JUDGMENT : KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J. 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Kashyap assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.07.1996, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 1994, whereby the sole accused/appellant has been convicted for offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Ramchandra Singh (P.W.-7), recorded by Sub-inspector of police Sri R.N. Singh (P.W.-13), officer-in-charge Palkot police station at 09:30 A.M. on 19.01.1992 at village Dahupani Tola Basilapani. The informant has stated that on last Saturday (18.01.1992) at around 08:00 A.M., the informant went for grazing his she-goat in the forest and returned home at 11:00 A.M. After taking bath, he took lunch and was sitting in his house, when his daughter-in-law Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) alongwith her younger sister Baby Kumari (P.W.-3), co-villager Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) and daughter of informant Bahuro Kumari have returned to home after collecting fire wood at around 12:00 noon. After keeping fire wood, all the girls went to the well, situated on the north of the house of informant for washing their hands and legs. At around 01:00 P.M. informant's daughter-in-law Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) came to the house, raising brawl and disclosed that Koya Singh @ Arun Singh (appellant) has killed her sister-in-law Bahuro Kumari. On hearing brawl, the informant went towards the place of occurrence and saw his daughter Bahuro Kumari in pool of blood on the northern side of the house below the big stone, who was crumbling in pain. The informant brought her under the tree, gave her water to drink and asked his son Dewa Singh (P.W.-8) to call villagers, as his daughter has been killed by Koya Singh @ Arun Singh. After getting the information Mahli Singh son of Dharam Singh, resident of Basilapani came there, in the meantime, daughter of the informant has died. Other co-villagers also came there and saw the dead body of daughter of informant. After getting the information Mahli Singh son of Dharam Singh, resident of Basilapani came there, in the meantime, daughter of the informant has died. Other co-villagers also came there and saw the dead body of daughter of informant. The informant has further stated that his daughter-in-law Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) has disclosed that while they were returning after taking water, Koya Singh (appellant) son of Puna Singh, resident of village Kharpani Tola Gurrubera, Police Station Palkot came there having tabla (sharp cut weapon) in his hand and caught hold of the hand of daughter of informant and asked her, whether she is ready to live with him or not? On refusal made by the victim accused assaulted the victim by means of tabla (sharp cut weapon) causing injury due to which she fell down and thereafter the accused fled away. The informant has further disclosed that occurrence took place as during last Aghan month of the year, Puna Singh, father of Koya Singh @ Arun Singh (appellant) and co-villagers Matuk Singh and Bigu Singh came to the house of informant and asked whether he is ready to solemnize marriage of his daughter or not? Upon this the informant said that preceding year he had incurred plenty of expenditure over the marriage of his son, so he could not marry his daughter this year, but had promised to marry his daughter next year. It is because of this Koya Singh @ Arun Singh has killed the daughter of informant. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, the police has registered Palkot P.S. Case No. 2 of 1992, dated 19.01.1992, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant namely, Koya Singh @ Arun Singh. 5. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.51 of 1993, dated 31.10.1993, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Koya Singh @ Arun Singh. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 11.11.1993 and case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 01.02.1994. 7. The charge has been framed against accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.12.1994, which has been read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. 7. The charge has been framed against accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.12.1994, which has been read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether thirteen prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to exhibit-7. Apart from that charge-sheet/final report brought on record has been marked as exhibit-A. Lilawati Devi, daughter-in-law of the informant and an eye witness to the occurrence has been examined as P.W.-1, Kalawati Devi, co-villager and an eye witness to the occurrence has been examined as P.W.-2, Baby Kumari, sister of Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) has been examined as P.W.-3, is also an eye witness to the occurrence. Chhunki Devi, mother of the deceased being a hearsay witness has been examined as P.W.-4, Keshwar Singh has been examined as P.W.-5 declared hostile by the prosecution, Prabhu Singh has been examined as P.W.-6 and Dewa Singh has been examined as P.W.-8 both have been tendered by the prosecution, Ramchandra Singh, informant of the case and father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-7 and is a hearsay witness, who received information from his daughter-in-law, Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) and went to the place of occurrence and saw her daughter in pool of blood in injured condition, Dumneshwar Singh, samdhi of the informant Ramchandra Singh has been examined as P.W.-9 and has proved his signature and signature of Jagarnath Singh (P.W.-10) on the inquest report, which have been marked as exhibits-1 and 1/1. This witness has also proved his signature and signature of Jagarnath Singh on the seizure list of blood stained soil, which have been marked as exhibits-½ and 1/3. Jagarnath Singh has been examined as P.W.-10, he is inquest as well as seizure witness, Dr. Akhouri Durga Nandan Prasad, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Bahuro Kumari has been examined as P.W.-11 and has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked as exhibit-2, Krishna Singh, Sub-inspector of the police, who has submitted charge-sheet has been examined as P.W.-12. He has proved the case diary in the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-charge, Raj Narayan Singh, which has been marked as exhibit 3. He has proved the case diary in the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-charge, Raj Narayan Singh, which has been marked as exhibit 3. Formal F.I.R. in the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-charge, Raj Narayan Singh has been proved and marked as exhibit-4, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-5, carbon copy of inquest report in the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-charge, Raj Narayan Singh has been proved and marked as exhibit-6, seizure list in the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-charge, Raj Narayan Singh has been proved and marked as exhibit-7. All three exhibits-4, 5, 6 and 7 have been proved by P.W.-12, Krishna Singh. The charge-sheet/final report submitted by the police has been brought on record without objection and marked as exhibit-A, Raj Narayan Singh, sub-inspector of the police and investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W.-13. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused/appellant has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 20.04.1996, where he has denied about his involvement in the occurrence and claimed to be innocent and stated that he will not examine any witness. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials available on record, the learned trial court has convicted Koya Singh @ Arun Singh (appellant) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Kashyap assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that though three witnesses are claiming themselves to be eye witness to the occurrence but they have not seen the occurrence and they have falsely implicated the appellant with whom marriage of victim was negotiated. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that though three witnesses are claiming themselves to be eye witness to the occurrence but they have not seen the occurrence and they have falsely implicated the appellant with whom marriage of victim was negotiated. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted, that in this case conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eyes of law and even if the prosecution case is accepted as a true version of occurrence, the occurrence took place in spur of moment, as such conviction of the appellant cannot sustain in the eyes of law and same may be modified from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the order of sentence may also be modified as period already undergone. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted, that weapon of assault has not been seized nor the serological test of blood of deceased found at the place of occurrence has been sent for forensic examination so as to prove the guilt against the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside. 12. Heard learned counsel for the State Mr. Ravi Prakash, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that it is brutal murder of victim Bahuro Kumari at the hand of appellant Koya Singh @ Arun Singh in presence of Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1), Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) and Baby Kumar (P.W.-3). Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that dead body of deceased has sustained several injuries as per postmortem report, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that victim has sustained three sharp cut weapon injuries, which are as follows: (1) Sharp cutting injury, obliquely placed just above the right mammary gland 5” x 2 ½” x 4” with 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs also cut and part of the right lung also cut with the same blow of the weapon. (2) Sharp cutting wound over the mid line on the post cervico thoracic region placed along the mid line of the body cutting the underlying 7th cervical and 1st to 5th thoracic vertebras and the spinal cord also. (3) Sharp cutting injury on the right flank over the postero lateral aspect of the waist region 5” x 3” x 5” with part of the small intestine and omentum protruding out from the gaping wound. Cause of death: Haemorrhage and shock due to injuries no.1, 2 & 3 were sufficient to cause death singly or combined together. Time lapsed since death: between 24 hours to 36 hours. The postmortem has been conducted on 08:30 hours on 20.01.1992. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that prosecution has proved the case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt, as such this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that informant though a hearsay witness but his version has been supported with the version of Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1), who is an eye witness to the occurrence alongwith her sister Baby Kumari (P.W.-3) and co-villager Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2). Other witnesses are hearsay witness and Prabhu Singh (P.W.-6) and Dewa Singh (P.W.-8) have been tendered by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Jagarnath Singh (P.W.-10) is inquest-cum-seizure witness, who has also supported the case of prosecution and his signatures on the inquest report and seizure list have been proved by Dumneshwar Singh (P.W.-9) samdhi of the informant, Ramchandra Singh. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that investigating officer Raj Narayan Singh has examined as P.W.-13 and another investigating officer, Krishna Singh, who has submitted charge-sheet, has been examined as P.W.-12. He has proved the inquest report as exhibit-6, seizure list as exhibit-7 and the final form as exhibit-A. All these documents have been exhibited without objection. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that mother of the victim Chhunki Devi has been examined as P.W.-4, who is hearsay witness but has supported the case of prosecution, as such these prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and their credentials are not under cloud. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that mother of the victim Chhunki Devi has been examined as P.W.-4, who is hearsay witness but has supported the case of prosecution, as such these prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and their credentials are not under cloud. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that considering the injuries as mentioned in exhibit-2 and on the basis of above facts, this court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. Heard, learned Senior counsel for the appellant Mr. A.K. Kashyap assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of thirteen prosecution witnesses, seven prosecution exhibits, statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence brought on record. It appears that law has been put into motion on the basis of fardbeyan of Ramchandra Singh (P.W.-7) who is father of the deceased. The occurrence has been disclosed to the informant by his daughter-in-law, Lilawati Devi, who has been examined as P.W.-1. As per the prosecution case, Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1), Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) and sister of Lilawati Devi, Baby Kumari (P.W.-3) all went to forest alongwith victim Bahuro Kumari. After taking fire wood from the forest they returned to the house and after keeping the same, they went to the well situated on North of the house to wash their hands and legs. While they were returning to the house, appellant Koya Singh @ Arun Singh caught hold of the hand of victim Bahuro Kumari and asked her whether she will live with him or not? On refusal made by the victim, accused has assaulted the victim by means of tabla (sharp cut weapon) on right side of abdomen, right side of chest and back due to which victim Bahuro Kumari has sustained injuries. Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) , Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) have categorically stated regarding three assault made by appellant on the victim and the same has been supported by Baby Kumari (P.W.-3). Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) , Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) have categorically stated regarding three assault made by appellant on the victim and the same has been supported by Baby Kumari (P.W.-3). The entire evidence of prosecution, so far assault made by appellant, Koya Singh @ Arun Singh upon the victim is concerned, are consistent in the deposition of Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1), Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) and Baby Kumari (P.W.-3). The injuries are corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.-11, Dr. Akhouri Durga Nandan Prasad and postmortem report exhibit-2. Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1) came running to her house and informed her father-in-law about the occurrence, who also went towards the North of his house and saw his daughter, Bahuro Kumari in pool of blood with crumbling in pain. The victim was brought under a tree and informant asked his son to inform the villagers, in the meantime victim has died. The villagers have also reached to the place of occurrence and have seen the dead body of daughter of informant. The inquest report was prepared by the police officer upon which Dumneshwar Singh (P.W.-9) and Jagarnath Singh (P.W.-10) have put their signatures, which have been marked as exhibit1 series. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the autopsy was conducted by P.W.-11, Dr. Akhouri Durga Nandan Prasad, who has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as exhibit-2. From comparative study of the evidence of P.W.-1, Lilawati Devi, P.W.-2, Kalawati Devi and P.W.-3, Baby Kumari and postmortem report as exhibit-2, it appears that corresponding injuries have been found on the person of deceased, which was singly or jointly sufficient to cause death of the victim. The injuries were of such nature that it has damaged lungs, ribs, parts of the small intestine and internal organs. This shows that the appellant had intention to kill the victim. The other prosecution witnesses including the police officer Raj Narayan Singh, investigating officer of the case, who has been examined as P.W.-13 and Krishna Singh, who has submitted charge-sheet, has been examined as P.W.-12, their evidence are also consistent to the prosecution case. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstance, as discussed above relying upon the testimony of three eye witnesses namely, Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1), Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) and Babi Kumari (P.W.-3) and comparing the same with the evidence of Dr. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstance, as discussed above relying upon the testimony of three eye witnesses namely, Lilawati Devi (P.W.-1), Kalawati Devi (P.W.-2) and Babi Kumari (P.W.-3) and comparing the same with the evidence of Dr. Akhouri Durga Nandan Prasad (P.W.-11) and exhibit-2, this Court is of the view that learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on re-appreciation of evidence, thus the present criminal appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.07.1996, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 1994 is hereby upheld and affirmed. 15. The appellant is on bail, the bail bonds of the appellant is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned court below to serve out the sentence, failing which learned trial court is directed to take all coercive steps to secure presence of the appellant. 16. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned.