JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dated 24th September, 2018 and Order of Sentence dated 27th September, 2018 passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge IV, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on the basis of evidence, which has been recorded, the appellant could not have been convicted. P.W.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 are not eye witneses to the occurrence. Admittedly, they are hear-say witnesses and on the basis of their statement, appellant could not have been convicted. Only on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, who is a boy aged 12 year, this appellant has been convicted. It is his contention that conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a sole eye witness, more so when the eye witness is an interested witness being son of the deceased. He further stated that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive and the case is entirely based on suspicion. In absence of motive, only on the basis of suspicion, this appellant could not have been convicted. He submits that even the P.W.1 is also not an eye witness, which would be evident from his statement, rather he is the person, who had seen the dead body first. The circumstances that the appellant used to drink and used to demand money from the deceased cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that he has committed murder of the deceased. So far as another motive that the accused wanted to sell the land, which was objected by the deceased, resulted in murder of the deceased has not been proved. On these grounds, he prays that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be convicted. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that circumstances are grave and clinching against this appellant. The deceased died in the house of this appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, where no one was present. On these grounds, he prays that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be convicted. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that circumstances are grave and clinching against this appellant. The deceased died in the house of this appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, where no one was present. The circumstances suggest that it is only the appellant, who could have murdered the deceased and no one else. He argues that the appellant with his younger son came to the elder son, i.e., P.W.1 and requested him to keep the younger son with him, when the P.W.1 asked about his mother, evasive reply was given by this appellant, then immediately he rushed to his house, when he saw his mother lying dead. This clearly suggests that the appellant had knowledge about the incident. Further, the murder weapon was found in the courtyard and the medical evidence also suggests that the weapon, which was used, was axe as all the injuries are sharp cut injuries. From the evidence and the materials on record, it is also clear that there was no other person, who could have committed the occurrence. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, which needs no interference by this Court. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State and have also gone through the records and the entire evidence. 5. Prosecution case is based on the written report of the brother of the deceased. He stated that on 22.10.2012, he received information from his nephew that his sister has been murdered. On receiving this information he informed the police and reached the house of the deceased. He found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood on the cot and there was mark of assault on the back side of the head and large quantity of blood had oozed out. A blood stained axe was found outside the room. There was no person present in the house. He states that his sister has been killed. He further states that her sister used to be tortured by her husband and other agnates and she was also assaulted. The reason of such assault is some land dispute. On several occasions panchayati was held in the village, but, nothing happened. The villagers also assaulted them. He states that his sister has been killed. He further states that her sister used to be tortured by her husband and other agnates and she was also assaulted. The reason of such assault is some land dispute. On several occasions panchayati was held in the village, but, nothing happened. The villagers also assaulted them. He stated that this appellant and three others have committed murder of the deceased. 6. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Hirodih Police Station Case No.108 of 2012 was registered for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and three others, namely,the appellant Rudo Yadav, Somari Yadav, Sukar Yadav and Bhagi Yadav. Police, after investigation, submitted Chargesheet No.02/13 dated 23.01.2013 as against the appellant keeping the investigation pending against other accused persons. Cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken vide order dated 30.01.2013. Thereafter, the case, so far as appellant is concerned, was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 24.05.2013. Thereafter charges were framed against the appellant, which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Sunil Kumar Yadav (son of the deceased), P.W.2 Parni Devi (mother of the deceased), P.W.3 Dwarika Yadav @ Mahto, P.W.4 Dharamdeo Yadav, P.W.5 Jageshwar Yadav (brother of the deceased and informant of this case), P.W.6 Tali Yadav (another brother of the deceased), P.W.7 Bajo Yadav (father of the deceased), P.W.8 Lobin Kujur (Investigating Officer), P.W.9 Harihar Yadav, P.W.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar and P.W.11 Purusottam Langur. The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence, which were marked exhibits: - Exhibit 1 Signature of P.W.5 on the Seizure List Exhibit 1/1 Seizure list of blood stained axe lying in the courtyard of the house of accused and blood stained soil from the place of dead body Exhibit 2 Signature of P.W.5 (informant) on the written report Exhibit 2/1 Case registration endorsement Exhibit 3 Death inquest report of the deceased Exhibit 4 Postmortem report. The prosecution had also produced a material object, the seized blood stained axe, which was marked as Material Exhibit 1. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence nor did he produced any documentary evidence. 8. The prosecution had also produced a material object, the seized blood stained axe, which was marked as Material Exhibit 1. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence nor did he produced any documentary evidence. 8. P.W.1 is Sunil Kumar Yadav, who is a 12 years old child and son of the deceased and this appellant. He was found fit to depose by the Court. He stated that the occurrence took place a year ago. It was 07.00 p.m. in the evening. He had gone to see the work of making quilt in the village Mandap. His father came to him and handed over his younger brother and when he asked about his mother, he told that he is unaware about her. He ran to the home, where he saw that his mother is lying dead. His father had assaulted her mother with tangi (axe) and hammer (hathora). The injury by axe was on the right side of head whereas the assault by hammer was on the forehead (witness showed by indications). When he asked his father as to why he is beating, then he fled from there. He went to the house of her grandmother (nani) and she informed the police, whereafter the police came and took him along with the dead body, axe and the hammer to the police station. He identified the appellant. He stated that his father had consumed liquor and had assaulted his mother. In cross examination he has stated that the police had recorded his statement after a week. He had stated before the police that when he asked his father about his mother, father had replied that he has no knowledge. He had also stated that his mother was assaulted with axe and hammer and she had injury on her head. He had also stated that at that time his father was at home and when he asked as to why he is assaulting, he had fled. He stated that his father after handing over his younger brother had gone to aunt’s place (phua ke ghar), which he had not told to him. He has further stated that when his father had come to the mandap, his clothes were not blood stained and after staying there for a while, he left. P.W.2 Parni Devi is the mother of the deceased. He has further stated that when his father had come to the mandap, his clothes were not blood stained and after staying there for a while, he left. P.W.2 Parni Devi is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the occurrence took place 2 ½ years ago at about 07.00 – 08.00 p.m. She was in her house. P.W.1 informed her over phone that the appellant has killed the deceased. She went to the police station and thereafter she went to the deceased’s house where she saw tearing injury on head and cut injury on the neck of the deceased. Deceased was lying on a cot and the axe and hammer were lying there. After seeing this she became unconscious. She stated that the deceased used to work as labourer and the appellant used to ask money for consuming liquor and on refusal appellant has killed her. She identified the appellant. In cross examination she has stated that she is unable to say from which number the phone came and on which number. When the phone call came, her husband, his son Nageshwar and Bajo Yadav were at home. When she had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased, nobody was there and later on who else came she is unable to say. She has further stated that the police had not interrogated her. P.W.3 is Dwarika Yadav @ Mahto. He stated that the occurrence is of last year during the Dashera. He sat to have his food at 07.00 p.m., when P.W.1 came to him and told that the appellant is assaulting the deceased and by the time he reached, he saw that he has killed. He had seen injury on temple. In cross examination, he stated that he had not seen the assault and when he reached the place, appellant was not there. He stated that police had not recorded his statement. He further stated that often there used to be quarrel. Appellant used to ask money for liquor. He was not working anywhere. He stated that the appellant is involved in a murder case but he is unable to say the case number. He further stated that the appellant had land dispute with Somri, Shukar and Bhagi. He is unable to say that they used to fight always. P.W.4 is Dharm Deo Yadav. He was not working anywhere. He stated that the appellant is involved in a murder case but he is unable to say the case number. He further stated that the appellant had land dispute with Somri, Shukar and Bhagi. He is unable to say that they used to fight always. P.W.4 is Dharm Deo Yadav. He has stated that the occurrence took place 1 ½ years ago at 08.00 p.m. He was at his home, when P.W.1 came shouting that his mother (deceased) has been killed by his father (appellant). When he reached the house of appellant, he saw the deceased lying dead on the cot. Her body was half on the cot and half on floor and blood was oozing. He stated that the appellant had fled. He further stated that he came to his house and informed the mother of the deceased that her daughter has been killed. He has identified the appellant in Court. In cross examination, he stated that the police had not recorded his statement. He stated that when he reached the mother of the appellant and villagers had assembled there. He had not seen from where the blood was oozing. He showed his inability to say as to from when appellant was not at his home. He stated that his hamlet (tola) is at a distance of 1 k.m. from appellant’s house. He went to inform his aunt (bua) on cycle. He stated that the police station is situated at a distance of 3 k.m. from his house and the house of his aunt is at a distance of 4 – 5 k.m. He had first time informed his aunt and had not gone to the police station. He further stated that no one from his aunt’s house had accompanied him. He has denied the suggestion that he has given false statement to implicate the appellant in connivance with his aunt. He showed his ignorance about the land dispute of the appellant with Somari, Shukar and Bhagi Yadav. He also showed his ignorance about any land dispute among the appellant and the deceased. P.W.5 is Jageshwar Yadav. He stated that the incident is of three years ago at 10 p.m. He was at home when his nephew (P.W.1) called him over phone that his father (appellant) has killed his mother (deceased) and asked him to come fast. He also showed his ignorance about any land dispute among the appellant and the deceased. P.W.5 is Jageshwar Yadav. He stated that the incident is of three years ago at 10 p.m. He was at home when his nephew (P.W.1) called him over phone that his father (appellant) has killed his mother (deceased) and asked him to come fast. He stated that he went to the police station and the police accompanied him to the matrimonial home of the deceased, where he saw that the deceased was lying on the cot and half of her body was hanging on the floor. He saw cut injury on temple of the deceased and blood was oozing and there was also an injury by hammer on backside of her head. Police had seized the axe, hammer and blood smeared soil, on which he had put his signature as witness. He proved his signature which was marked Exhibit 1. He has stated that he had given written report to the police station, which contains his signature. He proved the same, which was marked as Exhibit 2. He identified the appellant in the Court. In cross examination, he stated that his sister (deceased) was married when he was young. He stated that he is unable to say the phone number from which the call came. He stated that the place of occurrence is 3 k.m. from his house. When they reached the place of occurrence, appellant had fled. Since police was accompanying, none of the villagers came and the police took the dead body with them. He stated that he has not read the papers on which he had put his signatures. He stated that his signature was taken on 4 – 5 papers in the police station and he had gone to the police station alone. He stated that his signature was obtained on a white paper in the police station. He stated that after postmortem, the police had not recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that false case has been lodged against the appellant. P.W.6 is Tali Yadav. He has stated that the occurrence is of three years ago. It was 08.00 p.m. in night. He was at home when P.W.1 telephoned him that appellant has killed the deceased by assaulting with hammer and axe. He denied the suggestion that false case has been lodged against the appellant. P.W.6 is Tali Yadav. He has stated that the occurrence is of three years ago. It was 08.00 p.m. in night. He was at home when P.W.1 telephoned him that appellant has killed the deceased by assaulting with hammer and axe. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw tearing injury on the head of the deceased and she was lying on a cot in a pool of blood. Axe and hammer were lying there. Police came and took the dead body to Hirodih Police Station. Appellant had fled. His mother was there at home and all others had fled. The deceased used to forbade the appellant from selling the lands and due to this she was killed. He identified the appellant in Court. In cross-examination, he stated that the police had recorded his statement. He has stated that he had told to the Sub Inspector that his nephew (P.W.1) had informed him that the appellant has killed the deceased. He further stated that when he reached, appellant’s mother was at home and none else was there. He stated that he along with his father had gone there and none of the villagers had come. He stated that two bighas tanr (type of land) and two bighas paddy land is in the name of the appellant. He was selling the land to Bhagi and Shukar. Earlier, three years prior to the occurrence, he had sold two bighas land. The dead body was inside the house and no agnates stay in the house. The people adjacent to the house also had fled. He stated that the police had reached after ½ hour of his coming. They took the dead body. He showed ignorance about the name of appellant’s mother. He stated that assault was not made in front of him rather he had come after receiving the phone call. P.W.7 is Bajo Yadav. He is the father of the deceased. He stated that his daughter (deceased) was married to the appellant. He stated that appellant had killed the deceased by assaulting with axe three years ago. When he went to the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body lying on the cot. Blood was oozing from her head. Her in-laws had fled. He is the father of the deceased. He stated that his daughter (deceased) was married to the appellant. He stated that appellant had killed the deceased by assaulting with axe three years ago. When he went to the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body lying on the cot. Blood was oozing from her head. Her in-laws had fled. The Sub Inspector had seized the axe and he had put his thumb impression on the seizure list. He identified the appellant in Court. In cross examination, he stated the appellant was arrested eight days after the occurrence. He stated that he had reached the place of occurrence at 10.00 p.m. He stated that he had received the information at 08.00 p.m. He stated that none else had reached before him and the housemates had fled. He stated that none of the villagers came after he reached. He stated that the Sub Inspector had not recorded his statement. He stated that he had put his thumb impression in the police station and what was written on that paper, he does not know. He stated that the appellant had killed her daughter and thereafter he had fled. He showed his ignorance as to what were seized by the Sub Inspector as he is illiterate. He denied the suggestion that the appellant is innocence and has been falsely implicated. He stated that the dead body was in the room inside and the police came and took the dead body to the police station and they had also accompanied to the police station. P.W.8 is Lobin Kujur. He is the investigating officer of the case. He proved the case registration endorsement which was marked as Exhibit 2/1. He described about the place of place of occurrence. He stated that the dead body was lying on a cot and head of the dead body was touching the floor. He has given the boundary of the place of occurrence. He has further proved the seizure of blood stained axe and soil, which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. He has also proved the inquest report, which was marked as Exhibit 3. He has stated that he had recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the postmortem report and had filed the chargesheet. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not visited the place of occurrence before 10 a.m. on 23.10.2012. He has also proved the inquest report, which was marked as Exhibit 3. He has stated that he had recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the postmortem report and had filed the chargesheet. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not visited the place of occurrence before 10 a.m. on 23.10.2012. At paragraph 17 of his cross examination, he has denied about P.W.1 saying before him that when he (P.W.1) asked his father (appellant) about his mother he had stated that he does not know and that appellant had killed the deceased with axe and hammer. He had stated that he had been to the temple to see Mansa Puja, when he heard that the deceased has been killed then he went to home and saw his mother (deceased). P.W. 9 is Harihar Yadav. He has stated that the incident is of two years ago at 7 – 8 p.m. in the night. He stated that they were sitting at some distance from the house of the appellant on road side with Budhan, Dwarika, Dharam Yadav, when P.W.1 came and said that her mother (deceased) has been killed by his father (appellant). He stated that when they went to the house of the appellant they saw the deceased lying dead and blood was oozing. He stated that the appellant had fled from home. He identified the appellant in court. In cross examination, he stated that they had gone there before the police reached. He had not seen the villagers there. He is unable to say as to who all came after he reached there. He is unable to say as to assault was made by which weapon. He stated that they had not even entered inside the house. He showed his inability to state the boundary of the room. He stated that he knows Somri Yadav, Shukar Yadav and Bhagi Yadav. They had enmity with the appellant. He stated that he had not seen the occurrence. He stated that the police had recorded his statement. P.W.10 is Dr. Ashok Kumar, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following: - (i) Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, eyes closed. They had enmity with the appellant. He stated that he had not seen the occurrence. He stated that the police had recorded his statement. P.W.10 is Dr. Ashok Kumar, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following: - (i) Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, eyes closed. (ii) Ante mortem sharp cut Left Pinna 1” x ½” x bone deep (iii) Ante mortem sharp cut, 3 in numbers, on back of left ear, 1” x ½” x bone deep (iv) Ante mortem sharp cut on left parietal side of skull, 2 in numbers, 1” x ½” x bone deep (v) Ante mortem sharp cut right side forehead near outer canthus, 1 ½ x ½” x Cranial cavity deep (vi) Ante mortem sharp cut in front of right ear 1” x ½” cranial cavity deep (vii) Ante mortem sharp cut on occipital region of skull 1” x ½” cranial cavity deep (viii) On dissection : He found viscera pale, heart empty, stomach contain approx. 200 gram undigested food. Uterus not gravid normal in size, urinary bladder empty. (ix) Skull – Hematoma beneath skull, fracture of right frontal bone and occipital bone intra cranial hematoma present. (x) Cause of death – Head injury due to sharp object. (xi) Time since death – within 24 hours. This witness has proved postmortem report, which was marked Exhibit 4. P.W.11 is Purusottam Langur. He had produced the material exhibit axe (tangi), which was marked as Material Exhibit 1. 9. After closure of the evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied his involvement and pleaded innocence. 10. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and after going through the evidence, by Judgment of Conviction dated 24th September, 2018 and Order of Sentence dated 27th September, 2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2013, has held the appellant guilty, convicted him and sentenced him for the offences as detailed in paragraph 1 hereinbefore. 11. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 12. We have gone through the evidence and the entire records. 13. 11. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 12. We have gone through the evidence and the entire records. 13. From the First Information Report, we find that the child witness had stated that when his father came with his brother and asked him to take care, he immediately rushed to his house and saw his mother lying dead, but, thereafter in continuity he says that he saw his father assaulting his mother with tangi (axe). These two statements are contradictory. If on reaching his house when he saw his mother lying dead, then he cannot be said to be an eye witness to the commission of murder. Thus, we doubt his status as an eye witness in this case. If we doubt the status of P.W.1 to be that of an eye witness, then this case can be said to be based on circumstantial evidence. From the evidence of the witnesses, we find that the following circumstances have been proved by the prosecution: - (i) Deceased was living with the appellant in his house, where her dead body was found on a cot in pool of blood. (ii) There were sharp cut injuries on the dead body of the deceased. (iii) Blood stained axe was found lying near the dead body. (iv) P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that the appellant had demanded money from the deceased for consuming liquor. P.W.3 has stated that there used to be regular quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 (father, mother and brothers of the deceased) have also stated about regular quarrel and strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased. (v) Appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted that he used to consume mahua wine. (vi) P.W.1 has stated that in the evening of the occurrence, appellant was drunk, which the appellant has also admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he stated that he had consumed one pot of mahua wine. (vii) It has also come in evidence that appellant wants to sell his lands, which was being objected to by the deceased. (vii) It has also come in evidence that appellant wants to sell his lands, which was being objected to by the deceased. (viii) Regular quarrel with the deceased for money for consuming liquor and objection by the deceased in selling the lands by the appellant has been established as the motive behind the killing of the deceased. (ix) The evasive reply given by the appellant on being asked by the P.W.1 about his mother, as has been stated by the P.W.1 that when his father (appellant) came to him to handover his younger son, he asked about his mother on which appellant said that he does not know. This is a circumstance that he had knowledge about death of the deceased. (x) Appellant has admitted that after the occurrence he fled from the house. Fleeing from the place of occurrence when his wife is lying dead being murdered is also an incriminating circumstance. (xi) Presence of the appellant at the time and place of occurrence is established inasmuch as statement of P.W.1 about presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence soon before the death of the deceased is corroborated by the statement of the appellant where he says that he had left the house 6 minutes before the death. (xii) Appellant has failed to give any explanation about the death of the deceased in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as admittedly there was no other person present. (xiii) P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.9 have stated in their depositions before the Court that just after the occurrence, P.W.1 had informed them that the appellant has killed the deceased. (xiv) Appellant fled from the house and did not return till he was arrested by the police and the appellant has also admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was roaming due to fear of the police. This itself is a circumstance to establish his guilt. (xv) Injuries and the weapons used as have been stated by the prosecution witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 (investigating officer) have been corroborated by the medical evidence and the doctor has also opined the cause of death to be head injury due to sharp object. 14. This itself is a circumstance to establish his guilt. (xv) Injuries and the weapons used as have been stated by the prosecution witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 (investigating officer) have been corroborated by the medical evidence and the doctor has also opined the cause of death to be head injury due to sharp object. 14. Thus, we find that the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of circumstances and on connecting them with each other, the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond all the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant vide Judgment of Conviction dated 24th September, 2018 and Order of Sentence dated 27th September, 2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 162 of 2013. 15. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. Subhash Chand, J., I agree.