JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 16.4.1996 and Order of sentence dated 18.4.1996, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in S.T No. 394 of 1992, whereby, the 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 rigorous imprisonment for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Moti Kui, the wife of the deceased Budhram Gope, recorded on 26.8.1991 at about 2.00 PM, wherein, she has stated that on the previous day, i.e., 25.8.1991, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, she had gone to the village of her maternal cousin sister and at about 8.00 PM, she was returning to her house. When she reached near the paddy field of one Soma Ram Kandeyang, she saw her husband lying with bleeding injury on his neck. She wanted to lift to him, but he had already died. She has stated that it was the moonlit night and she saw the accused Mangru Kandeyang fleeing away with farsa. She raised the alarm. She has also stated that one Subhasini Devi had also seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. She has further stated in her fardbeyan that her brother Vishwanath Koda was in his house and he saw the occurrence from the house, whereupon he came running and he chased Mangru Kandeyang and he had apprehended him. By that time, Mangru Kandeyang had thrown the farsa. Claiming that accused Mangru Kandeyang had assaulted her husband to death by farsa, the fardbeyn was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 56 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. No. 270 of 1991, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the named accused, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. 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 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. 5. In course of trial, eleven witnesses were examined on the behalf of the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case, and accordingly, the formal FIR and the fardbeyan have been proved by a formal witnesses P.W.-11 Uma Shankar Das, an advocate's clerk, which were marked as Exhibits-3 & 3/1 respectively. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.-6 Subhasini Devi and P.W.-9 Narsingh Gope have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case, whereas, P.W.-7 Mangli Kui, P.W.-8 Sulgu Munda and P.W.-10 Sonaram Kandeyang have only been tendered by the prosecution. The informant of the case has not been examined. 6. The prosecution case is supported by P.W.-3 Vishwanath Koda, who happens to be the brother of the informant and an eyewitness to the occurrence. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about three years ago on the day of Raksha Bandhan. He has stated that he was returning with his sister from a different village, at about 7.00 to 8.00 PM in the night. It was a moonlit night. He saw that his brother-in-law Budhram Gope was assaulted and injured by Mangru Kandeyan and he was fleeing away towards the house of Sulgu Munda. The occurrence was committed in the agricultural field of Sona Ram Kandeyan, and neck of his brother-in-law was cut and he died at the spot. Thereafter, he went to the house of Lalin Samad and informed him about the occurrence. Thereafter, both of them went out in search of Mangru Kandeyan. Mangru Kandeyan was hiding in the house of Sulgu Munda, from where he was apprehended. He tied the accused by rope and brought him to his house. By that time, it was late night. In the morning, Munda of the village and the villagers were also informed, and before the villagers the accused had confessed, stating that he had killed Budhram Gope. He tied the accused by rope and brought him to his house. By that time, it was late night. In the morning, Munda of the village and the villagers were also informed, and before the villagers the accused had confessed, stating that he had killed Budhram Gope. Thereafter, Mangru Kandeyan was brought to Manoharpur Police Station and thereafter, the police came to the place of occurrence along with them. He has stated that the police had also seized the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence, and he had put his signature, which he identified on the seizure list, and the same was marked as Ext.-2/1. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated the occurrence had taken place in his village. He has stated that his sister and brother-in-law were living in his house from 10 to 15 days prior to the occurrence. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he could not say when his brother-in-law came out of the house on the day of occurrence, but he has stated that he was assaulted and injured by Mangru Kandeyan, which fact he was not informed by any one, rather, he had himself seen. The weapon of offence could not be found as the accused had thrown it away. He has stated that the accused Mangru Kandeyan is his co-villager and the distance between the house of this witness and the house of Mangru Kandeyan is about 50 feet. He has also stated that his sister had also seen the occurrence. He has stated that he had given the statement before the police that Mangru Kandeyan had assaulted his brother-in-law by Farsa. This witness has further stated that he had apprehended the accused from the house of Sulgu Munda in the same night, while he was sleeping in the house of Sulgu Munda, which is situated at a distance of 50-60 feet from the place of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion that he is not the eyewitness to the occurrence, and he has also denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the case. 7. P.W.-5 Lolin Samad has stated that the occurrence had taken place about three years ago. He was in his house. Vishwanath Koda came and informed him that Mangru Kandeyan had killed his brother-in-law, and requested him to accompany him for searching the accused. 7. P.W.-5 Lolin Samad has stated that the occurrence had taken place about three years ago. He was in his house. Vishwanath Koda came and informed him that Mangru Kandeyan had killed his brother-in-law, and requested him to accompany him for searching the accused. He came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased with cut injury in the neck, profusely bleeding. He has stated that they searched Mangru Kandeyan and found him sleeping in the house of Sulgu Munda from where he was apprehended, he was tied and brought to the house of Vishwanath. In the morning, villagers were called and Mangru Kandeyan confessed before the villagers that he had killed Budhram Gope. Thereafter, he was taken to Police Station. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was informed about the occurrence by Vishwanath Kora and prior to that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. He has also stated in his cross-examination that after being apprehended, no assault was made to the accused. He has stated that the hands of the accused were tied, while he was sleeping. This witness has stated that Mangru Kandeyan had not made the confession before the villagers out of fear, rather, he had confessed his guilt voluntarily. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. 8. P.W.-2 Laxmi Narayan Mahto is the Munda of the village. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 25.08.1991. He was in his house and it was a day of Raksha Bandhan. In the night, at about 7:00 to 8:00 PM, Narsingh Gope, Lolin and one more person came to his house informing that one person was lying in the pool of blood. They did not inform him about the name of any accused. He asked them to enquire as to who had killed the deceased. Those persons again came in the morning and informed that the deceased was killed by Mangru Kandeyang, who had been apprehended. Thereafter, he went to the place where Mangru Kandeyang was kept apprehended, and upon asking, Mangru Kandeyang confessed that he had killed Budhram Gope. He had confessed his guilt before Vishwnath Koda and about 10 to 12 villagers. Those persons again came in the morning and informed that the deceased was killed by Mangru Kandeyang, who had been apprehended. Thereafter, he went to the place where Mangru Kandeyang was kept apprehended, and upon asking, Mangru Kandeyang confessed that he had killed Budhram Gope. He had confessed his guilt before Vishwnath Koda and about 10 to 12 villagers. Thereafter, the police was informed and police came to the place of occurrence, where the inquest report of the dead body was prepared, upon which he had also put his signature. He has identified his signature on the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit-2. This witness has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that when the villagers had gone to inform the police, Mangru Kandeyang was also taken to the Police Station. He has also denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused. 9. P.W.-4 Narsingh Gope is only a witness to the seizure list of the blood stained soil, upon which, he had put his signature, and the same was marked Ext-2/2. He has stated nothing about the occurrence. 10. P.W.-1 Dr. B.K. Singh had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27.8.1991, and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- (i) Incised wound over the left side of the neck 8”x1/4”x6” extending up to occidental region. (ii) On dissection : skull bone fractured, brain out. Blood in the cranial cavity. Heart and lungs collapsed. Stomach empty. Abdominal organs pale and intact. Bladder empty. He has stated that the death was caused due to above injuries leading to hemorrhage, coma and death. The injury was caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon, may be by farsa. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-1. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, in which, the accused has denied the evidence against him. No defence witness was examined in the case. On the basis of the evidence on record, the sole accused has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. No defence witness was examined in the case. On the basis of the evidence on record, the sole accused has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 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, as the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the I.O. has not been examined in the case, which caused serious prejudice to the defence and even the informant has not been examined in the case. It is submitted that Vishwanath Koda is actually not the eyewitness to the occurrence, and due to the fact that the I.O. has not been examined, this contradiction could not be taken from the I.O., thus, causing serious prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel has also submitted that it has come in the evidence that the accused was tied by rope and brought to the house of P.W.-2 Vishwanath Koda, due to which, it cannot be said that the extra judicial confession made by him was voluntarily in nature. It has been submitted that the weapon of offence has also not been recovered. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused beyond all doubts, and even though, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, it is a fit case, in which, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that P.W.-3 Vishwanath Koda is the eyewitness to the occurrence, who has fully supported the prosecution case. The other witness, namely, P.W.-5 Lolin Samad is the hearsay witness and he was informed about the occurrence by P.W.-3 Vishwanath Koda, and he had seen the dead body and had accompanied the informant in apprehending the accused and he is also a witness to the extra judicial confession made by the accused. So is P.W.-2 Laxmi Narayan Mahto, the Munda of the village, who has also stated that the accused confessed his guilt in their presence. So is P.W.-2 Laxmi Narayan Mahto, the Munda of the village, who has also stated that the accused confessed his guilt in their presence. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. B.K. Singh and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1, which shows that there was sharp cutting injury on the neck of the deceased caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and the Doctor has stated that it could be caused by farsa, and was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the case rests mainly on the evidence of eyewitness P.W.-3 Vishwanath Koda, about whom, the doubt has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that he is not the eyewitness to the occurrence, and even submitted that due to non-examination of the I.O., the defence has been seriously prejudiced. We have looked into the case diary and we find that this witness had given the statement before the police also, as an eyewitness to the occurrence, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been prejudiced in any manner due to non-examination of the I.O. The case is fully supported by P.W.-3 Vishwanath Koda, and P.W.-5 Lolin Samdad was informed about the occurrence by Vishwanath Koda soon after the occurrence. He had gone to the place of occurrence, seen the dead body with bleeding injury on the neck and thereafter he had accompanied Vishwanth Koda in searching the accused appellant and had apprehended him from the house of Salgu Munda. This Salgu Munda has been tendered by the prosecution as P.W.-8, but no question was put to him in his cross-examination by the defence, whether the accused had been apprehended from his house or not. P.W.-5 Lolin Samad and P.W.-2 Laxmi Narayan Mahto have also stated that the accused had confessed his guilt before them and the villagers. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. P.W.-5 Lolin Samad and P.W.-2 Laxmi Narayan Mahto have also stated that the accused had confessed his guilt before them and the villagers. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. B.K. Singh and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-1, which show that there was deep incised wound on the neck extending to occidental region and the skull bone was also fractured. The brain had been exposed and the cranial cavity was also found full of blood, and these injuries were sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. We are of the considered view, that in view of the evidence brought on record, the prosecution has been fully able to bring home charge against the appellant 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. 15. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 16.4.1996 and Order of sentence dated 18.4.1996, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 394 of 1992, convicting and sentencing the appellant Mangru Kandeyang, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant Mangru Kandeyang is on bail. His bail is canceled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below to undergo 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 for 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 a copy of this Judgment.