JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has suffered the judgment of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 05.02.2013 and the order of sentence of R.I for life dated 11.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.745 of 2009. 2. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Jai Shankar Dubey which was recorded on 04.11.1997 at about 16.00 hrs. in his house, Lalpur P.S. Case No.74 of 1997 has been registered against the appellant under sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses. The informant has been examined as P.W.1, his brother-Binay Shankar Dubey as P.W.2 and his uncle-Ravi Shankar Dubey as P.W.3. 4. The prosecution has projected P.W.1 and P.W.2 as the eye-witness and P.W.3 has seen the appellant, whose clothes were drenched with blood, coming out from his house. 5. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that at about 10 a.m on 04.11.1997 he was at home with his family members. After the breakfast Kripa Shankar Dubey started fighting with his father for money whereafter his father left the house and had gone to the market. At about 3 p.m when his father came back home Kripa Shankar again started fighting with him. His father tried to reason with him however he did not listen and at about 3.45 p.m Kripa Shankar carrying a big sword came there and gave a sword blow on the chest of the informant. On his raising hulla the other family members came there and asked Kripa Shankar why he was assaulting the informant, however, in the meantime he started assaulting his father with the sword. The informant has stated that the appellant has given several sword blows on the neck of his father. The appellant, who wanted to try his luck in the film industry, was continuously quarrelling with the other family members also. He had left his studies and was unemployed. His father had started a shop of ready-made garments for him however that was also closed. In the court also the informant has stated about constant fighting by the appellant with his father, a shop of ready-made garments opened by his father, fantasy of the appellant to become a hero and his demand for money. His father had started a shop of ready-made garments for him however that was also closed. In the court also the informant has stated about constant fighting by the appellant with his father, a shop of ready-made garments opened by his father, fantasy of the appellant to become a hero and his demand for money. He has deposed that the appellant has assaulted him with sword and he has inflicted indiscriminate sword blows on his father. P.W.2 has also spoken about fight by the appellant with other family members, demand of money by him and the appellant inflicting sword blow in the chest of his brother, who is the informant. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that they have seen injuries on the neck of their father. P.W.2 has seen the sword lying near the dead body of his father. He has stated that the police has recorded his statement and his statement was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. The statement of P.W.1 was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.3 is uncle of the informant. He is residing next to the house of his brother. On hearing hulla when he came out from his house, he has seen the appellant, drenched in blood, coming out from his house. He has seen his brother lying on the ground, injuries on his neck and blood oozing from his injuries. He has also seen a sword lying on the ground. 6. Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that: (i) the informant, who has stated that after receiving sword blow he became unconscious and when he regained conscious he has seen the dead body of his father lying on the ground, is not an eye-witness, (ii) P.W.2 has also not stated that he has seen the appellant inflicting sword blows to his father and P.W.3 on his own account is not an eye-witness, and (iii) non-production of the case-diary and non-examination of the investigating officer during the trial have caused serious prejudice to the appellant. 7. The informant has stated that he has suffered one sword blow on his chest. P.W.2 and P.W.3 both have seen him in the injured condition. 7. The informant has stated that he has suffered one sword blow on his chest. P.W.2 and P.W.3 both have seen him in the injured condition. A report on medical examination of the informant was not tendered in the evidence and, therefore, the extent and nature of the injury caused to him cannot ascertained and that was the reason the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi has held that the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has failed. The effect of this is not that the court has disbelieved that part of testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 wherein they have stated that they have seen the appellant inflicting injury on their father. P.W.1 has seen the appellant quarrelling with his father, demanding money from his father and he has suffered injury on his chest inflicted by the appellant. Of course, he has stated that on receiving injury he became unconscious and on the basis of such evidence it can be held that he has not seen the appellant assaulting his father, but then, in the same breath P.W.1 has also stated that when the appellant tried to assault his father he intervened and in the process suffered injury on his palm. P.W.2 has stated that when his brother raised hulla his family members came out and they tried to intervene. In his cross-examination, to a suggestion by the defence he has again asserted that he was present at the time of the incident. P.W.3 has stated that when his mother told him that the appellant was fighting for money and demanding his share and go and save him then he has gone to the place of occurrence and he has seen his injured brother lying on the ground. He has seen the appellant coming out from the house. His clothes were drenched in blood. There was very short interval of time between these events; assault by the appellant on P.W.1; P.W.1 becoming unconscious; P.W.2 coming out and seeing assault by the appellant; and P.W.3 seeing the appellant coming out from the house. Therefore, even assuming that P.W.1 has not seen the assault on the neck of his father by the appellant it can be safely held that the appellant has committed murder of his father. Therefore, even assuming that P.W.1 has not seen the assault on the neck of his father by the appellant it can be safely held that the appellant has committed murder of his father. There is no intervening circumstance and it is not a case set up by the appellant that he was not present at the place of occurrence, rather his defence is that to grab the ancestral property his brothers and uncle have falsely implicated him in this case. But, the overwhelming evidences laid by the prosecution against him during the trial leave no manner of doubt on involvement of the appellant in the crime. The prosecution witnesses were subjected to extensive cross-examination but nothing material could be elicited from them and, therefore, even if the entire case diary was not proved it has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. In fact, under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the entire case diary need not be produced and proved during the trial. 8. The ocular evidence laid by the prosecution through P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 is sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, who has been examined as P.W.4, has conducted the post-mortem examination on 05.11.1997. He has found the following injuries on Bidya Shankar Dubey: Abrasion: 3X2 cm and 2X1 cm and 1X1 cm over front of left knee. Incised wound (i) 15X4 cm X bone deep on left shoulder cutting the soft tissue and left scapular bone. (ii) 21X5 cm X bone deep over left lateral neck cutting the soft tissues, blood vessels of neck. (iii) 15X6 cm X soft tissue and 8X3 cm X soft tissues on medial side of right arm. (iv) 3X1 cm X soft tissue on front of left wrist. 9. According to the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp-cutting weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, the time elapsed since death was 12 to 36 hours from the post-mortem examination. 10. According to the prosecution, the incident has happened at 3.45 p.m on 04.11.1997, fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 4.00 p.m the same day and the appellant has been named by the informant as the assailant in his fardbeyan and, therefore, false implication of the appellant in the crime has been completely ruled out. 10. According to the prosecution, the incident has happened at 3.45 p.m on 04.11.1997, fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 4.00 p.m the same day and the appellant has been named by the informant as the assailant in his fardbeyan and, therefore, false implication of the appellant in the crime has been completely ruled out. Minor inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and non-examination of the investigating officer during the trial in the face of cogent and consistent evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 would not shake foundation of the prosecution's case as laid against the appellant. The prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond the reasonable doubt. 11. Above being the factual scenario, finding no ground to interfere in this matter, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 105 of 2014 is dismissed. I.A. No.1628 of 2019 also stands dismissed. 12. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'FAX'. 13. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.