JUDGMENT : Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. 1. The judgment of conviction dated December 22, 2015 and order of sentence dated December 23, 2015 passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Purulia in connection with Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 221 of 2015, has been assailed in the present appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months. The appellant was also sentenced with life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On May 07, 2015, the wife of the victim lodged a written complaint with the police to the effect that on May 06, 2015 her husband went to his in-laws’ house. She had talks with her husband over telephone at 8.00 p.m. when her husband disclosed that he was at the house of one Budhu Singh. At about 10.00 pm in the night she came to know that the son of one of her brother-in-law in distant relation i.e. the appellant killed her husband near a school namely Dhadka Uparpara Sishu Siksha Kendra. Hearing such news the de facto complainant with her family members came to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying dead with broken scalp and bleeding injuries on the back side of the aforesaid school near the mother’s house of the appellant. The de facto complainant also disclosed that she came to know that on May 06, 2015 at around 9/9.30 pm the appellant dealt a powerful blow on the head of the victim with the help of a thick wooden handle of Gaiti with an intention to kill him and her husband died instantly. It was also stated that her husband was killed by the appellant in order to grab the share of lands of the victim. The appellant also assaulted Budhu Singh causing serious bleeding injuries. The appellant eloped after the incident. Budhu Singh was taken to Bandowan hospital by the local people for treatment. 4. It was also stated that her husband was killed by the appellant in order to grab the share of lands of the victim. The appellant also assaulted Budhu Singh causing serious bleeding injuries. The appellant eloped after the incident. Budhu Singh was taken to Bandowan hospital by the local people for treatment. 4. On the basis of such written complaint, Bandowan Police Station case No. 18/15 dated May 07, 2015 under Section 302/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the appellant. 5. The police took up investigation and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. 6. On the basis of materials in the case diary, charges under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant on August 13, 2015. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It was also submitted that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. There was one injured witness who stated that he fell unconscious being assaulted and as such his testimony cannot be relied. 8. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not been able to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the exclusive guilt of the appellant. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant further submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and given the contradictory statements of the prosecution witness, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 10. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence leading to serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. 11. On the other hand, learned advocate for the state submitted that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances which lead to the only proposition of the guilt of the appellant. Moreover, the injured eye witness has supported the case of the prosecution as made out in the first information report. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not liable to any interference. 12. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. Moreover, the injured eye witness has supported the case of the prosecution as made out in the first information report. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not liable to any interference. 12. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. In addition, the prosecution also relied upon certain documentary and material evidences. 13. The de facto complainant herself deposed as PW1. She stated that the victim was her husband. He went to her matrimonial house at the village Dhadka about four months prior to the death of her deposition (on September 01, 2015). She further stated that her husband informed her over telephone that he stayed in the house of Budhu Singh. Thereafter, she was informed by one Laltu over telephone from Dhadka village that the appellant murdered her husband by inflicting blows on his head by the wooden butt of a crowbar (gaity). She went to the village and found the dead body of her husband on the back of the school of Dhadka. She found injuries on the head of her husband. PW1 also stated that she informed the matter to the police station by lodging a written complaint. It was scribed by Laltu as per her instruction. It was read over and explained to her and thereafter she put her left thumb impression on the complaint. She further stated that police visited the place of occurrence and examined the dead body. A document in this regard was prepared to which PW1 put her left thumb impression. She also put her LTI on a seizure list prepared by the police. PW1 identified the appellant in Court. She further stated that she was informed by the son of Budhu Singh. PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant where she admitted that she did not disclose in the written complaint that she was informed about the death of her husband by Laltu. She also could not name the son of Budhu. 14. The scribe of the written complaint deposed as PW2. He has stated that the appellant was known to him and had his residence about half kilometer from that of PW2. He identified the appellant in Court. She also could not name the son of Budhu. 14. The scribe of the written complaint deposed as PW2. He has stated that the appellant was known to him and had his residence about half kilometer from that of PW2. He identified the appellant in Court. He further stated that on May 06, 2015 at about 9.30 pm when he was having his dinner, he heard hue and cry and saw some persons proceeding towards Uparpara of his village. PW2 also followed them. At the back of Siksha Kendra beside the house of the appellant, he found the appellant and Budhu Singh lying with injuries. He however did not inform the wife of the victim. She was informed by one civic police. PW2 also stated that wife of the victim came there and he accompanied her to the police station. He scribed a written complaint as per the instruction of PW1. PW2 proved the written complaint scribed by him (Exhibit 1). PW2 also stated that the police came to the place of occurrence, examined the dead body and prepared a document to which PW2 put his signature. He proved his signature on such document. He also signed on a seizure list. 15. The son-in-law of the victim deposed as PW3. He stated that the incident took place about four months ago at about 9.30 pm. He however did not visit the place of occurrence. He further stated that he was informed by brother-in-law of the appellant that the appellant had murdered the victim. PW3 identified the appellant in Court. In his cross-examination, PW3 stated that he was not examined by police. 16. The nephew of the victim deposed as PW4. He stated that the accused was his elder brother. PW4 also stated that about four months ago on Wednesday at about 9.30 pm, she was in his house. She heard noise on blowing of lathi. He came to outside the house and saw that his elder brother i.e. the appellant had murdered the uncle of PW4. She further stated that she had seen the incident with her own eyes. At that time, her husband had gone to the house of Budhu Singh for gossiping. Her husband reported PW4 that the appellant also assaulted Budhu Singh due to which he sustained injuries above the left eye brow. She further stated that she had seen the incident with her own eyes. At that time, her husband had gone to the house of Budhu Singh for gossiping. Her husband reported PW4 that the appellant also assaulted Budhu Singh due to which he sustained injuries above the left eye brow. PW 4 also stated that she identified her brother in the light of the street light. She also stated that the incident had taken place near her house beside Sishu Siksha Kendra which was about 10 feet away from her house. She made a statement before the learned magistrate and put her left thumb impression thereon. She identified the appellant. 17. One villager deposed as PW5. He identified the appellant in Court. He has further stated that about four months ago at about 9.30 pm, she saw the appellant with something in his hand which was like a wooden lathi. After half an hour, he heard hue and cry and rushed to the place of occurrence where he found the victim lying in bleeding injuries. PW5 also stated that he saw Budhu Singh lying in front of the house of Dilip with bleeding injuries on his head. The victim died at the spot. Both of them were taken to the nearest hospital. 18. A police personnel deposed as PW6. He has stated that on May 07, 2015, he was posted at Bandowan police station and on that day, he signed on a seizure list regarding the wearing apparel and post-mortem blood of the victim. Another police personnel deposed as PW 7. He also proved his signature on a seizure list dated May 07, 2024 with regard to the wearing apparel and blood. 19. Another police constable deposed as PW8. He accompanied the dead body of the victim on May 07, 2015. He also identified the dead body before the autopsy surgeon and was handed over with the wearing apparel of the victim which was seized by the investigating officer. He identified his signature on the dead body challan as well as seizure list. 20. Another person injured in the incident i.e. Budhu Singh was examined as PW9. He stated that the victim was known to him. He used to visit his house regarding some discussions in respect of the land. He identified his signature on the dead body challan as well as seizure list. 20. Another person injured in the incident i.e. Budhu Singh was examined as PW9. He stated that the victim was known to him. He used to visit his house regarding some discussions in respect of the land. He further stated that about 4 months ago on Wednesday at about 9.30 pm, the victim had discussions with him on a vacant land behind Sishu Siksha Kendra. He also stated that the appellant was his neighbour. He had some disputes with the victim. He suddenly came to the place where the discussions were going on and started assaulting him by the wooden portion of a crowbar over his forehead. PW5 has stated that he sat on the ground and saw that the appellant also assaulted the victim in the same manner. He identified the appellant in the light of street light. He identified the appellant in Court. Thereafter, the appellant fled away. PW9 and the victim Machu Machoar were taken to Bandowan hospital by the villagers. PW9 was later transferred to Purulia Sadar Hospital where from he was released after twelve days. PW9 also stated that he made statements before learned magistrate. He proved his signature on such statements (under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code). PW9 further stated that the offending weapon was concealed by the appellant in a bush of date palm trees in Dhadka village. The appellant brought out the offending weapon in his presence which was seized by the police under a seizure list. PW9 identified his signature on the seizure list. The cobber was recovered upon the leading statement of the appellant from the house of the appellant which was also seized by police. PW9 proved his signature on such seizure list. In his cross-examination, PW9 stated that both the portions of the offending weapon were recovered on the same day which was after two days of his discharge from the hospital. PW9, in his cross-examination, denied having stated before learned magistrate that he fell unconscious after the assault and he regained senses in the hospital. 21. A police constable deposed as PW10. He identified the appellant in Court. He stated that on May 15, 2015 he accompanied S.I. Srikanta Mula to Dhadka village along with the appellant. PW9, in his cross-examination, denied having stated before learned magistrate that he fell unconscious after the assault and he regained senses in the hospital. 21. A police constable deposed as PW10. He identified the appellant in Court. He stated that on May 15, 2015 he accompanied S.I. Srikanta Mula to Dhadka village along with the appellant. He also stated that the appellant brought out one iron made portion of cobber from his house and wooden butt of the cobber from date palm tree which were seized under a seizure list. PW10 proved his signature on both the seizure lists. 22. A villager was examined as PW11. He stated that about four months ago on Wednesday at about 9/9.30 pm while he was in his house, he heard hue and cry and some persons were passing from in front of his house. He followed them. He saw the wife of PW9 standing there and raising hue and cry. He also saw PW9 on a vacant land behind Sishu Siksha Kendra and took him to hospital. He also saw the victim with bleeding injuries. 23. Another co-villager deposed as PW12. He stated that his daughter in-law is a teacher in Sishu Siksha Kendra and she asked him for some land to extend the Sishu Siksha Kendra. PW12 contacted that PW9 who introduced him with the victim. On May 06, 2015 the victim came to Dhadka village for discussions in connection with the transaction of land for the school. On the next morning, PW12 heard that the victim was murdered. 24. A teacher of Sishu Siksha Kendra deposed as PW13. He stated that the school received some funds for exhibition of this school. He requested PW12 to give information regarding the lands adjacent to the school. 25. The Station Manager of Bandwan Customer Care Center of WBSEDCL deposed as PW14. He stated that on May 06, 2015, he issued one certificate which was admitted in evidence (Exhibit 10). The husband of PW4 deposed as PW 14(A). He stated that he knew the appellant and the victim claimed to identify the appellant. He further stated that about 7 months ago on Wednesday at about 9.30 pm he was gossiping with PW9 and the victim at the house of PW9. After sometime the victim and PW9 came out from the house and started gossiping near the school. He stated that he knew the appellant and the victim claimed to identify the appellant. He further stated that about 7 months ago on Wednesday at about 9.30 pm he was gossiping with PW9 and the victim at the house of PW9. After sometime the victim and PW9 came out from the house and started gossiping near the school. Suddenly PW14(A) heard a noise and came out form the house of PW9. He saw the appellant fleeing away with wooden portion of a Gaity. He also saw the victim and PW9 lying on the land of Dasharath and Dilip. They were bleeding from mouth and ear. PW 14(A) also saw bleeding injuries on their heads. He further stated as his wife PW4 informed him that the victim and PW9 were assaulted by the appellant. Police visited the place of occurrence and prepared documents where PW 14 (A) put his left thumb impression. 26. The wife of PW9 has deposed as PW15. She stated that about 8 months ago on Wednesday at about 8 pm she was in her house. She rushed out and saw the appellant assaulting her husband. Her husband fell down and later was taken to hospital. She identified the accused in court. 27. A resident of Dhadka village deposed as PW16. He stated that on May 06, 2015 at about 9.30 pm he was in his house. He was informed by PW2 that appellant was assaulted and was lying down. Hearing such news PW16 rushed to the spot and saw the victim and PW9 lying with bleeding injuries. A tempo was hired and PW9 was sent to hospital. PW16 stated that vehicle was hired by himself and one Gopal Singh. He also stated that PW9 reported to him that he was assaulted by the appellant by the wooden portion of the Gaity. He identified the appellant in the court. 28. PW17 stated that he knew the victim Sunil who is no more. On May 06, 2015 at about 9/ 9.30 pm, PW 17 was in his house and suddenly heard hue and cry. He rushed to Machoar Para and saw the victim lying dead and PW9 lying with bleeding injuries. He along with others took PW9 to hospital. He further stated that he was informed by one Laltu Rajoar (PW2) that the appellant assaulted PW9 and the victim by wooden portion of a gaity. 29. He rushed to Machoar Para and saw the victim lying dead and PW9 lying with bleeding injuries. He along with others took PW9 to hospital. He further stated that he was informed by one Laltu Rajoar (PW2) that the appellant assaulted PW9 and the victim by wooden portion of a gaity. 29. PW18 stated that on May 06, 2015 at about 9.30 pm he was in his house and heard hue and cry. He rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the victim murdered and PW9 lying in injured condition. He along with others took PW9 to hospital. 30. Another villager deposed as PW19. He stated that he was a driver by profession. On May 06, 2015, he was driving a maxi vehicle having registration no. JH/05 AR/6551. He further stated that on the said day, he took one injured i.e. PW9 to Bandowan Hospital from Dhadka village. He also saw another person lying down. One civic police and Gopal Singh were accompanying the injured. He has stated that he saw the injuries on the forehead of PW9. He was examined by police. He however could not name the appellant. 31. A medical officer of Bandowan Block Primary Health Center was examined as PW20. He stated that on May 06, 2015, he examined one Budhu Singh aged 90 years i.e. PW 9 at about 10.55 PM brought by one Gopal Singh(PW18). He has described the history of injury as being physically assaulted by unknown object over head by the appellant. PW20 has described the injuries found on the person of PW9. He has proved his medical report (Exhibit-11). 32. The autopsy surgeon was examined as PW21. He stated on May 07, 2015, he has conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of one Machu @ Sunil Machoar in connection with Bandowan Police Station UD case no. 11/15 dated 07, 2015. He has further stated that on such examination, he found injuries on the person of the victim namely- (i) lacerated injury, longitudinal 1/4 inch x 1/4 inch into bone deep over occipital region. On dissection of the dead body, PW21 found –(i) subcutaneous heamatoma on whole skull (ii) depressed facture of occipital bone (iii) extensive intra cerebral haemorrhage. He prepared the post mortem report.PW21 proved the post-mortem report prepared in his pen and signature (Exhibit-12). He also opined that such injury could be caused by wooden butt of gaity. On dissection of the dead body, PW21 found –(i) subcutaneous heamatoma on whole skull (ii) depressed facture of occipital bone (iii) extensive intra cerebral haemorrhage. He prepared the post mortem report.PW21 proved the post-mortem report prepared in his pen and signature (Exhibit-12). He also opined that such injury could be caused by wooden butt of gaity. 33. Another medical officer of Deben Mahato Sadar Hospital was examined as PW22. He stated that on May 08, 2015. He examined Budhu Singh(PW9) as referred from Bandowan Block Primary Health Center with a history of assault. He also stated that on the examination, he found bruise mark on the forehead and face and cut injury on the lateral aspect of the face. The injuries were stitched at Bandowan Block Primary Health Center. PW22 opined that such type of injury could be caused by wooden portion of a gaity. 34. The Investigating Officer deposed as PW23. He has stated that on May 07, 2015, the officer-in-charge of Bandowan Police Station received a written complaint form PW1 and started Bandowan PS case no. 18/15 dated May 07, 2015 under Section 302/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. PW23 proved the endorsement of receipt on the written complaint and the former first information report which were admitted in evidence. The case was endorsed to PW23 for investigation. In course of investigation, PW23 examined the available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also visited the place of occurrence and conducted inquest over the dead body. PW23, in his deposition, has described the different steps taken by him in the investigation of the case. He also recorded the statements of the appellant under Section 161of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on the basis of such statements recovered the offensive weapons. The relevant portion of such statement, leading to recovery, was proved by PW23. He also proved the seizure lists prepared by him upon recovery of the offensive weapons as per the leading statements of the appellant. He also arranged for recording a statement of the injured under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, collected the injury reports and a certificate regarding supply of electricity at the relevant date and time and received responses thereto. PW23 has proved the letters to such effect which were admitted in evidence. He also arranged for recording a statement of the injured under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, collected the injury reports and a certificate regarding supply of electricity at the relevant date and time and received responses thereto. PW23 has proved the letters to such effect which were admitted in evidence. He also sent the seized articles for chemical examination, collected injury reports and the post-mortem reports. PW23 was examined on behalf of the appellant at length. However, nothing favourable appears to have been extracted from such cross-examination. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the appellant pleaded the allegations to be false. He however declined to adduce any defense witness. 35. The instant case was initiated with an allegation that the appellant assaulted the victim i.e. the husband of the de-facto complainant resulting in his death. The de-facto complainant, being informed, rushed to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying dead with fatal injuries. Police was informed and the dead body of de-facto complainant’s husband was recovered. Police conducted inquest over the dead body and later, the dead body of the victim was sent for post mortem examination. 36. The autopsy surgeon deposed as PW21. He has stated that he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of victim Machu @ Sunil Machoar. On such examination he found injuries that’s to say lacerated injury, longitudinal 1/4 inch x 1/4 inch into bone deep over occipital region. On dissection of the dead body, PW21 found –(i) subcutaneous heamatoma on whole skull (ii) depressed facture of occipital bone (iii) extensive intra cerebral haemorrhage. He had prepared the post mortem report which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit-12. According to the PW21, the death of the victim was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Therefore, the case made out in the First Information Report supported by the evidence of PW21 together with the testimony of Exhibit 12, it is sufficiently established that the death of victim Machu @ Sunil Machoar was an unnatural one. He died of injuries received in an incident of assault. 37. Therefore, the case made out in the First Information Report supported by the evidence of PW21 together with the testimony of Exhibit 12, it is sufficiently established that the death of victim Machu @ Sunil Machoar was an unnatural one. He died of injuries received in an incident of assault. 37. As to the person responsible for the murder of the victim, the case set forth in the First Information Report as well as testimony of PW1 corroborated by other prosecution witnesses makes out a case that the appellant assaulted the victim and one another person with the wooden butt of a crowbar resulting in serious injuries on the head of the victims. The victim Machu @ Sunil Machoar succumbed to such fatal injuries inflicted on his head which was in the nature of compressed fracture of skull bone. 38. PW1, though not an eye witness, testified that her husband had gone to her matrimonial village. She was informed by one Laltu (PW2) that the appellant murdered her husband by inflicting blow on his head by the wooden butt of a crowbar. She rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of her husband behind the school of the village. She then went to police station and lodged a written complaint scribed by PW2. PW2, in his deposition, supported the statement of PW1 with regard to the incident being perpetrated by the appellant and scribing of written complaint on the instructions of PW1. He however stated that it was not him who reported the incident to PW1; rather, she was informed by a civic police. 39. The presence of a civic police at the relevant time is evident. From the evidence on record it transpires that the appellant also assaulted another person Budhu Singh (PW9) in the same incident who was taken to hospital in an injured condition. The driver by whose vehicle, PW9 was taken to hospital deposed as PW19. He had stated that while taking to hospital, injured PW9 was accompanied by PW18 and a member of civic police. If that be so, it is not unbelievable that PW1 was informed of the death of her husband by the said civic police instead of PW2. 40. The driver by whose vehicle, PW9 was taken to hospital deposed as PW19. He had stated that while taking to hospital, injured PW9 was accompanied by PW18 and a member of civic police. If that be so, it is not unbelievable that PW1 was informed of the death of her husband by the said civic police instead of PW2. 40. Contrary to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, to the effect that there was no eye witness to the occurrence, the evidence of the prosecution goes to show that the victim, after coming to the village, stayed at the house of Budhu Singh (PW9). There he had talks with him. PW1, the wife of the victim testified in her deposition that her husband went to her matrimonial village and informed her over phone that he stayed at the house of PW9. The sister of the appellant i.e. PW4 stated that on a Wednesday at about 9.30 pm, while she was at her house, she heard the noise of blowing of lathi. She instantly came out of her house and saw her elder brother i.e. the appellant murdered her uncle Machu. She reiterated that she saw the incident by her own eyes in the light of streetlights and she could identify the appellant. She also stated that such incident took place near her house beside Sishu Siksha Kendra. The place of occurrence was just 10 feet from her house. 41. The statement of PW4, so far as it related to her seeing the incident by her own eyes has largely gone uncontroverted without any questioning. Moreover, her statement of the position of her house gets supported by Exhibit 18 and has not been challenged. If that be so, there appears no reason for disbelieving the testimony of such witness. 42. PW4 also stated that she was informed by her husband that the appellant also assaulted PW9 causing injuries. At the relevant time, her husband had gone to the house of PW9 for gossiping after taking his meal. 43. The husband of PW4 was examined as PW14A. In his deposition, PW14A has supported the version of his wife. He stated that on Wednesday at about 9.30 pm, he was gossiping with the victim and PW9 at the house of PW9. After sometime the victim and PW9 came out of the house and started talking near the primary school. 43. The husband of PW4 was examined as PW14A. In his deposition, PW14A has supported the version of his wife. He stated that on Wednesday at about 9.30 pm, he was gossiping with the victim and PW9 at the house of PW9. After sometime the victim and PW9 came out of the house and started talking near the primary school. He then suddenly heard a noise and came out of the house of PW9 and saw the appellant fleeing away with the wooden portion of a ‘gaity’. He also saw the victim and PW9 lying on the land owned by Dasrath and Dilip. Exhibit 18 depicts the position of vacant lands belonging to Dasrath Machhuar and Dilip Machhuar which conforms to the description given by PW14A. He also found bleeding from mouth and ears and both the victims had injuries on their head. 44. The other person injured in the incident PW9has corroborated the prosecution case as well as the statements of the aforementioned witnesses. He categorically stated that on the date of incident, the victim Machu Machoar had visited his house on a Wednesday about 4 months ago (from September 9, 2015). He had discussions with Machu at about 9.30 pm just behind Sishu Siksha Kendra on a vacant land. 45. PW9 also stated that he knew the appellant as his neighbour who had land disputes with Machu. He further stated that suddenly, the appellant came to the land where he was having discussions with Machu and started assaulting PW9 by the wooden portion of a crowbar causing injury on his forehead. He sat down being so assaulted. He saw that the appellant also assaulted Machu in the same manner. PW9 could identify the appellant in the streetlight. Thereafter, the appellant fled away and he was taken to Bandwan hospital by the villagers wherefrom he was referred to Purulia Sadar Hospital. 46. The driver of the vehicle and another villager who accompanied PW9 to the hospital, PW18 and PW19, have corroborated the statement of PW9. The aforesaid witnesses have also testified the injuries on the person of PW 9. 47. According to the prosecution case, the incident is alleged to have happened on May 6, 2015. PW20 examined the injured PW9 on the same day at about 10.55 pm and found active injuries on the person of PW 9 which he noted in his injury report (Exhibit 11). 48. 47. According to the prosecution case, the incident is alleged to have happened on May 6, 2015. PW20 examined the injured PW9 on the same day at about 10.55 pm and found active injuries on the person of PW 9 which he noted in his injury report (Exhibit 11). 48. Therefore, from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is explicit that the victim Machu and the injured PW9 sustained injuries in an incident occurred on May 06, 2015 near Sishu Siksha Kendra and village Dhadka. In the aforesaid incident, PW9 was badly injured whereas, the victim Machu Machoar died instantly as a result of injuries received by him. There is ample evidence that the appellant was the person responsible for inflicting such injuries. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, have testified that the either saw the incident by their own eyes. Some of the witnesses have seen the appellant fleeing from the scene of occurrence, just after the incident and that too with the offending weapon. 49. The offending weapon was recovered by police on the basis of statement of the appellant leading to such recovery. The relevant portion of the statement of the appellant, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was admitted in evidence (Exhibit 14), on the basis of which recovery was made. Besides, the witnesses in whose presence, such recovery of offending weapon was carried out i.e. PW9 and PW10, have corroborated that the offending weapon was recovered as shown by and on the leading statement of the appellant. 50. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was confronted with all the circumstances with reference to the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution but no positive explanation was ever offered by the appellant at the trial. 51. It is the case of the prosecution that being assaulted by the appellant with the wooden butt of ‘gaity’ (crowbar), the victim Machu Machoar sustained injuries on his head which resulted in his instant death. As noted above, the incident happened on May 6, 2015 at about 9.30 pm. Post mortem over the dead body of the victim was conducted on May 7, 2015. On such examination, the autopsy surgeon found “lacerated injury, longitudinal 1/4 inches X 1/4 inches bone deep over occipital region”. As noted above, the incident happened on May 6, 2015 at about 9.30 pm. Post mortem over the dead body of the victim was conducted on May 7, 2015. On such examination, the autopsy surgeon found “lacerated injury, longitudinal 1/4 inches X 1/4 inches bone deep over occipital region”. The doctor also found subcutaneous haematoma on the whole skull and depressed fracture of occipital bone with extensive intra-cerebral hemorrhage. The autopsy surgeon specifically noted the injuries to be inflicted within 20 hours prior to examination. 52. The testimony of the autopsy surgeon, (PW21) together with the post mortem report (Exhibit 12), goes to show that the cause of death, according to the doctor was shock and hemorrhage due to head injury, which in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. It also exhibits that the medical officer (PW21) found the injuries to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 53. It has come out of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution that at the relevant point of time, the victim used to reside at Bagmundi and used to visit the house of PW9 with respect to discussions over lands. Evidence also disclosed that the school in the village at Dhadka was in need of some lands for its expansion. One teacher (PW13) of the school disclosed the land requirements of the school to her father-in-law (W12) and requested him to look for some land. In this connection, PW12 contacted PW9 who introduced him to the victim Machu. They had discussions regarding sale of the lands of the victim for such purpose. The victim had visited the village to finalize the sale transaction. 54. As noted above, there are eyewitnesses who have seen the appellant inflicting the fatal blow to the victim Machu Machoar resulting in his death. The defense has not been able to dislodge the testimony of such witnesses. The injuries found on the person of the victim were found to be commensurate with the kind of weapon allegedly used by the appellant. Not only that, the alleged offending weapon was recovered as shown by and in pursuance of the leading statement of the appellant. The defense has not been able to dislodge the testimony of such witnesses. The injuries found on the person of the victim were found to be commensurate with the kind of weapon allegedly used by the appellant. Not only that, the alleged offending weapon was recovered as shown by and in pursuance of the leading statement of the appellant. In such view of the facts, there appears no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court in so far as it relates to conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned. 55. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for assaulting PW9. PW9, in his deposition, stated that while he was talking with the victim i.e. Sunil @ Machu Machoar, the appellant who had land disputes with the victim, started assaulting him with the wooden portion of a crowbar. 56. We have also noted that the injured PW9 was taken to Bandwan hospital for treatment wherefrom he was later, referred to Purulia Sadar Hospital. PW9 was first examined by PW20. On such examination, at least two injuries were found on the person of PW9 on his orbital region and chin with active bleeding. Although, the injuries received by PW9 were not so grievous, yet the said witness was assaulted in the same time in the same transaction by the self same weapon which was used against the victim Machu Machoar causing his instant death. Not only that, PW9, a person of more than 90 years of age, was apparently assaulted for having talks with the victim for the purpose of sale of his lands. The appellant apparently was not in favour of sale of lands by the victim owing to his disputes with the victim over landed properties. Such circumstances, do exhibit the intention of the appellant in assaulting the two victims resulting in the death of one of them. 57. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stipulates an attempt to murder in the following terms, that’s to say : 307. Such circumstances, do exhibit the intention of the appellant in assaulting the two victims resulting in the death of one of them. 57. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stipulates an attempt to murder in the following terms, that’s to say : 307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. 58. The language used in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code “and if hurt is caused to any person by such act……”clearly indicates that an offender may be guilty of attempted murder even if no hurt is caused if the act is done by him with such intention or knowledge. However, in the facts of the present case, hurt was actually caused to PW9. The circumstances do indicate that the hurt was caused to PW9 with a particular intention which was not at all limited to merely causing hurt. 59. In such circumstances, the learned trial court was absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, no interference is warranted. 60. Therefore, in the light of discussions made hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that impugned judgment of conviction dated December 22, 2015 and order of sentence dated December 23, 2015 does not call for any interference in the instant appeal. The same is hereby affirmed. 61. Consequently, the instant Criminal Appeal being CRA 250 of 2016 hereby stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 62. Period of detention already undergone by the appellant during the inquiry, investigation and trial shall be set off towards the substantive punishment in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 63. With the disposal of the Criminal Appeal, all connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed. 64. Trial court records along with a copy of this judgment; be sent down at once to the learned Trial Court for necessary action. 65. 63. With the disposal of the Criminal Appeal, all connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed. 64. Trial court records along with a copy of this judgment; be sent down at once to the learned Trial Court for necessary action. 65. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. 66. I agree. - Debangsu Basak, J.