JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Birendra Kandulna @ Bicha Kandulna was put on trial in Sessions Trial Case No. 218 of 2011 on the charge of committing murder of Rasanti Kandulna, attempting to murder Dayal Kandulna, and calling Rasanti Kandulna daain and causing physical and mental torture to her which constitute the offence under section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was nurturing a doubt that his 3 years’ old son had died due to witch craft practiced by Rasanti Kandulna and to take revenge in the morning of 13.04.2011 he came to the house of Dayal Kandulna and killed Rasanti Kandulna with a Farsa. When Dayal Kandulna, her husband, tried to save her the appellant aimed a Farsa blow on his neck which he warded-off but in the process got his hand injured. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Dayal Kandulna recorded at about 10:15 AM on 13.04.2011 by Bandhanu Oraon, Sub-Inspector of Police of Manoharpur P.S. at Manoharpur Primary Health Center, Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 17 of 2011 was lodged against the appellant under section 302 and section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and after the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against him for the aforesaid offences. 3. During the trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses out of whom Bandhan Kandulna PW-4, Gabrial Bhengra PW-5, Birsa Tirkey PW-8 and Gopal Singh PW-9 are the hearsay witnesses. Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, PW-2, has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Rasanti Kandulna and Dr. Bhaskar Mahato, PW-7, has examined Dayal Kandulna and prepared his injury report. The investigating officer has been examined as PW-6. 4. Dayal Kandulna, the informant, and his daughter, namely, Bahamani Kandulna PW-3 are the eye-witnesses. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has recorded findings that both the eye-witnesses appear to be natural witness and their testimony does not suffer from any material infirmity or contradiction. The learned Judge has held that there is nothing on record to doubt presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence and testimony of Dayal Kandulna is sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of his daughter and the medical evidence. 6. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs. The learned Judge has held that there is nothing on record to doubt presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence and testimony of Dayal Kandulna is sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of his daughter and the medical evidence. 6. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the charges under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 have been found not proved and instead of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code he has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been further convicted and sentenced to R.I for three months under section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. 7. Mr. R. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 who are related witnesses is not trustworthy for the reason that no one has seen the appellant even running away from the place of occurrence and absence of other corroborative materials as also failure to recover crime weapon, seize blood-stained soil, clothes of the victim etc. would raise considerable doubt on the manner of occurrence as projected by the prosecution. 8. Rasanti Kandulna, her husband and her daughter, namely, Bahamani Kandulna were sitting in “Bari” of their house. It was early morning of 13.04.2011, about 7:00 AM. Their presence in their house is quite natural and, in fact, there is no challenge by the defence to their presence in the house at the time of the occurrence. The informant has deposed in the Court that he was sitting with his wife and the daughter in the courtyard and at that time the appellant came there and accused his wife that she is a daain and she has killed his child by practicing witch craft. He assaulted his wife twice on her neck and when the informant tried to save her his both hands got injured by Farsa blow of the appellant. He fled away from the house and went to the Police Station from where he was taken to Sadar Hospital for treatment and there his fardbeyan was recorded by the police. He assaulted his wife twice on her neck and when the informant tried to save her his both hands got injured by Farsa blow of the appellant. He fled away from the house and went to the Police Station from where he was taken to Sadar Hospital for treatment and there his fardbeyan was recorded by the police. PW-3, his daughter, has also asserted her presence in the house in the morning of 13.04.2011. She has stated that the appellant who is her uncle came there and started assaulting her mother with Farsa saying that she is a daain and when her father tried to intervene his both hands were injured. She has further deposed that her uncle used to call her mother daain and about eight days before the date of the occurrence his three years’ old son had died due to illness, but he had told co-villagers that Rasanti Kandulna has killed his son by practicing witch craft and he would not spare her. PW-1 and PW-3 are related witnesses but as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 270 the mere fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It has been observed that when the witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be remembered that they would not shield the real culprit and rope in innocent person and, therefore, if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence it is found that their testimony is clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard their evidence on the ground of their relationship or animosity with the accused. In their cross-examination, PW-1 and PW-3 have stood firmly to their grounds and nothing material could be elicited by the defence from them which would have put a scar on their testimony. No one from the vicinity has seen the occurrence but from the cross-examination of PW-1, we find that he has indicated a reason why the co-villagers have not seen the appellant at the place of occurrence or running away from the house of the informant. No one from the vicinity has seen the occurrence but from the cross-examination of PW-1, we find that he has indicated a reason why the co-villagers have not seen the appellant at the place of occurrence or running away from the house of the informant. He has stated that there are only five houses in his basti including his own house and that of the appellant; the co-villagers, namely, Bandhan Kandulna and Gabrial Bhengra have been examined during the trial. The house of the appellant is about 50 yards away from his house and there is no other house between their houses. PW-3 has stated that hulla was raised but at that time no one from the village came there. PW-4 who is a co-villager has stated in his cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence he was not at home and he was informed about incident by PW-1 and PW-3. PW-5 who is brother (gaon ke riste mai) of the appellant has turned hostile. The informant, PW-1, has admitted in his cross-examination that after receiving injury he fled away and reaffirmed that he has seen the appellant inflicting Farsa blow on the neck of his wife. Though he has stated in his cross-examination that the incident took place within one to two minutes, his daughter has stated that it has continued for about twenty minutes. In our opinion, the stray statements of PW-1 and PW-3 in their cross-examination which may appear inconsistent are not material contradictions in their testimony. PW-1 has stated that immediately after receiving injuries he fled away from his house and, therefore, he could not have seen what had happened thereafter. In this context it is also relevant to record that PW-1 has not stated that after assaulting him the appellant had fled away from his house. The controversy on the place of occurrence; whether it was the courtyard or “bari” of the house of the informant, is also easily clarified by reading the fardbeyan and evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and the investigating officer together. PW-1 has deposed in the Court that the appellant entered his house when he was sitting with his wife and the children in the courtyard, however, in his fardbeyan he has stated that at the time of the occurrence they were sitting in “bari” adjacent to the house and the investigating officer has also found the dead body in “bari”. PW-1 has deposed in the Court that the appellant entered his house when he was sitting with his wife and the children in the courtyard, however, in his fardbeyan he has stated that at the time of the occurrence they were sitting in “bari” adjacent to the house and the investigating officer has also found the dead body in “bari”. However, in his cross-examination he has clarified that “bari” is on the eastern side of the house at about 15-20 yards away. PW-3 has stated that the distance between “bari” and aangan (courtyard) is about 20 steps. She has also stated that the incident has occurred on the eastern side of the courtyard. Therefore, in our opinion, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 does not suffer from material contradiction. In a criminal trial the evidence of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy and minor discrepancy in his testimony does not create any infirmity in the prosecution case. A general proposition which is now quite settled is that a witness who has sustained injuries on his body was present at the place of occurrence and he has seen the occurrence by himself. Moreover, it is well-settled that minor inconsistency, discrepancy, exaggeration etc. may appear in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on account of lapse of time, forgetfulness etc. but on that ground their testimony cannot be disbelieved [refer, “State of U.P Vs. Naresh” reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 ]. 9. In these facts, we find that the prosecution has established the place of occurrence and in view of the consistent and cogent evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 failure of the investigating officer to recover the crime weapon or collect blood-stained soil, clothes of the deceased etc. are of not much significance in this case. 10. The manner of occurrence as disclosed by the informant and his daughter is corroborated by the medical evidence. 11. PW-2, who has conducted autopsy on 14.04.2011 at about 10:30 AM, was posted as medical officer in the Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. He has found the following incised wounds on Rasanti Kandulna: “(i) Incised wound front of the neck causing separation of whole neck only attached with thin layer of muscle and skin– 5'' x 3'' x whole thickness of neck. (ii) Incised wound on left side of face multiple in number– 5''x 2'' x deep to buccal cavity.” 12. He has found the following incised wounds on Rasanti Kandulna: “(i) Incised wound front of the neck causing separation of whole neck only attached with thin layer of muscle and skin– 5'' x 3'' x whole thickness of neck. (ii) Incised wound on left side of face multiple in number– 5''x 2'' x deep to buccal cavity.” 12. The doctor has found rigor mortis present in both the limbs and according to him the time elapsed since death was 6 to 48 hrs. from the post-mortem examination. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from the injuries caused to Rasanti Kandulna by hard, heavy and sharp weapon. These observations of the doctor corroborate the prosecution story that the appellant inflicted two Farsa blows on neck of Rasanti Kandulana around 7:00 AM on 13.04.2011; both PW-1 and PW-3 have stated that the appellant has inflicted Farsa blows on the neck of Rasanti Kandulna. 13. PW-1 has suffered injuries in the incident is sufficiently supported by PW-7. He has examined PW-1 at about 9:00 AM on 13.04.2011 and found the following incised wounds on his arms: “(i) Incised wound on back of right arm 7'' x 1'' x muscle deep, bleeding present. (ii) Incised wound on lateral aspect of left arm and left forearm- 10'' x 1'' x muscle deep, bleeding present” 14. He has observed that injuries to PW-1 were caused by a sharp object, however, these were simple in nature. 15. Another important feature of this case is that fardbeyan of the informant was recorded soon after the occurrence and a First Information Report was lodged promptly. According to the prosecution the appellant has assaulted the informant and his wife around 7:00 AM on 13.04.2011 and PW-1 was examined by the doctor at about 9:00 AM the same day at P.H.C, Manoharpur. His fardbeyan was recorded at about 10:15 AM in the hospital, at P.H.C, Manoharpur, during his treatment and a First Information Report was lodged at 13:30 PM. The preparation of these contemporaneous documents at quick succession and absence of any reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case lend credence to the prosecution story that it was the appellant who has killed Rasanti Kandulna and when her husband tried to save her caused injuries to him. 16. The appellant had strong motive to commit murder of Rasanti Kandulna. 16. The appellant had strong motive to commit murder of Rasanti Kandulna. PW-1 and PW-3 have uniformly stated in the Court that the appellant had lost his son about a week prior to the incident and he was nurturing a doubt that Rasanti Kandulna had practiced witch craft on his son due to which he had died. PW-3 has further stated that the appellant had declared in the village that he would take revenge. Generally motive is considered a weak piece of evidence but in a criminal trial its importance cannot be undermined. A crime can take place without premeditation or with planning and it may happen at the spur of the moment and, therefore, motive may not be known to the victim, however, if the prosecution leads reliable evidence on motive it significantly strengthens its case. The defence taken by the appellant that he had no son rather he has a daughter only and, therefore, the genesis of the case must fail has remained in the realm of conjecture. He has not led any evidence to discard the version of PW-1 and PW-3 that to take revenge, albeit on a misconception, he has killed Rasanti Kandulna. 17. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, it would amount to murder. The intention to cause death can be gathered from a combination of the circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) if the weapon was carried by the accused; (iii) if the blow was aimed at vital part of the body; and (iv) the force employed in causing injuries. All these factors are vividly present in this case. The extent of the injuries caused to Rasanti Kandulna would show force with which the appellant has inflicted Farsa blow on her neck. The injury no. (i) which was on the front of the neck of Rasanti Kandulna has severed her neck almost completely from the body and it was attached with the body only with a thin layer of muscle and skin. He has caused another incised wound on the left side of her face, 5'' x 2'', deep to buccal and in the incident when she fell on the ground her right forearm was fractured. He has caused another incised wound on the left side of her face, 5'' x 2'', deep to buccal and in the incident when she fell on the ground her right forearm was fractured. The doctor has also stated that the injuries caused to Rasanti Kandulna were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 18. The above being the factual scenario, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence, presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and assault by him on Rasanti Kandulna and Dayal Kandulna, the informant. 19. In the aforesaid facts, we find no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the appellant in Sessions Trial Case No. 218 of 2011 and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 444 of 2016 is dismissed. 20. Let the lower-court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. 21. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.