JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, appointed by JHALSA to represent the appellant in the instant appeal and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, representing the State. 2. In the present appeal, the appellant before us is suffering rigorous imprisonment for life upon his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 89/2009. He is in custody since 22.02.2009 during trial and thereafter on his conviction on 30.04.2013. 3. Brother of the deceased Vipin Bilung, the informant Basant Bilung, is the author of the fardbeyan reporting the first information of the occurrence to the Officer-in- Charge, Kolebira Police Station which led to the institution of Kolebira P.S. Case No. 7/2009 on 21.02.2009 at 13.00 Hrs. under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole named accused/appellant herein. His fardbeyan was recorded at 9.30 Hrs. on 21.02.2009 at village Shivnathpur at the residence of the appellant by the Assistant Sub Inspector Tapsi Bhagat (P.W.5) of Kolebira P.S. The gist of the allegations is as under: As per the informant, his younger brother Vipin Bilung (deceased) aged 25 years, had gone to Kondekera Bazar at 12.00 Hrs. on 20.02.2009 and he had also gone to the market to bring household goods. After purchase, they were returning to their home at Semartoli at 6.30 pm in the evening. At that time, the informant saw his younger brother Vipin Bilung (deceased) accompanying the accused Umlan Dungdung, son of late Nahu Dungdung of village Shivnathpur, P.S. Kolebira. As soon as the accused Umlan Dungdung reached near his house around 7.00 pm in the evening, informant saw an altercation between the two, which took the form of fight. During the course of fight, Umlan Dungdung procured a tangi (sharp cutting weapon) and knife from his house and inflicted an injury on the chin of the younger brother of the informant by tangi, as a result of which, he fell down and was rendered unconscious. Thereafter, he again inflicted knife blow on his neck. As a result of this, his brother Vipin Bilung died instantaneously. Umlan Dungdung (accused) fled away along with his wife. Informant raised a brawl and since it was night, number of villagers assembled there who were informed about the incidence. Thereafter, he again inflicted knife blow on his neck. As a result of this, his brother Vipin Bilung died instantaneously. Umlan Dungdung (accused) fled away along with his wife. Informant raised a brawl and since it was night, number of villagers assembled there who were informed about the incidence. The informant claimed that the accused Umlan Dungdung had a pre-existing dispute with his younger brother Vipin Bilung for the reason that Vipin Bilung was keeping his wife. Since it was night, the incidence could not be reported to the police station and therefore, in the morning this information was brought before the police station. On these assertion, informant alleged that the accused Umlan Dungdung had, on account of pre-existing enmity, killed the informants younger brother Vipin Bilung by assault with tangi and knife and fled away. 4. Investigation led to filing of the charge sheet bearing no. 11/2009 dated 31.03.2009 against the sole accused named above under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance and committal to the Court of Sessions, charge were framed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega on 18.01.2010 and substance thereof was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi language, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, trial commenced. 5. Prosecution examined seven witnesses, as under: P.W.1 is Chowkidar 4/2 Herman Kerketta of P.S. Kolebira who has produced the tangi in connection with Kolebira P.S. Case No. 7/2009 which were proved and marked as Ext.1. In cross-examination, he denied that the learned court had ordered him to do so, but he had brought the tangi on the direction of Officer-in-Charge which contain the number of P.S. case tagged with the tangi. He further stated that such tangi are available in the market. P.W.2 Francis Kerketta is of the same Kolebira P.S. who in his chief, stated that the occurrence was informed to him by the informant Basant on the next morning. He had seen the dead body and injury on the chin and neck of the dead body and other villagers like Henry Tete, Rajendra Baraik, Anand Tete, etc. had also seen it. No specific denial has been obtained by the defence in his cross-examination. He had seen the dead body and injury on the chin and neck of the dead body and other villagers like Henry Tete, Rajendra Baraik, Anand Tete, etc. had also seen it. No specific denial has been obtained by the defence in his cross-examination. P.W.3 Henry Tete of the same Kolebira P.S. has in his deposition conveyed that information of the occurrence came to his knowledge through the informant Basant, elder brother of the deceased and he had gone to see the dead body on the next day. The dead body bore three injuries on the neck and chin. Defence has not been able to elicit anything specific during his cross-examination. P.W.4 is Dr. Pradhu Sahay Linda who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Vipin Bilung on 21.02.2009 at about 4.00 pm and found the following features on physical examination, external examination and on internal examination after dissection. He has also described the nature of the injury, weapon used and cause of death. The post-mortem report in his pen and signature was proved and marked as Ext.2. Extract of his deposition on the aforesaid aspects is being reproduced hereunder: "On physical examination: Average built nutrition good. Rigor mortis present in all four limbs. Body was not decomposed. On External Examination: Both eyes were closed. Mouth was open. But tongue was inside the mouth. A deep chopped wound measuring about 3"x1"x2" deep on the chin. A stab wound 1"x "on the base of neck over the trachea. A Bruise measuring 1"x5" on right side of base of neck was present. On Internal Examination after dissection: (1) Brain and meninges were pale. All the viscera e.g. lungs, liver, kidney, spleen were found pale. Heart - both chambers of heart were empty. Thoracic cavity contain semi clotted blood. Stomach contain undigested food and small intestine contain semi digested food along with gases and large intestine contain faecal matter with gases. Mandible was found fractured. Nature of Injuries: All above mentioned injuries are ante mortem in nature. Time since death is about 20 hours to 40 hours of duration. Weapon used: Heavy Sharp cutting edged like Tangi and long sharp cutting weapon like knife. Cause of death: Due to cardio respiratory failure due to hypovolnic shock. This post mortem report is in my pen and signature. Time since death is about 20 hours to 40 hours of duration. Weapon used: Heavy Sharp cutting edged like Tangi and long sharp cutting weapon like knife. Cause of death: Due to cardio respiratory failure due to hypovolnic shock. This post mortem report is in my pen and signature. It is marked exhibit-2." In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has opined that Axe and knife are the weapon by which aforesaid injuries are possible, but from Balua and pointed rod also, aforesaid injuries by single-single blow can be caused by each weapon. Bruise injury referred above may be of stick of Axe. P.W.5 is Tapsi Bhagat, who was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Kolebira P.S. on 21.02.2009 and came to know at 9.30 on telephone that a person has been killed in village Shivnathpur. He entered Sanha bearing no. 821 and proceeded with the Officer-in-Charge and armed police to the place of occurrence. On reaching there, he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, which is in his handwriting and signature and has been proved and marked as Ext.3. Endorsement thereupon in the signature of Navin Kumar, Officer-in-Charge, Kolebira P.S. is identified by him and proved as Ext.3/1. The formal FIR in his handwriting and signature of Navin Kumar has been proved and identified as Ext.4. He took over the investigation and took restatement of the informant. He prepared the inquest report which has been proved in his handwriting and signature as Ext.5. The dead body was sent for post-mortem to Sadar Hospital, Simdega. As per his description, the place of occurrence is at village Shivnathpur and adjacent towards the northern corner of the house of the accused Umlan Dungdung. He had during inspection of the place of occurrence found lot of blood lying there along with the dead body of the victim. The other physical boundary of the place of occurrence are the land of Sudhir Tete in the east, land of the accused in the western side, land of Umlang Dungdung in the north side and 40 ft. wide road on the south. He had also recorded the statement of Francis Kerketta, Henry Tete, Anand Tete, Rajendra Baraik and Sujit Bilung and returned to the police station. He arrested the accused person and recovered tangi on his information. The confessional statement of the accused was also recorded. wide road on the south. He had also recorded the statement of Francis Kerketta, Henry Tete, Anand Tete, Rajendra Baraik and Sujit Bilung and returned to the police station. He arrested the accused person and recovered tangi on his information. The confessional statement of the accused was also recorded. The seizure list in his handwriting and signature has been proved and marked as Ext.6. After obtaining the post-mortem report and on instruction of senior officials and Superintending of Police, charge sheet under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. He has identified the accused in the dock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that all the witnesses were of Semartoli and the deceased was also of Semartoli which is about 1.00 km from the place of occurrence. He had not gone to Semartoli. He further states that the place of occurrence is in a large village of Shivnathpur from where he had not recorded the statement of any witnesses. Kondekera is the place where market is held and people go to Kondekera market from Seramtoli where on the way, house of the accused is situate. He has denied knowledge of the person who gave information upon which Sanha No. 321/09 was entered. He has stated further at para-9 that he had not sent the seized articles like blood and tangi to forensic science laboratory. He also states that tangi is used for cutting pigs also. P.W.6 is the informant Basant Bilung. He has in his deposition supported the allegations made in the fardbeyan. According to him, incidence took place on 20.02.009 at 7.00 pm in the evening. He had gone to Kondekera market for some purchase. The accused Umlang Dungdung and Vipin Bilung were both together. When he reached near the house of Umlang at 7.00 pm on his bicycle, he saw an altercation going on between Umlang and Vipin. He further states that Vipin Bilung was assaulted by Umlang Dungdung by means of tangi on his chin and thereafter by knife on his neck. He raised hulla/brawl, on which villagers assembled there. As a result of the injuries, Vipin Bilung died. He further states that Vipin Bilung was in love with the wife of Umlang and that is the reason for occurrence. Umlang had fled away thereafter. He raised hulla/brawl, on which villagers assembled there. As a result of the injuries, Vipin Bilung died. He further states that Vipin Bilung was in love with the wife of Umlang and that is the reason for occurrence. Umlang had fled away thereafter. The occurrence was reported to the police and his fardbeyan was recorded and signature thereupon has been identified by him, which has been marked as Ext.7. He has identified the accused in dock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had gone to the market at 4.30 pm and when he left the market, it was 6.00 pm and by 6.30-7.00, he reached Shivnathpur. Shivnathpur is about 3.00 km from Kolebira. He had not stopped at any place. Both the accused and the deceased had started 15 minutes before. Both of them had consumed country made liquor. He denied that he had not seen both of them leaving the market. He further states that his house is at Semartoli. While going through pucca road, first Mongaltoli comes, then Semartoli and thereafter Shivnathpur. From Semartoli he had gone on pucca road. Both the accused and the deceased were on the same bicycle. It was not completely dark and there were no other person apart from these two. Rest of the persons came on brawl, but he did not remember who had come. He had disclosed the incidence to Hendrik, Francis and Surendra. He has stated that there was no free fight during altercation and that the accused had brought tangi from his house and assaulted him. P.W.7 is Sujeet Bilung. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.6/1 and identified the accused in the dock. In his cross-examination, he stated that occurrence was brought to his notice by the informant Basant Bilung and the deceased was the informants brother. He had come to know of the incidence between 9-10 in the night and had gone to see it also. He had seen the occurrence by his own eyes. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was concluded. 6. Accused was confronted with the materials brought on record in his examination under section 313 of the Cr.PC. He however denied his involvement and claimed to be innocent. 7. He had seen the occurrence by his own eyes. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was concluded. 6. Accused was confronted with the materials brought on record in his examination under section 313 of the Cr.PC. He however denied his involvement and claimed to be innocent. 7. Based on appreciation of the entire material evidence on record and on consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court held the accused guilty for the offence of murder and accordingly convicted him. 8. During the course of argument today, learned Amicus Curiae has raised few points after placing the evidence on record in detail to puncture holes in the findings of the learned Trial Court. He submits that the prosecution case suffers from certain foundational flaws. In the instant case, except the informant (P.W.6), no other witnesses who are of the same Semartoli have come forward to support the prosecution case as an eye witness, though the incidence occurred at around 6.30 -7.00 in the evening. Informant is the elder brother of the deceased and related and an interested witness. His sole testimony therefore should not be relied upon to uphold the conviction erroneously recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to prove the object of assault and that it was connected to the accused/appellant as there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which could have shown that the same weapon tangi and knife were used in the assault and that it carried the blood stain of the deceased. In this case, the prosecution has not brought the Investigating Officer to depose in support, which has resulted in grave prejudice to the case of the appellant. It is further submitted that there is a reason to falsely implicate the appellant as the informant himself alleged the motive being the illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of the accused. Even if the prosecution story is believed to be true, it could at best come in the category of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as the act of assault took place on grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased for the aforesaid reason. In either of the eventuality, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. In either of the eventuality, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. In the alternative, this Court may modify the conviction and sentence to one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code for the aforesaid reasons. On these submissions, the impugned findings have been assailed. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the findings of the learned Trial Court and submitted that they are well considered and based upon appreciation of the entirety of the material evidence brought by the prosecution on record. He submits that the evidence of P.W.6, who is the informant and elder brother of the deceased is not only unimpeachable but fully substantiates the story set up through his mouth in the fardbeyan. Simply because he happened to be a related witness, his testimony should not be shrugged aside as coming from an interested witness. Defence has not been able to discredit his statement on any count or shown that the informant could have derived any direct or indirect benefit as a result of conviction of the appellant. The time of occurrence; place of occurrence; manner of occurrence; corresponding injuries found during post mortem on the dead body of the deceased proved through the medical evidence of P.W.4, all have been cogently established through reliable evidence by the prosecution, leaving no element of doubt to grant any leverage to the present appellant. If the findings of the learned Trial Court are sound and do not suffer from any error of law or appreciation of the evidence, there is no reason for this Court to interfere at the stage of appeal. The appeal is fit to be dismissed as being without merit. 10. We have considered the submission of learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State; gone through the entire materials on record including the fardbeyan; framing of the charge; evidence of seven prosecution witnesses; six prosecution exhibits; statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC and also perused the impugned judgment and order of sentence. 11. We have in depth scanned the entire materials brought on record by the prosecution in order to test the correctness and legality of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court against the present appellant. From the discussion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in particular the informant P.W.6 as above, P.W.4 Dr. 11. We have in depth scanned the entire materials brought on record by the prosecution in order to test the correctness and legality of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court against the present appellant. From the discussion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in particular the informant P.W.6 as above, P.W.4 Dr. Pradhu Sahay Linda who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased on 21.02.2009 at 4 p.m., we are of the opinion that the prosecution had been able to prove all the necessary relevant facts in issue during trial. The informant (P.W.6) has fully supported the prosecution story as set up through his fardbeyan during the course of trial regarding the time of occurrence i.e., about 7.00 p.m on 20.02.2009; place of occurrence i.e., adjacent to the house of the accused/appellant ; manner of occurrence i.e., both the accused and the deceased entered into a quarrel just near the house of the appellant on their return from Kondekera market in the evening and the accused procured a tangi (sharp cutting weapon) and knife and inflicted injuries on the chin of the victim and after he fell down, knife blow on his neck which resulted in his death instantaneously. These injuries stand corroborated through medical evidence of P.W.4 beyond any reasonable doubt. 12. We are not convinced that the informant though a related witness, had any interest in seeing the accused/appellant being convicted for the offence as the defence has not been able to show that the informant could have derived any direct or indirect benefit upon his conviction. In this regard, it is apposite to rely upon the opinion of the Apex Court in the recent judgments dated 19.02.2019 in the case of Laltu Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2010 , para 12 to 14 thereof and also in the case of Md. Rojali Ali & others Versus State of Assam, Ministry of Home Affairs through the Secretary in Criminal Appeal No. 1839 of 2010, para 10 to 12 thereof. Para 12 to 14 in the case of Laltu Ghosh (supra) is quoted here under: "12. As regards the contention that the eye witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well-settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. Para 12 to 14 in the case of Laltu Ghosh (supra) is quoted here under: "12. As regards the contention that the eye witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well-settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between interested and related witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 ; Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107 ; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapathi Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 ). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549 , in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (supra): "14. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested "only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested ." 13. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145 , wherein this Court observed: "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person." 14. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicheery, (2010) 1 SCC 199 : "23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interest witnesses, the approach of the Court while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavor of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim." 13. Further, we do not find that defence has been able to elicit any contradiction or consistency or loopholes during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses to draw advantage, so far as non-sending of the seized blood stained soil or tangi to the Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned. We further find that in case of direct evidence in the nature of the eye witness, motive as an additional fact to substantiate the allegation, may or may not be a conclusive factor. In this case, the informant has been able to prove the motive as well as raised in his fardbeyan during his deposition in the trial. The accused bore grudge against the deceased as his wife was entangled with the victim Vipin Bilung from before. 14. Considered thus, on proper re-appreciation of the evidences, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are well reasoned and do not suffer from any error of law or perversity which could render it vulnerable to be set aside in appeal. 14. Considered thus, on proper re-appreciation of the evidences, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are well reasoned and do not suffer from any error of law or perversity which could render it vulnerable to be set aside in appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent down to the Court below along with the copy of the judgment. 15. We record our appreciation to the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae during hearing of this case. His admissible legal remuneration be borne by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee on production of a certified copy of the judgment along with an application within a period of four weeks from its receipt.