JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 17th of February, 1993, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, holding Circuit Court at Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1992, whereby, the sole accused 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 imprisonment for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Rajendra Ram, who is the nephew of the deceased Ratan Ram, recorded on 15.10.1991, at about 9.00 P.M., in Village-Aine in the district of Lohardaga. According to the fardbeyan, the informant Rajendra Ram was informed at about 2.30 P.M, while he was in his agricultural field, by his grandmother Agji Devi, informing that Nawin Sahu had committed the murder of deceased Ratan Ram, assaulting him by sword. Upon getting the information, the informant along with Budhram Oraon and Bal Govind went to Village Singpur at the agricultural field of Loha Oraon, where he found the dead body of his uncle Ratan Ram with injuries. Upon enquiry, Loha Oraon informed him that while he was returning from his khalihan at about 1.30 P.M., he saw the accused Nawin Sahu, assaulting the deceased Ratan Ram by sword, due to which, he fell down. Even thereafter some assaults were made by sword, due to which, he died at the spot itself. As to the cause of occurrence, it is stated that some days prior to the occurrence, there was some altercation between the deceased and the accused, in which, the accused had threatened to kill his uncle. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Rajendra Ram, Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 161 of 1991, corresponding to G.R. No. 411 of 1991, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Nawin Sahu, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Rajendra Ram, Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 161 of 1991, corresponding to G.R. No. 411 of 1991, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Nawin Sahu, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 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. In course of trial, nine witnesses were 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 whom, P.W.-4 Budhram Mahto and P.W.-5 Agji Devi, the grandmother of the informant, had only been tendered by the prosecution. 5. P.W.-6 Loha Oraon is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about 5 months ago at about 1.30-2.00 P.M. He was returning from his khalihan and when he reached near his house, he saw that the accused Nawin Sahu was assaulting the deceased Ratan Ram by sword and he killed him. He has stated that he informed the choukidar Sania Oraon, Janardan and Shankar, about the occurrence. He has identified the accused in the Court. He has stated that the police had arrived at the place of occurrence and had prepared the inquest report of the dead body, on which, he had put his signature. He has identified the inquest report, which was marked-X for identification. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the accused had assaulted the deceased near his house, and his khalihan is situated at a distance of about 100 yards from the place of occurrence. He has reiterated that he had seen with his own eyes that the accused Nawin Sahu had assaulted the deceased Ratan Ram by sword. He has also stated that Janardan had also come to the Court on that date, and he has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused at the behest of Janardan. 6. P.W.-1 Rajendra Ram, the informant and the nephew of the deceased, is the hearsay witness and similarly, P.W.-3 Bal Govind Ram, is also the hearsay witness to the occurrence. 6. P.W.-1 Rajendra Ram, the informant and the nephew of the deceased, is the hearsay witness and similarly, P.W.-3 Bal Govind Ram, is also the hearsay witness to the occurrence. Both these witnesses, upon getting the information had gone to the place of occurrence and seen the dead body of the deceased. They have stated that at the place of occurrence, they were informed by Loha Oraon, that the accused Nawin Sahu had assaulted the deceased Ratan Ram by sword, causing his death at the spot. P.W.-1 Rajendra Ram has also stated that there was some altercation between the deceased and the accused, in which, the accused had threatened the deceased to kill him. He had given the fardbeyan before the police, on which, he had put his signature. On his identification the fardbeyan was marked Exhibit-1. Both these witnesses have also identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. 7. P.W.-7 Rajendra Bhagat and P.W.-8 Eliazar Kujur are the seizure list witnesses. Both these witnesses have stated that blood stained sword was recovered from the house of the accused Nawin Sahu in their presence and at the time of recovery, Nawin Sahu was also present and the seizure list was also prepared. They have proved their signatures on the seizure list, which were marked Exhibits-2 and 2/1. P.W.-8 Eliazar Kujur has also stated that blood stained soil was recovered from the place of occurrence and seizure list was prepared, on which, he and Rajendra Bhagat had put their signatures, and he has identified their signatures on the seizure list, which were marked Exhibits-2/2 and 2/3 respectively. 8. P.W.-2 Dr. Sunil Minz had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 16.10.1991 and have found the following injuries on the dead body:— External injuries : – (i) Incised wound slightly curved about three inches in length X muscle deep on the upper arm below left shoulder joint. (ii) Incised wound slightly curved about 3 ½” long on left side of neck. It was skin deep. (iii) Incised wound about three inches long X skin deep on left side of neck about 2” above injury No. (ii). (iv) Lacerated wound about two inches X one inch X muscle deep on left supra-scapular region. (ii) Incised wound slightly curved about 3 ½” long on left side of neck. It was skin deep. (iii) Incised wound about three inches long X skin deep on left side of neck about 2” above injury No. (ii). (iv) Lacerated wound about two inches X one inch X muscle deep on left supra-scapular region. (v) Lacerated wound about 3” X 2” X bone deep on left side of occipital bone area. On internal examination: Cranial cavity - Fissured fracture about 3” long, just below external injury No. (v) on left side of occipital bone. The fracture involved outer and inner table of the occipital bone. Cranial cavity was full of dark coloured blood. Occipital lobe underlying the fractured area was lacerated about 2” in diameter. Lungs were found congested. Right and left chambers of heart were found empty. Liver, spleen and kidneys were found congested. 9. He has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by hard and sharp substance, may be by sword. He has stated that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage caused by aforesaid injuries. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-1/1. 10. P.W.-9 Yogendra Rajak is the I.O. of this case. This witness has stated that on 15.10.1990, he was present in Lohardaga Police Station, when he got a rumor that in Village-Singpur, someone was murdered. He made the sanha entry about that information and upon the direction of the Officer-In-charge, he visited the village of occurrence, where he reached at about 8.30 P.M. He was informed about the place of occurrence, i.e., the agricultural field of Loha Oraon, where he reached and saw the dead body of the deceased Ratan Ram. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Rajendra Ram, the nephew of the deceased, which he has identified, which was earlier marked Exhibit-1. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased, which he has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit-4. He also recorded the re-statement of the accused and inspected the place of occurrence and he has given the details of the place of occurrence, which is the agricultural field of Loha Oraon and nearby, to the place of occurrence, was the mud built house of Loha Oraon. He also recorded the re-statement of the accused and inspected the place of occurrence and he has given the details of the place of occurrence, which is the agricultural field of Loha Oraon and nearby, to the place of occurrence, was the mud built house of Loha Oraon. He also found blood at the place of occurrence and he recovered the blood stained soil in the presence of the witnesses. He has proved the seizure list of the blood stained soil, which was marked Exhibit-3. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and he also raided the house of the accused Nawin Sahu, from where, he arrested the accused Nawin Sahu. He took the statement of the accused Nawin Sahu and on the basis of his confession, he recovered the sword from his house in presence of the witnesses and prepared the seizure list, which he has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit-3/1. He sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination and he also sent the recovered sword for forensic examination, but he did not receive the report of the forensic lab. He also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Exhibit-5 and has stated that after completing the investigation, he submitted the chargesheet in this case. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the place of occurrence is the agricultural field of Loha Oraon in Singpur, and the fardbeyan was recorded at Aine village, and he has clarified that both the villages are situated side-by-side. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he had sent the blood stained soil also for forensic examination, but he had not received the report of the same. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, he has denied the evidence against him and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 12. The defence has also examined one witness, who is D.W.-1 Sania Oraon, the choukidar. This witness has stated that at the place of occurrence, Loha Oraon had informed him that he had not seen as to who had committed the murder of the deceased. 13. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below has found the accused Nawin Sahu guilty, and convicted and sentenced him for the offence as aforesaid. 14. 13. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below has found the accused Nawin Sahu guilty, and convicted and sentenced him for the offence as aforesaid. 14. 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, inasmuch as, there is only one eyewitness to the occurrence, who is P.W.-6 Loha Oraon, who has stated that he had informed the choukidar Sania Oraon, Janardan and Shankar about the occurrence. Sania Oraon, the choukidar, has been examined as the defence witness No. 1, and he has stated that Loha Oraon had informed him that he had not seen as to who had committed the murder of the deceased. Other witnesses Janardan and Shankar have not been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that in their evidence, though seizure list witnesses P.W.-7 Rajendra Bhagat and P.W.-8 Eliazar Kujur have stated that the blood stained sword was recovered from the house of the accused appellant, but P.W-9 Yogendra Rajak, the I.O. of the case has not stated that the said sword was blood stained. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that there are several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, and in the facts of the case, the accused-appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the case is fully supported by the eyewitness P.W.-6 Loha Oraon, stating that it was this accused, who had committed the murder of the deceased by sword. Even the I.O., P.W.-9 Yogendra Rajak had conducted the raid at the house of the accused and apprehended him from his house and on the basis of his confession, the weapon of offence, i.e., the blood stained sword had been recovered. The seizure list, which has been proved as Exhibit-3/1, clearly shows that it was the blood stained sword, which was recovered from the house of the accused Nawin Sahu, and it also bears the signature of the accused Nawin Sahu. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the oral evidence of the eyewitness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-2 Dr. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the oral evidence of the eyewitness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-2 Dr. Sunil Minz, who had found the incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased, which were sufficient to cause the death in normal course, and these injuries could be caused by sword. 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. 16. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that the informant P.W-1 Rajendra Ram, who is also the nephew of the deceased and P.W.-3 Bal Govind Ram, who had accompanied the informant to the place of occurrence, have stated that they were informed about the occurrence by Loha Oraon, that the deceased was assaulted by sword by the accused Nawin Sahu, causing his death at the spot. P.W.-6 Loha Oraon, who is the eyewitness to the occurrence, has supported the prosecution case, stating that he saw the accused Nawin Sahu assaulting the deceased by sword, causing his death. P.W.-7 Rajendra Bhagat and P.W.-8 Eliazar Kujur, are the witnesses to the fact that from the house of the accused Nawin Sahu, the blood stained sword was recovered in their presence, and also in the presence of the accused. The seizure of the sword was also proved by P.W.-9 Yogendra Rajak, the I.O. of this case, stating that he had seized the sword on the basis of confessional statement of the accused Nawin Sahu. The I.O. has proved the seizure list, which is on the record, which shows that it was the blood stained sword, which was recovered from the house of the accused Nawin Sahu and it also bears the signature of accused Nawin Sahu. The evidence that the accused had assaulted the deceased by sword, is also fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-2 Dr. Sunil Minz and the post-mortem report, proved by him as Exhibit-1/1, which shows that there were three incised injuries and two lacerated wounds on the dead body of the deceased, clearly showing that the accused had given repeated blows of sword on the deceased. Sunil Minz and the post-mortem report, proved by him as Exhibit-1/1, which shows that there were three incised injuries and two lacerated wounds on the dead body of the deceased, clearly showing that the accused had given repeated blows of sword on the deceased. In view of the evidence brought on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused appellant Nawin Sahu, beyond all reasonable doubts that he committed the murder of the deceased Ratan Ram, and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the said offence by the Trial Court below. 17. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 17th of February, 1993, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, holding Circuit Court at Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1992, convicting and sentencing the appellant Nawin Sahu, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, to serve out 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 Nawin Sahu @ Nagendra Prasad Sahu for serving out the sentence. 18. We do not find any 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 this Judgment. Appeal dismissed.