JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant against the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 21st July, 2017 and Order of sentence dated 22nd July, 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Trial No.136 of 2012, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 3. The brief facts leading to this criminal appeal are that informant Som Marandi had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that his daughter Pramila Marandi was married five years ago with Naresh Tuddu. Out of the said wedlock, a baby girl of two and a half years was also born. On 22nd August, 2012, Pramila Marandi has come to his house and told that her daughter was ill, therefore, she wanted to visit exorcist. In the night, his daughter stayed at his house. On 23rd August, 2012 at 8 o’ clock, Pramila Marandi along with her daughter went to her in-law’s house. He had also gone to his agricultural field to sprinkle manure in the paddy crop. Therefore, he also went to bring manure from Paderkola. Amid the way, he found his daughter Merila Marandi who told that Pramila Marandi has been stabbed by her brother-in-law, Naresh Tuddu at the P.C.C. road, he also reached near the Godam Tola and found his daughter Pramila Marandi lying in pool of blood and dead. The persons of locality also attracted there. His daughter Merila Marandi also told him that as soon as Pramila Marandi left the parental house for her in-law’s house and from the in-law’s house, further, she had to go to exorcist (Ojha-Guni). She told to her younger sister to come with the baby girl at Paderkola Chowk, lest Naresh Tuddu may snatch the baby girl from her. Thereby his younger daughter took the baby girl with her to Paderkola Chowk. She told to her younger sister to come with the baby girl at Paderkola Chowk, lest Naresh Tuddu may snatch the baby girl from her. Thereby his younger daughter took the baby girl with her to Paderkola Chowk. When Pramila Marandi did not reach there, the younger daughter Merila Marandi came back to see her sister at 9 o’ clock in the day time near the Godam Tola. At P.C.C. road, she saw Pramila Marandi was being assaulted with the dagger by Naresh Tuddu. Out of fear, Merila Marandi shouted for help. Persons of locality attracted there and Naresh Tuddu leaving the dagger fled away from the place of occurrence and Pramila Marandi was lying in the pool of blood in dead condition. 4. On this written information, the Case Crime No.55 of 2012 was registered with the police station Amrapara, District Pakur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Naresh Tuddu. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet to the Court of Magistrate concerned who after taking cognizance thereon committed the case for trial to Sessions Judge, Pakur. Further, the Sessions Judge, Pakur transferred the same for trial to Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. 5. The Trial Court framed the charge against the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined P.W.1-Charles Murmu, P.W.2-Babudhan Soren, P.W.3-Surju Tuddu, P.W.4-Motilal Marandi, P.W.5-Nirmal Tuddu, P.W.6- Merila Marandi, P.W.7-Som Marandi, P.W.8-Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat. 7. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence adduced Ext.1 signature of Charles Murmu on seizure list, Ext. 1/1 signature of P.W.-5 Nirmal Tuddu on seizure list, Ext.2 Signature of P.W.-7 Som Marandi on fardbeyan, Ext. 2/1 Signature of Charles Murmu on fardbeyan, Ext.3 Postmortem report. 8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence and stated to be innocent. 9. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 10. 2/1 Signature of Charles Murmu on fardbeyan, Ext.3 Postmortem report. 8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence and stated to be innocent. 9. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 10. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21st July, 2017 convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and order of Sentence dated 22nd July, 2017. 11. The aforesaid convict/appellant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21st July, 2017 and order of sentence dated 22nd July, 2017 preferred the present criminal appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned P.P. for the State of Jharkhand and perused the materials available on record. 13. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, we would like to re-appreciate the evidence on record, which are reproduced herein below : 14. P.W.-1 Charles Murmu in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence took place five or six months ago. It was 9 o’clock of day time when he was going to Paderkola. As he reached near high school, he came to know from his son that Pramila Tuddu had been murdered. He reached there and came to know that it was Naresh Tuddu, who stabbed Pramila Tuddu. Naresh Tuddu was also there. He was armed with dagger and he began to flee away from there. There was injury on the neck, chest and knee of the deceased. Sister of Pramila was also there. She was weeping and she told him that Naresh Tuddu has given a dagger blow to her sister. The blood stained dagger was at the place of occurrence which was left by the accused. He identified his signature on the seizure list as Ext. 1. In cross-examination, this witness says that police had interrogated him and he denied the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that Naresh Tuddu had been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion and he did not commit murder. 15. P.W.-2, Babudhan Soren in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 23rd August, 2012. It was morning and he was at his agricultural field. 15. P.W.-2, Babudhan Soren in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 23rd August, 2012. It was morning and he was at his agricultural field. He heard the screaming and saw that Naresh Tuddu was assaulting his wife, Pramila. He reached there and saw that sister of Pramila, namely, Merila was also there. Blood was oozing from the body of Pramila and it was Naresh Tuddu who had committed murder of Pramila. He identified the accused in dock. In cross-examination, this witness says that after ten minutes of hearing the crying, he reached to the place of occurrence. He reached to the place of occurrence within five minutes. Police did not interrogate him. 16. P.W.-3 Surju Tudu in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 23rd August, 2012 and the time was 9 o’ clock of morning. He was at his agricultural field which is at the distance of 100 to 150 feet from the place of occurrence. He saw Naresh Tuddu quarrelling with his wife. Naresh Tuddu had also given four to five blow of the dagger to his wife on her breast, stomach and both hands. Pramila died at the place of occurrence. Naresh Tuddu throwing the dagger at the place of occurrence fled away. The younger sister of Pramila was having a baby child in her lap. In cross-examination, this witness says that in Paderkola which is in both side of the road, he reached to the place of occurrence at 9 o’ clock and he saw the occurrence at the distance of 200 to 250 feet. Thereafter, so many persons reached to the place of occurrence. He also reached to the place of occurrence after Naresh Tuddu had given the dagger blow to Pramila. At the place of occurrence, Naresh Tuddu was also there. Within 20 minutes, police also came there. He had seen Naresh fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 17. P.W.-4 Motilal Marandi in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 23rd August, 2012. Upon hearing the noise in the village, he also reached to the P.C.C. road and there was gathering of many persons and found one girl dead. The deceased was wife of Naresh Tuddu. He came to know that it was Naresh Tuddu, who had committed murder of his wife. He had not seen any weapon at the place of occurrence. Upon hearing the noise in the village, he also reached to the P.C.C. road and there was gathering of many persons and found one girl dead. The deceased was wife of Naresh Tuddu. He came to know that it was Naresh Tuddu, who had committed murder of his wife. He had not seen any weapon at the place of occurrence. This witness was declared hostile and crossexamined by the prosecution. He denied the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In cross-examination made by the defence, this witness stated that he reached to the place of occurrence after half an hour having heard the noise. 18. P.W.-5 Nirmal Tuddu identifies his signature on the seizure list marked Ext. 1/1. Having heard the hue and cry, he also reached to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of wife of Naresh Tuddu lying in pool of blood. In cross-examination this witness says that police got his signature on one paper which he did not read. 19. P.W.-6 Merila Marandi in her examination-in-chief says that Pramila Marandi was her sister and she was married with Naresh Tuddu seven years ago as per Santhali rites and rituals. One baby girl was born out of the wedlock whose name is Namita Tuddu and she is aged about five years. On 22nd August, 2012, she along with the baby girl and Pramila left the house. Her sister asked her to accompany her to her in-law’s house at Paderkola. She also accompanied her sister. The baby girl was with her and her sister was coming just behind her. When her sister was not visible to her coming after her, she came back and saw near the P.C.C. road, Naresh Tudu assaulting her with the dagger. She cried and persons of the locality attracted there. Naresh Tuddu fled away from there. He gave five to six blows on her breast, stomach and other parts of the body. Her sister died. She told in regard to the occurrence to her father who informed to the police. In cross-examination, this witness says that at the place of occurrence she had also seen Nirmal Tudu, Surju Tuddu, Khushbu Ansari, Motilal Marandi and Babudhan Soren. 20. P.W.-7 Som Marandi (the informant) in his examination-in-chief says that he also put his signature on the fardbeyan. He identifies the same which was marked Ext. 2. In cross-examination, this witness says that at the place of occurrence she had also seen Nirmal Tudu, Surju Tuddu, Khushbu Ansari, Motilal Marandi and Babudhan Soren. 20. P.W.-7 Som Marandi (the informant) in his examination-in-chief says that he also put his signature on the fardbeyan. He identifies the same which was marked Ext. 2. Fardbeyan also bears the signature of Charles Murmu which he identifies and marked Ext. 2/1. The occurrence was of 23rd August, 2012 at 8 o’ clock of day time. His daughter Merila told that her sister had been murdered by Naresh Tuddu. Thereafter, he also reached to the place of occurrence and saw Pramila sustaining five to six injuries caused by the dagger and blood was oozing from her body. Place of occurrence is the P.C.C. road which is between the Godam Tola and Tala Tola. In cross-examination, this witness says that his younger daughter along with her elder daughter and the baby girl was going to the doctor. Police had recorded his statement. When he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw there Charles Tuddu, Nirmal Tuddu, Motilal Marandi and Babudhan Soren. 21. P.W.-8 Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat in his examination-in-chief says that on 23rd August, 2012, he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Pakur and on the same at 3:00 p.m. he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Parmila Marandi and found following ante-mortem injuries :- i. One penetrating wound on right middle back, one penetrating wound on left and right side of chest and abdomen, right side of upper abdomen and left side of upper abdomen measuring 4" x 1” x 2. ii. One lacerated wound on left shoulder measuring 4” x 1” x 1”. The P.W.-8 has opined that time since death was within 3 to 6 hours and cause of death was hemorrhage and shock, injury of lung, heart, liver and spleen caused by sharp cutting weapons. 22. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. As per allegations made in the FIR, eye witness of the occurrence is the younger sister of deceased, Merila Marandi, who in her statement has categorically narrated that on the day of occurrence, she left the house along with her elder sister, Pramila Marandi. 22. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. As per allegations made in the FIR, eye witness of the occurrence is the younger sister of deceased, Merila Marandi, who in her statement has categorically narrated that on the day of occurrence, she left the house along with her elder sister, Pramila Marandi. As her sister wanted to get her baby girl to exorcist (Ojha Goni) and she asked her to accompany her taking the baby girl and just after her, her elder sister was following him. When his sister was not visible to her, she came back and then she saw that Naresh Tuddu assaulting her with the knife. She shouted and the persons of locality also attracted there. She also stated that Naresh Tuddu had given five to six blows with the dagger on her breast, stomach and other parts of the body. In crossexamination nothing contrary could be extracted. She also stated that on her shouting Nirmal Tudu, Surju Tuddu, Khusro Ansari, Motilal Marandi and Babudhan Soren also came there. She also stated that she told in regard to occurrence to her father who gave the information to the police and police came there. 23. P.W.-7, Som Marandi is the father of deceased. Though he has not seen the occurrence but he had given the written information to the police station concerned and his fardbeyan was recorded by the police which was marked as Ext. 2. He in his fardbeyan had stated in regard to the occurrence as was told to him by his younger daughter Merila Marandi. The testimony of P.W. 7, Som Marandi (the informant) also becomes admissible in evidence because he came to know in regard to occurrence from his younger daughter (eyewitness) Merila Marandi who was examined as P.W.-6. 24. The testimony of P.W.-6, Merila Marandi (eyewitness) is also corroborated with testimony of P.W. 3 Surju Tuddu. This witness has stated that the occurrence was of 23rd August, 2012 at 9 o’ clock in the morning. He was at the agricultural field which is at the distance of 100 to 150 feet from the place of occurrence. He saw Naresh Tuddu giving five to six blows of dagger. The injury was on the stomach, breast and both hands of deceased. Naresh Tuddu having thrown the dagger at the place of occurrence fled away from there. He was at the agricultural field which is at the distance of 100 to 150 feet from the place of occurrence. He saw Naresh Tuddu giving five to six blows of dagger. The injury was on the stomach, breast and both hands of deceased. Naresh Tuddu having thrown the dagger at the place of occurrence fled away from there. This witness also says that the younger sister of deceased was also there having a baby girl in her lap. In cross-examination this witness has strictly stated that his agricultural field is in both side of the road and Khata number of his agricultural field is 1464. He had seen the occurrence at the distance of 200 to 250 feet and thereafter several persons attracted there. Nirmal Tuddu also came there and he also seen Naresh Tuddu fleeing away from the place of occurrence after having assaulted his wife. The testimony of this witness Surju Tudu is found trustworthy and reliable as he had not only stated in regard to the occurrence but also stated specifically the distance from the place of occurrence of his agricultural field where he was doing his work and also stated the distance of nearby places from the place of agriculture and also stated the Khata number of his agricultural field. As such, his testimony transpires confidence of this court which is found cogent and reliable and corroborates the statement of eyewitness of P.W.-6 Merila Marandi. The seizure memo of the dagger which was found blood stained from the place of occurrence has been proved by P.W.-1, Charles Murmu. The testimony of P.W. 6, Merila Marandi has also corroborated testimony of P.W.-2 Babu Dhan Soren who having heard the sound of screaming, reached to the place of occurrence and saw Naresh Tuddu assaulting his wife Pramila Tudu and also found Merila thereon. 25. P.W. 5, Nirmal Tudu also says that having heard the hue and cry, he also reached the place of occurrence and found the wife of Naresh Tuddu lying in pool of blood and came to know from the persons present thereon that his husband had assaulted her. The testimony of P.W. 6, Merila Marandi and P.W. 3, Surju Tudu, who are the eyewitness of the occurrence is also corroborated with the medical evidence. 26. The testimony of P.W. 6, Merila Marandi and P.W. 3, Surju Tudu, who are the eyewitness of the occurrence is also corroborated with the medical evidence. 26. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in this case, the IO was not examined and the blood stained dagger was also not produced in court. The same was also not sent for examination to FSL. Therefore, non-examination of IO and not sending the weapon used in the murder for examination to FSL, the prosecution case cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 27. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. In case of a direct evidence, production of the weapon used in the murder or commission of crime cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution and no adverse inference can be drawn if the occurrence is proved from the testimony of the trustworthy eyewitness. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gulab vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) 12 SCC 677 at paragraphs 22 and 23 has held as under : “22. Similarly, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh had noticed that surrounding circumstances in the prosecution case are sufficient to prove a death caused by a lethal weapon, without a ballistic examination of the recovered weapon. The Court, speaking through R.P. Sethi, J., had noted : “18. In the instant case the investigating officer has categorically stated that guns seized were not in a working condition and he, in his discretion, found that no purpose would be served by sending the same to the ballistic expert for his opinion. No further question was put to the investigating officer in cross-examination to find out whether despite the guns being defective the fire pin was in order or not. In the presence of convincing evidence of two eyewitnesses and other attending circumstances we do not find that the nonexamination of the expert in this case has, in any way, affected the creditworthiness of the version put forth by the eyewitnesses.” 23. The present case is not one where despite the recovery of a firearm, or of the cartridge, the prosecution had failed to produce a report of the ballistic expert. The present case is not one where despite the recovery of a firearm, or of the cartridge, the prosecution had failed to produce a report of the ballistic expert. Therefore, the failure to produce a report by a ballistic expert who can testify to the fatal injuries being caused by a particular weapon is not sufficient to impeach the credible evidence of the direct eyewitnesses.” 29. So far as the non-examination of the I.O. is concerned, certainly the non-examination of I.O. may be fatal if the case is based on circumstantial evidence but in case of a direct evidence, the non-examination of I.O. cannot be said to be fatal, more so when nothing is required to be proved by him. Admittedly in this case the blood stained weapon which was recovered from the place of occurrence, though seizure memo has been proved by other witness of the seizure memo, yet the same was not sent for examination to FSL. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the same is not questioned in cross-examination from the prosecution witnesses. No contradiction could be drawn in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses given by them under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to the I.O. as no suggestion was given to the eyewitnesses that the statement given by them was in contradiction to the statement given to the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, non-examination of the I.O cannot be accepted to be fatal to prosecution case when the prosecution case is based on testimony of eye witness. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 311 at paragraph 30 has held as under : “30. In our view, in this case also non-examination of the investigating officer has caused no prejudice at all. All that Mr Mishra could submit was that the examination of the investigating officer would have shown that the occurrence had taken place not in the courtyard but outside on the road. The investigating officer was not an eyewitness. The body had already been removed by the appellants. The investigating officer, therefore, could not have given any evidence as to the actual place of occurrence. There were witnesses who have given credible and believable evidence as to the place of occurrence. The investigating officer was not an eyewitness. The body had already been removed by the appellants. The investigating officer, therefore, could not have given any evidence as to the actual place of occurrence. There were witnesses who have given credible and believable evidence as to the place of occurrence. Their evidence cannot be discarded merely because the investigating officer was not examined. The nonexamination of the investigating officer has not led to any prejudice to the appellants. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission.” 31. After critical appraisal of the prosecution evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove the case against the convict/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court requires no interference by this Court. 32. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 21st July, 2017 and Order of sentence dated 22nd July, 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Trial No.136 of 2012 is, hereby, affirmed. The appellant is already in jail and he is directed to serve out the rest of the sentence. Let the lower court's record be sent to the court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. 33. Pending interlocutory applications shall also stand disposed of.