JUDGMENT Per Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar Tewari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial Case No. 220 of 2009 whereby the sole appellant Jayant Sabar has been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, appellant has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Sunita Sabar (PW-5) recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police Bipin Bihari Verma (PW-7) on 21.10.2007 at 10.00 A.M at Sabar Tola. The informant has alleged that in the previous night at 8.00 P.M. after taking dinner, informant was sleeping with her husband Jayant Sabar (appellant). In the midnight at 12.00 P.M. when she woke up to attend the call of nature, she saw that her husband and her daughter Shakuntala Sabar aged about 9 months were not in the house. The informant has further stated that she went before her father-in-law, Surendra Sabar and mother-in-law, Manu Sabar and informed them about the same. Thereafter, all of them have started searching both her husband and daughter in the nearby vicinity. The informant went to the house of his neighbour Chunra Mahto and village Pradhan Ramesh Chandra Mahato and searched them, but they could not find their location. After two hours at around 2.00 A.M., Jayant Sabar (appellant) came with the baby on his shoulder from the west side of the house. On inquiry made, her husband did not said any word. When the child was taken forcibly from his lap, she was found dead. The child has sustained injuries on the left side of the head which was compressed and blood was oozing out from the nose and ear. On inquiry, Jayant Sabar (appellant) has confessed that he has taken the child and killed her by thrashing on the ground and pressing her. The child has sustained injuries on the left side of the head which was compressed and blood was oozing out from the nose and ear. On inquiry, Jayant Sabar (appellant) has confessed that he has taken the child and killed her by thrashing on the ground and pressing her. The informant has alleged that her husband Jayant Sabar used to say that she has illicit relation with someone and from the said relationship, the child Shakuntala Sabar is born. For this, informant was also assaulted by her husband. Informant has claimed that her husband aged 25 years has taken the child Shakuntala Sabar from the bed and took her out of the house, killed her by thrashing on the ground and pressing her and return with dead body. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant, police has registered Chakulia P.S. Case No. 63/2007 dated 21.10.2007 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against named accused Jayant Sabar. After completion of the investigation, police has submitted charge sheet vide vide Charge Sheet No. 46/2007 dated 30.11.2007 against the named accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken vide order dated 03.01.2008 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 11.06.2009. The charge has been framed against the sole accused Jayant Sabar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 25.01.2010. Charge has been explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he has denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. Thus, he was put under trial. 5. In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has examined altogether eight prosecution witnesses and also adduced seven documentary evidence, brought on record as exhibits. Budhani Sabar has been examined as PW-1; Ramesh Chandra Mahto has been examined as PW-2; Suren @ Surendra Nath Sabar has been examined as PW-3; Tunka Mahto has been examined as PW-4; Sunita Sabar, informant and mother of the victim child has been examined as PW-5; Mathur Chandra Mahto, inquest witness, has been examined as PW-6; Bipin Bihari Verma, Investigating Officer of this case, has been examined as PW-7 and Dr. Arjun Soren, the Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shakuntala Sabar, has been examined as PW-8. Arjun Soren, the Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shakuntala Sabar, has been examined as PW-8. Signature of the witness Mathur Chandra Mahto (PW6) on the carbon copy of the inquest report has been proved and marked as Ext.1; Signature of Mathur Chandra Mahto (PW6) on the confessional statement of the accused has been proved and marked as Ext.-2; Carbon copy of inquest report in handwriting and signature of the Investigating Officer Bipin Bihari Verma (PW7) has been proved and marked as Ext.3; The confessional statement of the accused in handwriting and signature of Bipin Bihari Verma, the Investigating Officer (PW7) has been proved and marked as Ext.4; Fardbeyan in handwriting and signature of the Investigating Officer (PW7) has been proved and marked as Ext.5; Registration and signature of the Investigating Officer on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Ext.5/(i); Formal F.I.R. with signature of the Investigating Officer (PW7) has been proved and marked as Ext.6 and Postmortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.7. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused Jayant Sabar was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 22.06.2013 where he has not given any satisfactory reply, so far as death of his child is concerned except that he has denied about his involvement in the alleged offence. No defence witness or exhibit has been brought on record on behalf of the defence. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record, learned Trial Court has held this accused Jayant Sabar guilty for the offence committed and punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, accused has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 8. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred the present Jail appeal before this Court on 10.04.2014 which was admitted vide order dated 14.10.2014 and is being listed for final hearing. 9. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary and learned counsel for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar Tewari, Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. 9. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary and learned counsel for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar Tewari, Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tewari has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the informant (PW-5) who has put the law in motion, has not supported her case. She has categorically stated during trial that her husband is innocent. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the father of the appellant Surendra Nath Sabar, who has been examined as PW-3, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned Amicus has further submitted that mother of the appellant has not been examined in this case who was also present in the house. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the question of paternity of the child, as cause of the occurrence The appellant has never alleged about the paternity of the child. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the informant Sunita Sabar (PW-5) in her cross-examination, has stated that her child aged about eight months has fallen from the cot earlier also and as such, benefit of doubt may be given in favour of the accused / appellant as there is no sufficient evidence to prove the chain of circumstance against the appellant in absence of any eye witness to the occurrence. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge and conviction passed by the learned Trial Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar Tewary, Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently argued the case and submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned Trial court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned State Counsel has submitted that PW5 Sunita Sabar, informant, wife of the accused and mother of the victim, has categorically stated at para 3 of her cross examination that she along with her father-in-law were searching her husband and child for 2-3 hours as her husband was not there and he returned at around 2.30 A.M. along with the child. This witness has subsequently stated in para 4 of her cross examination that her husband has confessed that he has killed the child. The child has sustained compressed injury towards left side of the head but blood was not oozing. Learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence of PW-7 Bipin Bihari Verma, the Investigating Officer of this, who has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Ext-3. The confessional Statement of the accused, Jayant Sabar in the presence of co-villagers has been proved and marked as Ext.4 and fardbeyan of the informant recorded in his handwriting with signature has been proved and marked as Ext. 5 and the formal F.I.R bearing the signature of this witness has been proved and marked as Ext.6. Learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the place of occurrence, which has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer at para 4 of his examination-in-chief coupled with the fact that the Investigating Officer has categorically stated at para 20 of his cross-examination that the accused used to torture his wife which was mentioned by him. The accused used to say that his wife has illicit relationship with some other person and from that relationship, the child has born. Learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the medical evidence adduced by PW- 8 Dr. Arjun Soren who has found separate fracture longitudinally and abrasion of parietal region of brain 1 inch x 1/2 inch, beneath the fracture bleeding from both ear. Doctor has opined that death was due to shock and bleeding caused by such injury. During cross examination the medical Officer has categorically stated that if the body is thrown over cemented surface, such injury may be caused. Doctor has proved the post mortem report in his hand writing and signature which has been marked as Ext.7. Learned State Counsel has submitted that PW-1 Budhani Sabar and PW-2 Ramesh Chandra Mahato, Village Pradhan are hearsay witnesses. Suren @ Surendra Nath Sabar, father of the appellant who has been examined as PW-3, has stated in examination in chief that from sleep he was woken up by his daughter-in-law who has disclosed that Jayant Sabar and his daughter is not in the house. Thereafter they have started searching Jayant Sabar and the child but could not found them. Suren @ Surendra Nath Sabar, father of the appellant who has been examined as PW-3, has stated in examination in chief that from sleep he was woken up by his daughter-in-law who has disclosed that Jayant Sabar and his daughter is not in the house. Thereafter they have started searching Jayant Sabar and the child but could not found them. Subsequently, Jayant Sabar came to house with the child in his lap. At that time the child was not alive and thereafter when Jayant Sabar was asked about the death of the child, he did not reply. During cross examination, this witness has stated that brain of his son Jayant was disturbed who was sent for four months to Ranchi for treatment. 12. Learned State Counsel has submitted that this bald statement of the father of the accused will not protect the appellant on the ground of insanity as envisaged under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence are necessary for proving the act of a person of unsound mind, i.e. prior to the occurrence, at the time of occurrenc and soon after the occurrence. The evidence adduced by PW-3 being the father of the accused, is just to protect him and by sending a person for medical examination to Ranchi during investigation for four months does not give him any legal protection as envisaged under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned State Counsel has also submitted that the evidence of PW-7 is consistent, so far as the dead body of the child Shakuntala Sabar was brought by this accused Jayant Sabar, as both were missing from the house for more than 2 and 1/2 hours and even on search, witnesses could not found them. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that PW-4 Tunka Mahato is also a hearsay witness. Learned State counsel thus submitted that there is sufficient material against the accused Jayant Sabar as he has not discharged his duty as envisaged under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which cast burden of proving the fact especially within the knowledge of a person. The accused returned with dead body of child but failed to explain how she died. The accused returned with dead body of child but failed to explain how she died. Learned State Counsel has thus submitted that in view of the materials brought on record, learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused / appellant Jayant Sabar and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 13. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Abhay Kumar Tewary; perused the materials brought on record including the F.I.R; framing of the charge; evidence of eight prosecution witnesses ; seven prosecution exhibits including the confessional statement of the accused which was recorded in the presence of villagers including PW-6 Mathur Chandra Mahato whose signature has been proved and marked as Ext. 2 and confessional statement has been proved and marked as Ext. 4. This confessional statement is an extra judicial confession made by the accused. Evidence suggest that there was some conflict / quarrel between the husband and the wife with regard to the paternity of the child Shakuntala Sabar as it appears from para 20 of the evidence of the Investigating officer Bipin Bihar Verma (PW7). The child aged about 8 months was missing along with the accused in the mid night when they were sleeping in the house with the Informant. Informant woke up and informed her father-in-law and mother-in-law and they have started searching them, but they failed. After 2 and 1/2 hours appellant Jayant Sabar came to the house with the child on his shoulder. He has confessed his guilt before his wife and on the basis of that, information was given to the villagers and to the Police. In presence of Police and villagers, the accused has confessed his guilt and confessional statement has been recorded and brought on record and marked as Ext.4. Medical Evidence (Ext.7) shows that the victim has sustained compressed injury towards the left side of the head. The place of occurrence is a tough surface as pointed out by the appellant and the doctor has opined that if a persons is thrashed over such land, he will sustain such injury as he has found on the person of the deceased. Prosecution has shown that Sunita Sabar, wife of the accused (PW5) has categorically stated at para- 3 of her cross examination that her husband has returned at around 2.30 A.M. along with the child. Prosecution has shown that Sunita Sabar, wife of the accused (PW5) has categorically stated at para- 3 of her cross examination that her husband has returned at around 2.30 A.M. along with the child. This witness has subsequently stated in para-4 of the cross examination that her husband has confessed that he has killed the child. Certain inconsistent statement made by PW-5 at para-5 of her cross examination is not sufficient to hold the entire prosecution case as doubtful. In India, the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, has not been held to apply so as to reject the whole testimony as unreliable. Krishna Mochi & others Versus State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 , para-51; Raja Alias Rajinder Versus State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 43 , para-20 & 21]. The Evidence of PW-7 Bipin Bihari Verma, the Investigating Officer of this case has pointed out the material to prove the guilt of the accused / appellant. At para-20, he has deposed that the accused used to torture his wife on the ground of having illicit relationship with some other person, as a result of which, this baby was born. The Medical Officer has opined that death was due to shock and bleeding caused by such injury. During his cross examination, the Medical Officer has categorically stated that if the body is thrown over cemented surface, such injury may be caused. As per the prosecution story, PW-3 has stated in his examination in chief that he was woken up by his daughterin-law as she did not find the accused Jayant Sabar and her daughter in the house. When the accused Jayant Sabar came with the child on his shoulder, the child was not alive. Learned State counsel has rightly submitted that statement of this witness that the accused was sent to Ranchi for mental treatment for four months will not protect the appellant on the ground of legal insanity as envisaged under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code as the evidence are necessary for proving the act of a person of unsound mind, i.e. prior to the occurrence, at the time of occurrence and soon after the occurrence. [See: Elavarasan Versus State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2011) 7 SCC 110 , para-22 to 25 & 30] The evidence of PW7 is consistent on the point of the recovery of dead body of the child from the accused Jayant. We are also of the view that there is sufficient material against the accused Jayant Sabar as he has not discharged his duty as envisaged under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which cast a burden of proving the fact especially within the knowledge of a person. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the nature and gravity of the offence coupled with the fact that the accused Jayant Sabar, father of nine months old child, has not discharged his duty as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act by not explaining that for 2 and 1/2 hours where he has taken the child and how the child died, though it was within his knowledge, this Court is of the view that prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 28.06.2013 in Sessions Trial Case No. 220 of 2009 passed by the Learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum where by the accused / appellant Jayant Sabar has been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months, is upheld and affirmed. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the Court below forthwith. 16. Before parting with the judgment, we appreciate the valuable assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary in assisting the Court. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to release the legally admissible remuneration of learned Amicus Curiae within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of an application together with a certified copy of this judgment.