JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.09.2012 passed by Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 71/2010, arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 55/2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 155/2010, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. A fardbeyan was recorded of Sikandar Yadav in which it was alleged that on 20.05.2010 at about 7:00 P.M. when the informant and his family members were having meals in the courtyard Hira Lal Yadav (appellant) came and started shouting and abusing them. A quarrel had also ensued with the father of the informant Larangu Yadav. The matter was somehow pacified and Hira Lal Yadav went home. After having meals the informant and his family members went to sleep when at about 8:00 P.M. Hira Lal Yadav once again came with a Balua in his hand and dragged the father of the informant to the courtyard and assaulted him with the Balua on his neck. When the wife of the informant rushed to the scene she was threatened by Hira Lal Yadav who after sometime threw the Balua and went home. The father of the informant died at the spot. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Simdega P.S. Case No. 55/2010 was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the sole accused Hira Lal Yadav. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was numbered as S.T. No. 71/2010. Charge was framed u/s 302 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. 6. PW-1 (Sarju Kumar Yadav) has deposed that the incident is of 20.05.2010 at about 9:00 P.M. He was at his house when he heard Hira Lal Yadav shouting that he will murder Larangu Yadav. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. 6. PW-1 (Sarju Kumar Yadav) has deposed that the incident is of 20.05.2010 at about 9:00 P.M. He was at his house when he heard Hira Lal Yadav shouting that he will murder Larangu Yadav. After sometime he heard cries of alarm of Sikandar Yadav, Injarmuni Devi and Munni Devi that Larangu Yadav has been murdered. On hearing the cry of alarm, he came outside and was going to the house of Larangu Yadav with Suresh Yadav, when they met Hira Lal Yadav and Charku Yadav. He has stated that Charku Yadav had disclosed that he had gone to pacify the quarrel but Hira Lal Yadav did not yield and committed the murder of Larangu Yadav. When this witness and Suresh Yadav went to the house of Larangu Yadav they found him on the ground with blood spilling out. Larangu Yadav was already dead by then. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not a witness to the murder. 7. PW-2 (Ramjeet Yadav) has stated that it was on 20.05.2010 at about 9:00 P.M. when on alarm he went to the house of Larangu Yadav and found his dead body lying. Sikandar Yadav, Injarmuni Devi and Munni Devi had disclosed that Hira Lal Yadav has committed the murder of Larangu Yadav. This witness had signed on the inquest report. 8. PW-3 (Suresh Yadav) has stated that he had not seen Hira Lal Yadav committing the murder of Larangu Yadav but he had heard from the family members of the deceased. 9. PW-4 (Napeshwar Yadav) has deposed that on 20.05.2010 in the evening between 7:00-9:00 P.M. he had heard alarm from the house of Sikandar Yadav and when he went he had found the dead body of Larangu Yadav. It was Sikandar Yadav who had disclosed that his father has been murdered by Hira Lal Yadav. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the occurrence. 10. PW-5 (Sikandar Yadav) is the informant and the son of the deceased. He has proved the fardbeyan which bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The production cum seizure list of the Balua has been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1. He has also proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. 10. PW-5 (Sikandar Yadav) is the informant and the son of the deceased. He has proved the fardbeyan which bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The production cum seizure list of the Balua has been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1. He has also proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. This witness has deposed that on 20.05.2010 at about 9:00 P.M. he was in his house when Hira Lal Yadav came shouting with a Balua dragged his father to the courtyard and cut his throat with the Balua which resulted in his death. When they raised an alarm Ramjeet and Napeshwar had reached his house. He has further stated that when the accused was fleeing away after throwing the Balua, Saryu Yadav and Suresh Yadav had met him on the way. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the assault was committed by Hira Lal Yadav upon his father in the courtyard in his presence. 11. PW-6 (Injurmuni Devi) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased who has stated that it was 9:00 P.M. on 20.05.2010 and she was in her house with her husband and father-in-law when Hira Lal Yadav came and assaulted her father-in-law with a Balua. In her cross-examination, she has stated that when she came out from her room she had seen her father-in-law being assaulted by Hira Lal Yadav. 12. PW-7 (Subhash Chandra Yadav) was posted on 21.05.2010 at Simdega P.S. and on that day the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge Arjun Singh Kunkal which has been proved by him and marked as Exhibit-4. He has also proved the formal First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. After the case was instituted, this witness was entrusted with the investigation. He had recorded the reinstatement of the informant and had also visited the place of occurrence which is at village Churitangar in the mud house of Sikandar Yadav. He has described the place of occurrence which indicates that on the east is an unmetalled road, on the west is the parti land of Ratu Mahto, in the south is an unmetalled road and in the north is also a parti land of Ratu Mahto. He had recorded the statement of witnesses Injarmuni Devi, Munni Devi, Ramjeet Yadav, Nepeshwar Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Sadhu Yadav, Jaymangal Yadav and Sarmuja Yadav. He had recorded the statement of witnesses Injarmuni Devi, Munni Devi, Ramjeet Yadav, Nepeshwar Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Sadhu Yadav, Jaymangal Yadav and Sarmuja Yadav. The accused was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded which is in his handwriting and bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-6. This witness had also obtained the postmortem report which is in the handwriting of Dr. Rajesh Kumar and bears his signature and which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not prepared the inquest report. On the place of occurrence he had found some smattering of blood. He had not obtained the FSL report of the seized Balua. 13. PW-8 (Herman George Soren) has produced a Balua with his handle made of wood in the court and which has been marked as material Exhibit No. A. 14. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has merely denied to have committed the offence of murder. 15. Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though PW-5 and PW-6 have claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses but several contradictions appear in their evidences. It has been submitted that it cannot be deciphered as to whether it was PW-5 or PW-6 who had come out first in the courtyard when the purported assault was being committed. Mr. Sanga has gone on to add that the Doctor conducting the postmortem on Larangu Yadav has not been examined by the prosecution. The Balua which is described as the murder weapon was never sent for forensic examination and PW-7 in very clear terms has stated that only a smattering of blood was found in the courtyard which itself creates a doubt regarding the actual place of occurrence. Further more, according to Mr. Sanga, there was absolutely no motive pointed out by the prosecution for committing the murder of the father of the informant. As per the learned counsel for the appellant learned trial court had completely misdirected itself while convicting the appellant for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. 16. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand has submitted that PW-5 and PW-6 are the eye-witnesses who have clearly stated that the appellant had assaulted Larangu Yadav with a Balua resulting in his death. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand has submitted that PW-5 and PW-6 are the eye-witnesses who have clearly stated that the appellant had assaulted Larangu Yadav with a Balua resulting in his death. She has submitted that the non-examination of the Doctor by the prosecution cannot be fatal since the postmortem report has been proved and exhibited and in fact the nature of injuries corroborates the manner of assault by the appellant upon the deceased. 17. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records. The fardbeyan reveals that a quarrel had ensued between the appellant and the deceased when the appellant had come to the house of the deceased and started using abusive language. The matter was pacified somehow but the subsequent allegation revealed that the embers were still simmering inside the appellant as he seems to have come back in the evening with a Balua and committed assault upon Larangu Yadav leading to his death. The manner of occurrence and the participation of the appellant in such assault has been stated in clear terms by the informant (PW-5) and the daughterin- law (PW-6) of the deceased. Though, none of them have stated about the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant which as per the fardbeyan of PW-5 appears to have acted as a precursor to the subsequent event but absence of such disclosure in their evidence during trial would not culminate in giving a verdict of innocence to the appellant. Discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses during trial are bound to occur but the same would not inevitably lead to an order of acquittal if such discrepancies or inconsistencies are trivial in nature and does not cast a shadow of doubt in the case of the prosecution. In the present case, the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 established that Larangu Yadav had died in his courtyard on account of the assault committed by the appellant with a Balua. The defence has failed to elicit any major contradictions in their evidences to discard the case of the prosecution. In the present case, the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 established that Larangu Yadav had died in his courtyard on account of the assault committed by the appellant with a Balua. The defence has failed to elicit any major contradictions in their evidences to discard the case of the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, it seems that PW-1 on hearing the cry of alarm from the house of Larangu Yadav was proceeding towards his house, when on the way he had met the appellant and Charku Yadav and Charku Yadav had disclosed about the murder committed by the appellant. Though, Charku Yadav has not been examined by the prosecution but the presence of the appellant on the way also gives credence to the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 apart from the fact that the appellant was shouting and stating that he would commit the murder of Larangu Yadav as deposed by PW-1. 18. It is a fact that some of the material witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution but the same would not create a dent in the prosecution case as the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 are cogent, reliable and trustworthy on the point of assault and on the point of participation of the appellant in the assault. 19. The postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-7 reveals a sharp cut injury 4” long, 2” wide and 2” deep over right side of neck. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage due to the above mentioned injury. The nature of weapon used was sharp and hard cutting. The postmortem report, therefore, reveals one injury over the neck of the deceased which indicates that the appellant had struck one blow with a Balua upon the deceased. The evidence of the witnesses does not indicate that the assault occurred at the spur of the moment. The fardbeyan reveals a quarrel which had taken place earlier which was pacified and the appellant had gone away. After 1-2 hours he returned with a Balua, entered into the house of the informant and committed the murder of the father of the informant. The fardbeyan reveals a quarrel which had taken place earlier which was pacified and the appellant had gone away. After 1-2 hours he returned with a Balua, entered into the house of the informant and committed the murder of the father of the informant. The intention of the appellant in such circumstances seem to be clear and his coming back with a sharp cutting weapon and as disclosed by PW-1 about the appellant shouting and threatening to commit the murder of Larangu Yadav while he was going towards the house of the deceased signifies that the act of murder was preconceived and premeditated. A single blow was sufficient to cause the death of Larangu Yadav. 20. The circumstances noted above have been appropriately considered by the learned trial court and there being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 21. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed off.