State of Jharkhand while a part thereof in the State of West Bengal. Even if, there was some uncertainty as to where the exact place of occurrence was, in view of Section 178 of the Cr.P.C, the trial could be held at either of these places and in view of Section 462 of the Cr.P.C., if the trial is held in Jharkhand, the Trial Court''s Judgment cannot be set-aside only on the ground of it had no jurisdiction to try the case, unless it is shown that such error had in fact resulted in a failure of justice. Nothing could be shown by the defence that the trial of the accused in the Court below had resulted in any failure of justice. 13. Nothing could be shown by the defence that the trial of the accused in the Court below had resulted in any failure of justice. 13. In that view of the materials brought on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused 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, worth any interference by this Court. 14. For the foregoing reasons, since we find no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 20th February 2007 and Order of sentence dated 21.02.2007, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No.460 of 1996, convicting and sentencing the appellant Jiten Mardi for the offences under Sections 302 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, we hereby, affirm the same. The appellant is already in custody undergoing the sentence. 15. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which accordingly, stands dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.