JUDGMENT : B.B. Mangalmurti, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30th April, 1992, passed by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 99 of 1988, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 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 offence under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Ganesh Mahto, the Sarpanch of Rai Panchayat, recorded on 01.12.1983 at about 8.30 a.m. at Khelari Police Station, wherein he has stated that on the same day, i.e., on 01.12.1983 while he was returning from the Churi Hospital after requesting the Doctor to arrange an ambulance for taking the patient to Ranchi hospital then at about 7.00 a.m. when he was returning to his home and reached near Rama Hotel, he saw Baleshwar Mahto was taking away his cows for grazing and was passing through Rama Hotel lane. There he heard the sound of quarrel between Baleshwar Mahto and five boys of Churi village and then the informant asked them not to fight and went near the place. Two boys who were elder from others were assaulting Baleshwar Mahto with fists. In the meantime, one of the two elder boys, who was younger brother of B.N. Prasad, Foreman of Churi Mine, took out the knife from his pocket and stabbed Baleshwar on his back. At that time, Ram Chandra Ram was assaulting Baleshwar Mahto. The brother of B.N. Prasad fled away after stabbing Baleshwar Mahto. The other three boys were provoking other two boys for assaulting Baleshwar Mahto. At that time, Fagu Mahto, the elder brother and Harkhu Mahto, the father of Baleshwar Mahto reached there. After stabbing, the knife was thrown by Ram Prasad (brother of B.N. Prasad, as he came to know his name later on) at the spot itself which was picked up and kept in the pocket by accused Ram Chandra Ram. Fagu Mahto caught hold accused Ram Chandra Ram from his waist though he tried to get himself free. After stabbing, the knife was thrown by Ram Prasad (brother of B.N. Prasad, as he came to know his name later on) at the spot itself which was picked up and kept in the pocket by accused Ram Chandra Ram. Fagu Mahto caught hold accused Ram Chandra Ram from his waist though he tried to get himself free. Harkhu Mahto chased Ram Prasad who had stabbed Baleshwar Mahto but could not catch him. By that time, the neighbours Teju Mahto, Sita Mahto and Bhutku Mahto arrived there. Injured Baleshwar Mahto was given water to drink. Detained accused disclosed his name as Ram Chandra Ram father’s name as Ramdas Ram, working as Cleaner in Churi Mines. He also stated the name of his other companions as Ram Prasad, Phulendra Ram, Suresh Mochi and Anjani Kumar Mishra. He stated that they all are student of class–IX of Bachra High School. The informant has further stated that all the accused used to pass through the lane in front of his house so he was recognizing them but was not aware of their names. Two knives were recovered from the pocket of accused Ram Chandra Ram out of which one had blood stains. The injured was taken to hospital on a cot by Fagu Mahto, Sita Mahto, Teju Mahto and Bhutku Mahto but all returned after a while as the injured had died. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Khelari P.S. Case No. 81 of 1983, corresponding to G.R. No.3219 of 1983, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against five named accused persons, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet in the case. It appears that out of five accused persons, four accused persons were found juvenile by the trial court and as such, their case were split up and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge was framed against sole accused Ram Chandra Ram for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code upon which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, eleven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 6. 5. In course of trial, eleven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 6. P.W.1 Fagu Mahto is the brother of the deceased. He has stated that on 01.12.1983 he was in his house. At about 7.00 to 8.00 a.m. his sister came and said that 4 – 5 persons are assaulting Baleshwar Mahto. After that, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that two-three persons were assaulting and rest two were provoking them. He saw that one person gave knife blow on the left side of back of Baleshwar Mahto and fled away after throwing the knife at the place of occurrence. His father chased him. The other person who was fleeing away after giving knife blow was apprehended by him. The apprehended person was Ram Chandra Ram. He was searched and two knives were recovered from his pocket one of which was blood stained. He has further stated that his brother was lying unconscious in injured condition. He took him to the hospital where the Doctor declared him dead. He further stated that before going to the hospital, the apprehended person was handed over to Bhutku. He has stated that after return from the hospital, the dead body was kept at the place of occurrence itself and Police was informed. After getting information police arrived and recorded his statement. The apprehended person was handed over to the Police. He identified the accused standing in the court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 150 – 200 hands from his residence. He has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, no one was there except the boys. They were not known to him from before. He has further stated that one criminal case has been lodged upon him as well as on his father by the accused which is still pending. He has stated that he had not handed over the recovered knife to the Police and he is not aware who had given it to the Police. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 7. P.W.2 is Munni Kumari, sister of the deceased. He has stated that he had not handed over the recovered knife to the Police and he is not aware who had given it to the Police. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 7. P.W.2 is Munni Kumari, sister of the deceased. She has stated that when his brother was taking away the cows for grazing, five boys started assaulting him in Rama lane. On seeing this, she ran to her house and informed her brother and father about this incident. Her brother and father went to the place of occurrence. She has further stated that her brother Fagu Mahto apprehended one of the accused but rest accused managed to flee away. She saw her brother lying in injured condition. She has identified the accused persons in the court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the distance of place of occurrence from her house is about 150 – 200 yards. She has further stated that her brother used to go to the side of forest for grazing his cattle. She has stated that on the day she was also accompanying her brother. She has further stated that when she reached the place of occurrence, all accused persons had fled away except one accused who was apprehended at the spot by his brother. 8. P.W.3 is Bhikhu Mahto who has been tendered by the prosecution. 9. P.W.4 Syed Kasim stated that he heard about the murder when he was returning from his duty. He went there and saw the dead body of Baleshwar Mahto. The Police arrived and prepared the inquest report upon which he and Sri Ram put their signatures which he proved as Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/1. In his cross- examination, this witness has stated that seizure list was prepared in his presence and he had signed over it. 10. P.W.5 is Harkhu Mahto, the father of the deceased. He has stated that his daughter Munni informed him that some boys of Churi are assaulting Baleshwar Mahto. He went there and saw that one boy was giving knife blow to Baleshwar and after that he fled away throwing the knife at the place of occurrence. His son Fagu apprehended one of accused Ram Chandra Ram. He chased the other accused who had given the knife blow but he could not catch him. He took his son to Churi hospital. His son Fagu apprehended one of accused Ram Chandra Ram. He chased the other accused who had given the knife blow but he could not catch him. He took his son to Churi hospital. He has stated that two blood stained knives were recovered from the possession of accused Ram Chandra. The doctor declared his son dead then they again brought the dead body at the place of occurrence. Police reached at the place of occurrence after half an hour. He has identified the accused in the court. In his cross-examination he has stated that the accused was apprehended at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, accused Ram Chandra Ram has lodged the case against him as well as upon his son. He has stated the distance of the place of occurrence from his house is about 50 – 60 feet. He has stated that the knives were not recovered in his presence as he was chasing the other accused but when he returned to the place of occurrence, he had seen two knives. 11. P.W.6 is Ganesh Mahto, Sarpanch of Rai Panchayat and informant of the case, who turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. He even denied to have lodged this case as well as putting his signature on the fardbeyan. On this score, he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he denied to have given the statement before the Police. He has stated that he had not seen the occurrence. 12. P.W.7 Bhutka Mahto and P.W.8 Sita Mahto both became hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. 13. P.W.9 is Dr. Renu Bala, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 01.12.1983. On the dead body of Baleshwar Mahto she had found the following injuries :- Piercing wound :- 1 ½ x 1 ½ cm on the back of the chest 11 cm below the inferior angle of left scapula and 2 cm left to midline. The margin of the wound was ragged. The track passes into the left chest cavity through 8th inter-coastal space and injuring the thorasic aorta. The left chest cavity was full of blood and blood clot. She has stated that the injury was ante-mortem caused by pointed weapon may be by knife. Death was caused due to shock and bleeding. The margin of the wound was ragged. The track passes into the left chest cavity through 8th inter-coastal space and injuring the thorasic aorta. The left chest cavity was full of blood and blood clot. She has stated that the injury was ante-mortem caused by pointed weapon may be by knife. Death was caused due to shock and bleeding. She has stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. She has identified the post-mortem report to be in her pen and signature and the same was marked Ext-2. 14. P.W.4 Willium Minz is a formal witness. He has proved the formal F.I.R. and the handwriting and signature of the Investigating Officer Mahendra Prasad which were marked Ext. 3 and 4 respectively. 15. P.W. 11 is Mithilesh Prasad. He is also a formal witness. He has proved the hand writing and signature of informant Ganesh Mahto on the F.I.R. which was marked Ext. 1/2. 16. 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 evidences on record, the accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below cannot sustain in the eyes of law, in as much as, the witnesses supporting the prosecution case are the related and interested witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that P.W.1 Fagu Mahto, P.W. 2 Munni Kumari and P.W. 5 Harkhu Mahto, who are claiming to be the eye witness are brother, sister and father respectively of the deceased and so they are highly interested witnesses. Though it is stated by P.W.1 Fagu Mahto, P.W. 2 Munni Kumari and P.W. 5 Harkhu Mahto that they had seen the occurrence but the F.I.R. was not lodged by anyone of them rather the F.I.R. was lodged by Sarpanch Ganesh Mahto who was declared hostile. Learned counsel further submitted that the occurrence took place in the early morning on the road in front of the house of one Teju Mahto and it cannot be believed that the family members could reach the place of occurrence and were able to see the occurrence and no other person of that locality could see the occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that the occurrence took place in the early morning on the road in front of the house of one Teju Mahto and it cannot be believed that the family members could reach the place of occurrence and were able to see the occurrence and no other person of that locality could see the occurrence. It is further submitted that place of occurrence is in front of the house of Teju Mahto and Teju Mahto has not been examined in this case. Learned counsel submitted that only one injury was found by the Doctor and no repetition of assault was found which is sufficient to prove that there was no intention to kill the deceased. He has further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case which has caused severe prejudice to the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court did not find the appellant juvenile and convicted and sentence him but on the prayer of the appellant before this Hon’ble Court, this issue was referred to the Trial Court with a direction to make proper enquiry and to ascertain the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence. Thereafter, learned Trial Court, after examining the witnesses and looking to the certificates produced by the appellant, found his age as 16 years and 08 months at the time of alleged occurrence. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that since juvenility has been proved, on this ground the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. 18. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the occurrence is supported by three eye witnesses and they have stood the test of cross-examination and nothing could be taken in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Learned counsel submitted that the oral evidences of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Renu Bala, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, finding the injury caused by pointed weapon such as knife. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence and was apprehended by the brother of the deceased. Two knives were also recovered from his pocket, one of which was blood stained. Learned counsel submitted that if the appellant was a school student then why he and other accused were carrying knife with them. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence and was apprehended by the brother of the deceased. Two knives were also recovered from his pocket, one of which was blood stained. Learned counsel submitted that if the appellant was a school student then why he and other accused were carrying knife with them. It is suggestive of the fact that they had plan to kill the deceased. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence. 19. We have heard learned counsels for both the sides and have gone through the records. We find that there are three eye witnesses supporting the prosecution case. All of them have fully supported the prosecution case as given in the F.I.R. and there appears to be no major discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses in proving the manner of occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R. The oral evidence of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Renu Bala who proved post-mortem report as Ext-2. 20. Even if the witnesses are related and the evidences are cogent, credible and trustworthy, then their evidences cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased or injured as has been held in the case of R. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2004) 9 SCC 27 .We are of the considered view that three material eye-witnesses namely P.W.1 Fagu Mahto, P.W. 2 Munni Kumari and P.W. 5 Harkhu Mahto, examined in the case, are wholly trustworthy and the prosecution case cannot be doubted only because they are relatives. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that non-examination of Investigating Officer in this case has caused severe prejudice to the appellant but in the present case the eye witnesses have fully corroborated the occurrence and the manner of assault therefore, non-examination of Investigating Officer did not corrode credibility of prosecution version. This proposition was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bihari Rai Versus State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in (2008) 15 SCC 778 . This proposition was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bihari Rai Versus State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in (2008) 15 SCC 778 . The same view has also been reiterated in case of Birendra Rai & Others Versus State of Bihar reported in (2005) 9 SCC 719 wherein it has been held that non-examination of Investigating Officer has caused no prejudice to the defence if the evidence of the eye witnesses were found truthful. We are of the considered view that in the instant case the eye witnesses have narrated and proved prosecution version therefore, non-examination of the Investigating Officer have not prejudiced the appellant. 22. Though it is contended that the appellant was a school going student and he had no intention to kill the deceased, but carrying knife in the pocket by a school going student suggests that they had intention to kill the deceased. There is consistent evidence on record that five named accused persons, including the accused Ram Chandra Ram had committed the offence. As such, we are of the view that the accused Ram Chandra Ram has been rightly convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. Since the appellant could not prove his point of juvenility at the time of passing of Judgment by the Trial Court in this case, treating him to be a major the Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. On a reference by this Court, now as the Trial Court has ascertained the age of the appellant on the date of alleged occurrence as 16 years 08 months and found him to be juvenile, we are of the view that matter should be remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board for hearing on the point of sentence only. 24. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 30th April, 1992 passed by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 99 of 1988 so far as conviction is concerned, which we hereby affirm. So far as sentence is concerned, since the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant treating him to be a major and now he has been found a juvenile at the time of occurrence, therefore the sentence of R.I. for life awarded upon him, is set aside. So far as sentence is concerned, since the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant treating him to be a major and now he has been found a juvenile at the time of occurrence, therefore the sentence of R.I. for life awarded upon him, is set aside. We remand the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board for hearing on the point of sentence and for awarding the sentence. 25. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed with the modification as stated above. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.