JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2011 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2009, arising out of Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 26/2008, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 554/2008, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC, R.I. for two months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 3/4 respectively of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act. 3. The fardbeyan of Chaitali Kumari was recorded on 26.06.2008 at 8:30 A.M, in which it has been stated that on 25.06.2008 at around 8:00 P.M. her father Sahendra Oraon was having dinner while her mother Bhaikhain Orain was feeding her. Her sisters had already taken their meals. Her grandmother Purni Devi did not have food. It has been alleged that all of them were sitting in the Veranda where a lantern was burning when all of a sudden 8-9 persons came at their door and two persons having axes with them speedily entered into the house. One of them namely Mahendra Oraon (appellant) assaulted her father on the neck with an axe as a result of which he fell down and he was once again assaulted on his head. When her mother tried to save her father Mahendra Oraon assaulted her on her neck with the axe and when she fell down she was again assaulted repeatedly with the axe. After committing the assault Mahendra Oraon and the other persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Both her parents died. Since her house is at a lonely place none had come in spite of raising alarm. The Police Station is situated at quite a distance due to which she could not go there at night. After committing the assault Mahendra Oraon and the other persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Both her parents died. Since her house is at a lonely place none had come in spite of raising alarm. The Police Station is situated at quite a distance due to which she could not go there at night. According to her, the cause of the incident is that about a month back the mother of Mahendra Oraon had died and the nephew of Mahendra Oraon had died due to illness six years back which resulted in Mahendra Oraon insinuating her parents of practicing witchcraft for which threats were also given. Based on the aforesaid allegations Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 26/2008 was instituted u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons including the appellant and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2009. Charge was framed against the accused persons u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Letangu Oraon), P.W.2 (Mohni Devi), P.W.3 (Budhman Oraon), P.W.4 (Turia Oraon) and P.W.5 (Birendra Oraon) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 6. P.W.6 (Chaitali Kumari) is the informant who has stated that the incident is of 3-4 years back. It was around 8:00-9:00 P.M. and she was in her house. Her father Sahendra Oraon was having his meal. Her younger sisters had already had their meals. She has stated that Mahendra Oraon along with 7-8 persons entered into her house and all were having axe with them. Mahendra Oraon had assaulted her father with an axe who fell down and when her mother intervened she was also assaulted. After the assault all had left. Her parents died at the spot. The assault was committed as Mahendra alleged that her parents practiced witchcraft. In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the time of the incident all were sitting in the Veranda. After the assault all had left. Her parents died at the spot. The assault was committed as Mahendra alleged that her parents practiced witchcraft. In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the time of the incident all were sitting in the Veranda. Mahendra and the others had entered after breaking open the window. Her father was assaulted 3-4 times. She has stated that the accused persons had closed the door from outside. She had come out of the house by breaking open the tiles. The house of Mahendra is situated on the northern side of her house. She cannot say as to whose house or land lies between her house and the house of Mahendra. She has further deposed that Mahendra was calling the deceased witches which is 1-2 days prior to the incident but no Panchayati was held in that respect. 7. P.W.7 (Purni Devi) has deposed that the incident is of three years four months back at about 8:00 P.M. She and the entire family members were sitting when there was a knock on the door. When the door was not opened one person entered through the window and got the door opened. After opening the door two persons with axe in their hands entered. She could recognize one of them as Mahendra Oraon. Her son Sahendra was assaulted with an axe by Mahendra and when he fell down on the ground he was once again assaulted. When her daughter-in-law Bhaikhain tried to save her husband she was also repeatedly assaulted by Mahendra Oraon. In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the time of the incident all the family members were sitting together. When Mahendra had entered he was only abusing. When Sahendra had fallen down he was assaulted 15 times. The villagers were not informed about the incident in the night. He has stated that a Panchayati was once held since Mahendra was calling them witches. 8. P.W.8 (Nirmalia Orain) has deposed that when on information she had gone to the place of occurrence, she had seen the dead bodies of Sahendra Oraon and Bhaikhain Orain. She came to know that the assailant was Mahendra Oraon. The inception of the dispute was from the time Sahendra had constructed a house near the house of Mahendra Oraon. She has identified Mahendra Oraon in the Court but has not been able to identify the other two accused persons. She came to know that the assailant was Mahendra Oraon. The inception of the dispute was from the time Sahendra had constructed a house near the house of Mahendra Oraon. She has identified Mahendra Oraon in the Court but has not been able to identify the other two accused persons. In cross-examination, she has deposed that with respect to construction of house and the death of the mother of Mahendra no Panchayati was convened. 9. P.W.9 (Binita Oraon) is another daughter of the deceased. She has deposed that on the date of the incident she and her family members were in the house when at about 8:00 P.M. two persons had entered with axe. She had identified Mahendra Oraon as one of the two persons who had entered. They had assaulted her parents with axe. Mahendra used to extend threats since his mother had died. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her grandmother had gone at night to inform the villagers but none had come. There was a previous enmity between her parents and Mahendra. She has further stated that her mother had opened the door since the miscreants had threatened that if the door is not opened the house will be set on fire. 10. P.W.10 (Dr. Angraj Subhash Chandra) was posted at Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 26.06.2008 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sahindra Oraon and had found the following injuries : i. An incised injury on neck size 5” x 1” x bone deep. ii. An incised injury on neck 1 1/2” lower than the first injury. Size 4” x 1” x bone deep with severing of vessels trachea and food pipe. iii. An incised injury at occipital region size 2” x 1” x 1” with fracture of occipital bone and large collection of blood inside the wound. The cause of death was opined to be due to haemorrhage and shock. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He has further stated that the injuries may be caused by a Tangi. On the same day, he had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Bhikhain Oraon and had found the following injuries : i. Sharp cutting injury in front of neck size 4” x 1” x bone deep with severing of trachea oesophagus vessels. ii. He has further stated that the injuries may be caused by a Tangi. On the same day, he had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Bhikhain Oraon and had found the following injuries : i. Sharp cutting injury in front of neck size 4” x 1” x bone deep with severing of trachea oesophagus vessels. ii. An incised injury over eye ball on left side size 2” x 1” x 1/2”. iii. An incised injury over front of skull size 3” x 1” x bone deep with fracture of frontal bone. iv. Sharp cutting injury of little finger size 1/2” x 1/2” x 1/2”. The cause of death was ascertained to be due to shock and haemorrhage. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-4. According to him, the injuries may be caused by a Tangi. 11. P.W.11 (Ram Kishun Oraon) was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Bishunpur P.S. On 26.06.2008, he came to know that at Bahar Serka village a couple has been murdered. At this information, he had reached Bahar Serka village and went to the house of Sahendra Oraon. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Chaitali Oraon which is in his handwriting and bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He has also identified his writing and signature on the inquest reports which have been proved and marked as Exhibit-6 and 7. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant situated at village Bahar Serka at a distance of 3 Km from the Police Station. It is a mud tiled house and the main door is constructed of wood. On entering through the main door there is a veranda all around. On the eastern side is a room in which both the dead bodies were found. There was blood on the ground. He has stated that it was a lonely place surrounded by Jungles. About 200 yards on the north western side the house of Mahendra Oraon is situated. After inspecting the place of occurrence he had recorded the statements of Purni Devi, Binita Kumari, Letangu Oraon, Mohni Devi, Dudhman Oraon and Nirmalia Orain. He has proved the formal First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit-8 with objection. About 200 yards on the north western side the house of Mahendra Oraon is situated. After inspecting the place of occurrence he had recorded the statements of Purni Devi, Binita Kumari, Letangu Oraon, Mohni Devi, Dudhman Oraon and Nirmalia Orain. He has proved the formal First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit-8 with objection. He had thereafter arrested Mahendra Oraon and on his confessional statement two axes were recovered. He has proved his handwriting and signature over the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-9. He has proved the confessional statement of Mahendra Oraon which has been marked as Exhibit-10. He had obtained the post-mortem reports and on the direction of his superior authority had submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had heard a rumor about the incident at 7:30 A.M. He had collected the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. The seized axes were not sent for forensic examination. He has further stated that the witness Purni Devi in her statement had not stated that when the door was not opened the miscreants had entered through the window. There was a dispute between both the sides with respect to practicing of witchcraft. 12. The statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied to have committed the murders. 13. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 9 though they claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses. It has been submitted that P.Ws. 6 and 9 are child witnesses and their evidence should have been scrutinized with more diligence. So far as the evidence of P.W.7 is concerned, she is an old lady and her recognition of the appellant as the assailant in the light of the lantern seems to be doubtful. Drawing the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report, Mr. Singh has submitted that the cause of death has not specifically been stated and it has merely been mentioned as shock and haemorrhage. It has not been stated as to which of the injuries were the resultant cause of death of the deceased. Drawing the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report, Mr. Singh has submitted that the cause of death has not specifically been stated and it has merely been mentioned as shock and haemorrhage. It has not been stated as to which of the injuries were the resultant cause of death of the deceased. In support of such contention reference has been made to the case of “Sanjay versus State of Uttar Pradesh” in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it has been held as follows : “13. However, in the instant case, it is apparent that the death occurred sixty two days after the occurrence due to septicaemia and it was indirectly due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The proximate cause of death on 13.10.1998 was septicaemia which of course was due to the injuries caused in the incident on 11.08.1998. As noted earlier, as per the evidence of Dr. Laxman Das (PW9), Roop Singh was discharged from the hospital in good condition and he survived for sixty two days. In such facts and circumstances, prosecution should have elicited from Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9) that the head injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No such opinion was elicited either from Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9) or from Dr. Gulecha (PW-3). Having regard to the fact that Roop Singh survived for sixty two days and that his condition was stable when he was discharged from the hospital, the court cannot draw an inference that the intended injury caused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract clause (3) of Section 300 IPC.” 14. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 9 while submitting that their evidence proves beyond doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the murders. The appellant had forcibly entered into the house of P.W.6 armed with an axe and committed indiscriminate assault upon Sahendra Oraon and Bhaikhain Orain which reveals the preparedness and intention of the appellant in committing the murders. Learned A.P.P. has also submitted that the assaults were made on the vital parts of the bodies of the deceased which would be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 15. Learned A.P.P. has also submitted that the assaults were made on the vital parts of the bodies of the deceased which would be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the Lower Court Records. The genesis of the occurrence according to the prosecution is the death of the mother of the appellant a month prior to the incident which triggered the animosity of the appellant towards the deceased. The evidence of P.W.11 reveals that the house of the appellant is at a distance of 200 yards from the house of the deceased. The appellant was, therefore, very well known to the family of the deceased including P.Ws. 6, 7 and 9. 16. The incident is said to have taken place around 8:00 P.M. All the family members of P.W.6 including herself were present at the verandah where a lantern was burning. The miscreants seem to have forcibly entered through the window. The appellant had assumed a predominant role as it was he who with an axe had made indiscriminate assault upon Sahendra Oraon and Bhaikhain Orain. The assailant was clearly identified by P.Ws. 6, 7 and 9. P.W.6 has also not wavered from her fardbeyan with respect to the appellant being solely responsible for the death of her parents. Both the child witnesses i.e. P.W.6 and P.W.9 have testified after having been found competent to testify and on due diligence their evidence is found to be reliable and trustworthy. The appellant being the assailant is, therefore, proved beyond doubt. 17. When we peruse the post-mortem report we find that the deceased Sahendra Oraon had suffered incised injuries on neck and occipital region while the deceased Bhaikhain Orain had also suffered multiple incised wounds on neck, skull, on the area over eye ball and little finger. Though, the cause of death did not indicate any particular injury but looking at the post-mortem report their remains no manner of doubt that the majority of the injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body of the deceased which in ordinary course would surely lead to death. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of “Sanjay versus State of Uttar Pradesh” (supra) but in view of the facts of the said case the same would not be applicable to the present case. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of “Sanjay versus State of Uttar Pradesh” (supra) but in view of the facts of the said case the same would not be applicable to the present case. The manner of assault as per the evidence of P.W. 6, 7 and 9 is corroborated by the autopsy report and as per P.W. 11 two Tangies were recovered from the house of the appellant and thus the entire scenario of the case leaves no room for doubt that it was the appellant who was solely instrumental in committing the murders of Sahendra Oraon and Bhaikhain Orain. 18. The learned trial court has appreciated the materials available on record while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2009 and having found no materials to conclude otherwise, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 19. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.