Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 313 (JHR)

Parbal Kindo @ Prabal Kindo v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2019
JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2010 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2006, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of four months. 3. Prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Lalita Kindo (P.W.3) wife of the deceased before the Officer-in-charge, Simdega Police Station on 4.6.2006 alleging inter alia as follows: The informant has alleged that on 4.6.2006 at about 4 P.M. while she was returning with her husband, Suren Kindo (deceased) and son, Ajit Kindo from Biru bazar and as soon as they reached near Palamara river near bushes of Sindwar, the accused/appellant, Prabal Kindo, son of Suren Kindo, resident of Village-Kamtara, Deepa Toli came out with Tangi (axe) from the bushes. It is alleged that Prabal Kindo assaulted the Suren Kindo on his head by means of Tangi (axe) causing injury, due to which he fell down on the ground thereafter the informant and her son, Ajit Kindo aged about 8 years fled away under fear towards the village. In the village they informed the co-villagers that Prabal Kindo has assaulted his father, Suren Kindo, who has fallen on the ground. It is further alleged that the informant along with village Chaukidar went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Suren Kindo having injuries on the head and face, completely crushed. The informant has alleged that occurrence took place as Prabal Kindo used to come to their house with Tangi and was giving threatening to go out of the village as there is some land dispute between them and as such Prabal Kindo has killed his father Suren Kindo by means of Tangi. 4. On the basis of written report, police has registered Simdega P. S. Case No. 71/06 dated 4.6.2006 under Section 302 I.P.C against Prabal Kindo. 4. On the basis of written report, police has registered Simdega P. S. Case No. 71/06 dated 4.6.2006 under Section 302 I.P.C against Prabal Kindo. On completion of investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet vide no. 90/2006 dated 22.7.2006 against the sole accused, Prabal Kindo. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 29.07.2006 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 23.08.2006. The charge has been framed against the sole accused person Prabal Kindo under Section 302 I.P.C vide order dated 21.9.2006, which was explained to the accused in Hindi, to which the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thus he was put under trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether seven prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of document upto Ext.- 10. Bimal Minz, a seizure witness has been examined as P.W.1 and has identified his signature on seizure-list, which has been proved and marked as Ext.-1; Hermon Oraon, a Chaukidar No. 6/2 has been examined as P.W.2; Lalita Kindo, informant and wife of the deceased being an eye witness to the occurrence has been examined as P.W.3. She has proved the written report bearing her signature, which has been proved and marked as Ext.-2 and also proved her signature on carbon copy of inquest report, which has been marked as Ext.-1/1; Ajit Kindo son of the informant and the deceased, has been examined as P.W.4. He is a child eye witness, whose evidence has been recorded by learned Trial Court after being satisfied. Sakhi Gwala, a hearsay witness has been examined as P.W.5 and has proved her signature on carbon copy of inquest report, which has been marked as Ext.-1/2; Ram Baran Singh, Investigating Officer of the case has been examined as P.W.6 and has proved the endorsement made on the written report of informant which has been marked as Ext. 2/1; formal F.I.R as Ext.-3; carbon copy of inquest report as Ext.-4; seizure-list of blood stained Tangi as Ext.-5, the confessional statement of the accused on surrender as Ext.-6; arrest memo of accused as Ext.-7; forwarding memo of accused as Ext.-8; charge-sheet filed after completion of investigation vide charge-sheet no. 90/2006 as Ext.-9; Dr. 2/1; formal F.I.R as Ext.-3; carbon copy of inquest report as Ext.-4; seizure-list of blood stained Tangi as Ext.-5, the confessional statement of the accused on surrender as Ext.-6; arrest memo of accused as Ext.-7; forwarding memo of accused as Ext.-8; charge-sheet filed after completion of investigation vide charge-sheet no. 90/2006 as Ext.-9; Dr. Sudhendra Kumar Sinha, Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy of the corpse of Suren Kindo has been examined as P.W.7 and has proved the postmortem report in his handwriting and signature, which has been marked as Ext.-10. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Prabal Kindo has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C where he has categorically stated that he has been falsely implicated by his stepmother, Lalita Kindo to grab the land. He has no knowledge about the occurrence nor has killed his father, but no defence witness or document has been brought on record. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, learned trial court has held the accused, Prabal Kindo guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of four months. 8. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor. Leaned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey 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 counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case has been instituted after dead body of the deceased, Suren Kindo was found lying on the way and as such the postmortem report, which has been proved and marked as Ext.-10 shows that dead body at the time of conducting postmortem on 5.6.2006 at 2 P.M. was found to be of more than 24 Hrs. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per prosecution case, the occurrence took place between 4 to 5 P.M., on 4.6.2006 but the postmortem report belies the case of the prosecution as the dead body was found at the time of postmortem on the next date at 2 P.M. is of more than 24 Hrs. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per prosecution case, the occurrence took place between 4 to 5 P.M., on 4.6.2006 but the postmortem report belies the case of the prosecution as the dead body was found at the time of postmortem on the next date at 2 P.M. is of more than 24 Hrs. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the entire case revolves around the evidence of P.W.3, Lalita Kindo, informant of the case, who is stepmother of the appellant and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo, who is stepbrother of the appellant, both are interested in falsely implicating the appellant, so as to grab the land of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is a vital contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2, Hermon Oraon, P.W.3, Lalita Kindo, P.W.4, Ajit Kindo, P.W.5, Sakhi Gwala and learned Trial Court without taking contradiction in consideration has passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no independent witnesses of the village or the persons who were returning from Bazar have been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that confessional statement of the appellant which has been marked as Ext.-6 is not admissible under the law as the confession has not led any discovery of fact to come under the ambit of Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this heinous crime by the informant since as per Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the murderer is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant though a tribal is still governed by the Hindu Succession Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge and conviction passed by learned Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by learned Trial Court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by learned Trial Court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the informant along with her husband, Suren Kindo (deceased) and her son Ajit Kindo were residing at Village- Siksura Tamra under Simdega Police Station whereas the accused/appellant was residing at Kamtara, Deepa Toli under Simdega Police Station. P.W.4, Ajit Kindo has categorically stated at para-12 of his crossexamination that the appellant was given the share of his land. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that opinion of doctor regarding time since death is an assessment by the doctor, but that cannot be the sole ground to disbelieve the prosecution case in view of the fact that there are two eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e., P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo. Both have disclosed the occurrence to the Chaukidar, Hermon Oraon (P.W.2). Subsequently, all three came to the place of occurrence, saw the dead body and thereafter went to the police station where written report was submitted before the Officer-In-charge, which was made basis for institution of the First Information Report. Officer-Incharge prepared the inquest report in presence of Sakhi Gwala (P.W.5) and Lalita Kindo (P.W.3) on the very next day i.e. 5.6.2006 at around 6 A.M. in the morning and the seizure-list of blood stained Tangi recovered from the corner of the house of accused was prepared in presence of Bimal Minz (P.W.1) at 8.15 Hrs. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that eye witnesses, Lalita Kindo and Ajit Kindo have been cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing has been elucidated during their cross-examination to disbelieve the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Ram Baran Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case and has proved the case against the appellant as he has seized the blood stained tangi (axe) in presence of Bimal Minj (P.W.1) and Siman Lakra (not examined), which has been proved and marked as Ext.-5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Ram Baran Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case and has proved the case against the appellant as he has seized the blood stained tangi (axe) in presence of Bimal Minj (P.W.1) and Siman Lakra (not examined), which has been proved and marked as Ext.-5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that considering the materials available on record coupled with the fact that the injury has been sustained by the deceased as found by the Medical Officer, Mr. Sudhendra Kumar Sinha, who has prepared the postmortem report, which has been proved and marked as Ext.-10, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the State has buttressed his argument by submitting statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C of the accused that he has been falsely implicated by Lalita Kindo to grab the land of share of the appellant is not sustainable. 10. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that reference has been made regarding Hindu Succession Act as plea by the defence but that will not absolve him from the criminality as true murderer, if there is a clinching evidence so far as the allegation of murder is concerned, accused shall be convicted, only because a murderer will not inherit the property, the Court cannot presume his false implication. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that none of the co-villagers have stated or examined on behalf of the defence to say that Lalita Kindo has falsely implicated the appellant to grab the land. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that the court of appeal while dealing with the criminal appeal has to look into the evidence brought on record, whether the evidence brought on record proves the guilt against the accused beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts or not. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that if the son is a murderer, definitely he should not inherit the property in view of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. But only because a son being murderer will not inherit the property, this Court cannot presume in absence of any evidence adduced by the defence that the appellant has not committed murder of his father Suren Kindo. But only because a son being murderer will not inherit the property, this Court cannot presume in absence of any evidence adduced by the defence that the appellant has not committed murder of his father Suren Kindo. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that clinching evidence brought on record shows that this appellant has killed his father by means of Tangi assaulted on head in presence of P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo. The dead body was found at the place of occurrence as disclosed by P.W.3 and P.W.4 before P.W.2 Hermon Oraon, a Choukidar and the place of occurrence has been found and explained by P.W.6, Ram Baran Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that there may be some minor contradictions but that will not be a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case, when there are two eye-witnesses to the occurrence, who have fled away under fear and informed the Chowkidar of the village immediately after the occurrence and soon thereafter all three including the Chowkidar came to the place of occurrence to ascertain the fact and went to the Police Station thereafter and filed a written report before the Police, which was the basis for the First Information Report. Investigation started soon thereafter and the Investigating Officer on the basis of the materials collected during investigation has found the case against the accused/appellant to be true. Though the confessional statement of the accused is not admissible in law but the signature on the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6 without objection from the accused/appellant. It has been held in the case of Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 , Paragraphs- 16 and 16 which reads as follows: 14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. 15. Now, we may examine some judgments of this Court dealing with this aspect. 15.1. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab2 this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10) "10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance." 15.2. In Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. the Court held that: (SCC p. 162, para 8) "8. ... It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession." 15.3. Again in Kavita v. State of T.N. the Court stated the dictum that: (SCC p. 109, para 4) "4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the [witnesses] to whom it is made." 15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram stated the principle that: (SCC p. 192, para 19) "19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made." The Court further expressed the view that: (SCC p. 192, para 19) "19. ... The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made." The Court further expressed the view that: (SCC p. 192, para 19) "19. ... Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused...." 15.5. In Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B.6 the Court, while holding the placing of reliance on extra-judicial confession by the lower courts in absence of other corroborating material as unjustified, observed: (SCC pp. 265-66, paras 87 & 89) "87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; and (iii) corroboration. 89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof." 15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan held that: (SCC p. 611, paras 29-30) "29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P, Sivakumar v. State (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42), Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B.] 30. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P, Sivakumar v. State (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42), Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B.] 30. In the present case, the extra-judicial confession by Balwan has been referred to in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge, and it has been corroborated by the other material on record. We are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872." 15.7. Dealing with the situation of retraction from the extra-judicial confession made by an accused, the Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat held as under: (SCC pp. 772-73, para 53) "53. It appears therefore, that the appellant has retracted his confession. When an extra-judicial confession is retracted by an accused, there is no inflexible rule that the court must invariably accept the retraction. But at the same time it is unsafe for the court to rely on the retracted confession, unless the court on a consideration of the entire evidence comes to a definite conclusion that the retracted confession is true." 15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. and Pancho v. State of Haryana.) The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved any other fact and in accordance with law. The plea taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding grabbing of land the entire evidence cannot be discarded and as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below does not warrant any interference by this Court during re-appreciation of the evidence and as such this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, perused the materials brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of the charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, ten prosecution exhibits, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 12. While considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence of P.W.3,Lalita Kindo, the informant and wife of the deceased, P.W.4, Ajit Kindo son of the deceased and P.W.2, Hermon Oraon, a village Chowkidar. This Court has not found any inconsistency in the evidence of these three prosecution witnesses. P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo being an eye-witness to the occurrence fled away under fear, went to the village, informed the village Chowkidar, thereafter all three came to the place of occurrence, saw the dead body of Suren Kindo sustaining injury on the head as alleged by P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo and went to the Police Station on the same day in the evening. The written report was submitted by the informant, Lalita Kindo, which was made the basis for the First Information Report. In the First Information Report, there is a categorical statement that for land dispute, the accused was threatening them and accused has committed murder of Suren Kindo by assaulting on his head in presence of the informant and her son, Ajit Kindo (P.W. 4) aged about eight years. The trial court while recording the evidence of P.W.4 has examined him and after being satisfied, the child witness as competent to understand allowed the child witness, Ajit Kindo to adduce his evidence on behalf of the prosecution. From the evidence brought on record by P.W.4, this Court has not found any discrepancy, rather as per the evidence the child witness, who has categorically stated that while he was returning with his mother from Bazar at around 5 P.M. along with father Suren Kindo and as soon as they reached near the river, Prabal Kindo came out of the bushes with a Tangi and assaulted on head of his father, who fell down and thereafter assaulted indiscriminately. The witness under fear has fled towards the village and informed the Chowkidar and subsequently went to the place of occurrence, saw the dead body of his father. This witness has categorically stated in para-3 of the cross-examination that his father has two marriages, Prabal Kindo is the son from first marriage and residing separately from his father and mother. Testimony of this witness did not create any doubt about the case as in paras-8 and 9 this witness has consistently supported the case of the prosecution as made out in the F.I.R. and adduced by P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.2, Herman Oraon, a Chowkidar of the village and as such this Court has no reason to cast any doubt in the evidence of P.W.4, Ajit Kindo, for reliance regarding the prosecution case. This Court has also taken note of the evidence of P.W.3, Lalita Kindo, who is informant and widow of the deceased Suren Kindo. This witness has also reiterated her case as made out in the written application, which was the basis of the First Information Report as well as adduced the evidence, which are consistent to the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.2. This witness has also reiterated her case as made out in the written application, which was the basis of the First Information Report as well as adduced the evidence, which are consistent to the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.2. She has proved her hand-writing and signature on the written report as Ext.2 and the signature made on the inquest report, which has been proved and marked as Ext.1/1. She has also disclosed that the place of occurrence is a lonely place in the way to her house from Bazar. The evidence of P.W.3, Lalita Kindo has been supported by Herman Oraon, a Chowkidar, who has admitted that these persons came to the village and disclosed that son of Badki (Sautan) has killed her husband. Thereafter Chowkidar along with P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body and subsequently Lalita Kindo has submitted the written report before the Officer-in-charge. This witness has further stated that being Chowkidar along with Tartiyus Tigga, comman was given for safety of the dead body at the place of occurrence where he went in the evening and remained there near dead body till morning when the inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which has been marked as Ext.4. The blood stained Tangi has been seized by the Police Officer, seizure-list which has been marked as Ext.5. The accused was arrested and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted vide no.90/2006, which was marked as Ext.9. The materials, which are placed before this Court does not show any reason for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo, who is a child witness and his testimony is intact. The Court has also taken note of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. In view of the evidence supported by the medical evidence and the nature of injury mentioned in the post-mortem report, Ext. 10, the prosecution case cannot be discarded only on the ground, that Doctor has assessed the time of death of the deceased at the time of post-mortem on 5.6.2006 at 2.00 P.M. is more than 24 hours. 13. In view of the evidence supported by the medical evidence and the nature of injury mentioned in the post-mortem report, Ext. 10, the prosecution case cannot be discarded only on the ground, that Doctor has assessed the time of death of the deceased at the time of post-mortem on 5.6.2006 at 2.00 P.M. is more than 24 hours. Such assessment are only an oral statement of Doctor without any scientific reason assigned by him which cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case including the evidence of two eye-witnesses P.W3 and P.W.4 who have seen the occurrence from their own eyes. The demeanor of P.W.3, Lalita Kindo as recorded by the learned trial court shows that she has seen the occurrence, as such her demeanor shows her reaction as agitated while deposing in the court as the occurrence has been flashed once again in her mind. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject, but such opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. The medical evidence in the instant case has not substantiated his observation regarding time of death by any scientific reason. Reliance has been placed in the case of Munni Alias Patiram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as, (2016) 12 SCC 694 . Relying upon a judgment rendered in the case of Umesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 360 , it has been held as under: "22. ... ''33. ... "15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject. (Bhagirath case, SCC p. 101)" 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant, Prabal Kindo under Section 302 I.P.C. on the basis of clinching evidence of two eye-witnesses P.W.3, Lalita Kindo and P.W.4, Ajit Kindo and there is no inconsistency in the prosecution evidence as P.W.2, Herman Oraon has also supported the case of the prosecution that soon after the occurrence he was informed by both the eye witnesses thereafter, all came to the place of occurrence, saw the dead body and immediately informed the police. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 6 Ram Baran Singh has also supported the prosecution case. The investigating officer has been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elucidated in support of the defence. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2010 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2006, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of four months does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly the impugned judgment is hereby upheld and affirmed. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Let the lower court records be sent back.