JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 31st August 1996 and Order of sentence dated 02.09.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No.52 of 1995, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Sanicharwa Chick Baraik, recorded on 9.11.1994, at his village Upper Khatanga Kobi Toli, P.S. Raidih, District Gumla, wherein, he has stated that on the same day at 9.30 A.M., he was returning from his field and one Katrina Kujur, who was coming from the forest picking woods, was going ahead of him. When she reached near the house of Jaimuni, she raised alarm that the accused Jaguwa Gope was assaulting Jaimuni by axe on her head. In the meantime, Jaguwa Gope fled from there with the axe in his hand, and he threw the axe, and fled away towards the forest. The informant has stated that there was enmity due to land dispute between Jaguwa Gope and the deceased Jaimuni, due to which, Jaguwa Gope had assaulted the deceased causing her death. He has stated that while fleeing away, the dhoti of the accused fell down, which the informant put at the house of the deceased and had also put the axe near the dead body. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Raidih P.S. Case No.69 of 1994, corresponding to G.R. No.716 of 1994, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused, and the investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused''s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The I.O. has not been examined in the case, as such, the FIR, the fardbeyan, and the seizure list were proved by a formal witness P.W.-8 Karam Dayal Kharia, and were marked as Exts.-4, 5 and 6 respectively. Another formal witness P.W.-7 Kuldip Singh has proved the case diary in the case. 5. P.W.-4 Sanicharwa Chick Baraik is the informant of the case, who has supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence. This witness has stated that the occurrence took place about one year and eight months ago, on a Wednesday at about 9.30 A.M. in the morning. He was returning from his field and Katrina Kujur was going ahead of this witness with wood, which she was bringing from the forest. When she reached near the house of Jaimuni, he saw that Jaguwa Gope was assaulting the deceased by axe on her head. He was about five steps behind Katrina. Katrina raised the alarm and this witness also raised alarm, whereupon, the accused started fleeing away, throwing away the axe. While fleeing away, his dhoti also fell down. He picked up the dhoti and the axe, and kept the axe near the dead body, and the dhoti at the house of the accused. He has stated that the accused had committed the murder due to land dispute between the accused and the deceased, as he had filed application for mutation of the land of the deceased in his name, but the same could not be done. He gave the fardbeyan to the police, upon which, he had put his signature, which he has identified and the same was marked Ext.-1/2. He has identified the accused in the Court. Though this witness was put to extensive cross-examination on the point of enmity etc., but there is nothing of much importance therein. He has stated that he had seen the occurrence from his own eyes. No suggestion, however, was given to this witness in his cross-examination, that he had not given such statement before the police. 6. Though this witness was put to extensive cross-examination on the point of enmity etc., but there is nothing of much importance therein. He has stated that he had seen the occurrence from his own eyes. No suggestion, however, was given to this witness in his cross-examination, that he had not given such statement before the police. 6. P.W.-1 is Katrina Kujur, who has also supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence, stating that on the date of occurrence, she was returning from forest at about 9.30 A.M. in the morning, after picking wood and when she reached near the house, she saw Jaguwa Gope assaulting Jaimuni Devi by axe, whereupon she raised the alarm. Jaimuni was assaulted on her head and she died at the spot. She has stated that Sanicharwa also came there and Jaguwa fled away throwing the axe, and while fleeing away, his dhoti also fell down. She has stated that several persons assembled there. She has also stated that the occurrence had taken place due to land dispute between the parties. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination she has stated that the courtyard of Jaguwa and Jaimuni is common. There is cross-examination on the point of enmity also, but there is nothing of much importance therein. 7. P.W.-2 is Mahadeo Gowala, who has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, upon the alarm raised by Sanicharwa and one lady, and he had also seen the accused fleeing away with the axe, which he had thrown and he had also seen that while fleeing away, the dhoti of the accused fell down. This witness has also stated that there was land dispute between the accused and the deceased, due to which, the occurrence had taken place. The accused is the sister-in-law''s husband (Nandosi) of the deceased. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused and the deceased were having the same courtyard, and his mother-in-law, wife and children are also living there. He has stated that he had chased the accused, but he could not apprehend him. 8. P.W.-5 Somra Khesh is only a hearsay witness, who had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence, and had seen the dead body with bleeding injury on the head. He has stated that he had chased the accused, but he could not apprehend him. 8. P.W.-5 Somra Khesh is only a hearsay witness, who had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence, and had seen the dead body with bleeding injury on the head. He was informed about the occurrence by Sanicharwa and Katrina at the place of occurrence. This witness is also the witness to the inquest report of the dead body, on which, he has identified his signature, which was marked Ext. 1/3. He has also stated that the occurrence had taken place due to land dispute between the parties, and the accused had given application for mutation of the land of the deceased in his name, which was objected by the deceased, and his application was rejected. This witness was also put to cross-examination, but there is nothing of much importance therein. 9. P.W.-3 Sitain Kujur is only the witness to the seizure of axe, dhoti and blood stained soil, and he has proved his signature and the signature of one witness on the seizure list, which were marked Exts.-1 and 1/1. 10. P.W.-6 is the Dr. Anoop Kr. Gupta, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 10.11.1994, and had found the following injuries on the dead body. 3"x2"x1" incised wound on upper and left side of forehead with commuted fracture of frontal bone and laceration of underlying brain tissues. He has stated that the injury was ante-mortem in nature and the caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be by axe, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, and the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-2. 11. 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 as aforesaid. 12. 11. 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 as aforesaid. 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, the prosecution has failed to bring home charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, as the I.O., has not been examined by the prosecution, which has caused serious prejudice to the defence. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that since only one axe blow was given on the deceased, the offence if any, shall not come within the purview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rather, the offence, if any, shall be made out only under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submitted that all the witnesses have admitted enmity between the accused and the deceased, and as such, the false implication of the accused for admitted enmity, cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that P.W.-1 Katrina Kujur and P.W.-4 Sanicharwa Chick Baraik, are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, who had seen the accused assaulting the deceased by axe, causing her death at the spot. P.W.-2 Mahadeo Gowala had also reached the place of occurrence, soon after the occurrence, and he had seen the accused fleeing away. P.W.-5 Somra Khesh has also supported the case as hearsay witness and the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. Anoop Kr. Gupta, and post mortem report proved by him as Ext.- 2, which clearly show that the assault was made on the head of the deceased and the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. 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, worth any interference by this Court. 14. 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, worth any interference by this Court. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that P.W.-1 Katrina Kujur and the informant P.W.-4 Sanicharwa Chick Baraik, have fully supported the case as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. There is no cross-examination of these witnesses to the effect that they had not given the statements before the police that they had seen the accused assaulting the deceased. P.W.-2 Mahadeo Gowala had also reached the place of occurrence, upon the alarm raised by the informant and one lady, which is presumably, Katrina Kujur, and he had seen the dead body of the deceased. He had also seen the accused fleeing away from there. P.W.-5 Somra Khesh is a hearsay witness, who was informed about the occurrence by Katrina Kujur and the informant Sanicharwa Chick Baraik. He is also a witness to the inquest report. All these witnesses have stated that the occurrence had taken place due to land dispute between the parties. It has come in the evidence that the accused and the deceased have the common courtyard, and the accused is related as sisters-in-law''s husband (Nandosi) of the deceased. He had tried to get the land of the deceased mutated in his favour, which was objected by the deceased, due to which, there was enmity between the parties. Though, in the fardbeyan, it is not stated by the informant that he had seen the accused assaulting the deceased by axe, but as the I.O. has not been examined in the case, and in the interest of justice, we have looked into the case diary, and we find that all the witnesses have made the same statement in their evidence, which they had stated before the police. In his restatement before the police, even the informant has also claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence. Since there is no cross-examination of the informant or any witness to the effect that they had not given any such statement before the police, we find that non-examination of the I.O., has not caused any prejudice to the defence in any manner what so ever. Since there is no cross-examination of the informant or any witness to the effect that they had not given any such statement before the police, we find that non-examination of the I.O., has not caused any prejudice to the defence in any manner what so ever. As regards the other submission of learned counsel that there is only one assault on the deceased and the offence, if any, is made out, only under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code, we find from the medical evidence on record that the assault was sufficient to cause death of the deceased, as the assault was made by tangi on the head of the deceased, applying such force, that even the brain matter was lacerated, which clearly shows the intention of causing the death, while making the assault. We are of the considered view, that in the facts of this case, the offence is clearly made out under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference of this Court. 15. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 31st August 1996 and Order of sentence dated 02.09.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No.52 of 1995, convicting and sentencing the appellant Jaggu @ Jaguwa Gope, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant is on bail. His bail is canceled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, for undergoing the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue process forthwith, compelling the surrender / production of the appellant in Court below, for undergoing the sentence. 16. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.