JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J . 1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2002 and the order of sentence dated 31.05.2002 in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 1999 whereby and whereunder learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gumla convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for life. 2. It is pertinent to note here that appellant no. 1 Chhedu Oraon and appellant no. 2 Binay Oraon had expired thus the appeal so far as appellant nos. 1 and 2 is concerned stand abated vide order dated 26.11.2024 and now this appeal is confined to appellant no. 3 Ghasia Oraon. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant no. 3 submitted that the entire case is based on the testimony of PW11, who is an interested and related witness. Save and except this PW11 there is no other evidence to implicate this appellant in the case of murder. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case the incident occurred at 8:00 PM at night but surprising there is no other eyewitness save and except PW11. It is strange that no villager even came to know about the said occurrence on the day of occurrence. The information to the police was not given immediately rather the police on the basis of some rumor reached the village on the next day morning. Then only the FIR was registered which would suggests that there was possibility that some other person had committed murder of the deceased and this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. On this ground, prayer has been made to acquit this appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the State submitted that Ghasia Oraon along with other two appellants had common intention to kill the deceased Sohrai Uraon as there was previous enmity between the deceased and Chhedu Oraon regarding fund utilization in the construction of akhara from government fund. There is direct evidence to the occurrence. PW11 had seen the entire occurrence and had fully supported the prosecution case. 5. The prosecution’s case as per the fardbeyan of Birsai Uraon the informant (PW11) is that on 15.05.1999 at 8:30 p.m. his younger brother Sohrai Uraon (deceased) was not found in the house. On being asked by his father the informant went to look for him. PW11 had seen the entire occurrence and had fully supported the prosecution case. 5. The prosecution’s case as per the fardbeyan of Birsai Uraon the informant (PW11) is that on 15.05.1999 at 8:30 p.m. his younger brother Sohrai Uraon (deceased) was not found in the house. On being asked by his father the informant went to look for him. When he reached near the house of Cheddu Oraon he saw that his brother was being assaulted by Chhedu Oraon, Ghasia Oraon and Binay Oraon, in front of the house of Chhedu Oraon with gupti (knife) and dhelpasa. He raised alarm on seeing this assault when his uncle Sanichar Uraon and others came out. Meanwhile all the named accused persons left the place of occurrence saying that they had already killed the deceased. It has been mentioned that the reason for the assault was that Chhedu Oraon was constructing an akhara from the money provided by the government when the deceased objected about the quality of the construction and questioned him an altercation had already taken place. 6. On the basis of fardbeyan of Birsai Uraon, FIR was registered being Gumla PS Case No. 85 of 1999 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code . After investigation, chargesheet was against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code . 7. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. 8. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are:- i. PW1 :- Fulzens Lakra ii. PW2 :- Jauri Urain iii. PW3 :- Sugiya Devi iv. PW4 :- Sanichar Uraon v. PW5 :- Mangra Uraon vi. PW6:- Bhadru Uraon vii. PW7:- Gandra Uraon viii. PW8:- Mangal Uraon ix. PW9:- Gandur Uraon x. PW10:- Mangru Uraon xi. PW11:- Birsai Uraon xii. PW12:- Sita Uraon xiii. PW13:- Rama Uraon xiv. PW14:- Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwari xv. PW15:- Birendra Kumar, S.I. 9. Following documents have been exhibited : i. Ext.1 – Signature of witness on the seizure list ii. Ext.1/1-1/2 – Signature of witness on the death report iii. Ext.1/3 – Signature of Birsai Oraon in fardbeyan iv. Ext.2 – Postmortem Report v. Ext.3 – Fardbeyan vi. Ext.4 – Inquest Report vii. Ext.5. Kameshwar Nath Tiwari xv. PW15:- Birendra Kumar, S.I. 9. Following documents have been exhibited : i. Ext.1 – Signature of witness on the seizure list ii. Ext.1/1-1/2 – Signature of witness on the death report iii. Ext.1/3 – Signature of Birsai Oraon in fardbeyan iv. Ext.2 – Postmortem Report v. Ext.3 – Fardbeyan vi. Ext.4 – Inquest Report vii. Ext.5. – Seizure list viii. Ext.6 – Formal FIR 10. PW1 (Fulzen Lakra) had stated that Sohrai Uraon was murdered in May 1999. He is the seizure witness of dhelpasa and blood stained earth which was marked as Ext.1. PW2 (Jauri Urain) is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the occurrence is of two years ago of one Saturday night in the month of Jeth. She stated that after preparing dinner she asked Birsai to call Sohrai. Birsai went and returned weeping stating that Sohrai has been assaulted by Chhedu, Binay and Ghasia and was lying in a pool of blood. Then she along with her husband and family members went to the place of occurrence where she found Sohrai dead. PW3 (Sugiya Devi) sister-in-law of the deceased and wife of Birsai Uraon (PW11). She is also not a direct eye witness to the incidence, but went to the place of occurrence after receiving the information from PW-11 and found the dead body lying there. She further submitted that when she reached the place of occurrence, she saw the deceased whose face was crushed and his eyes were gouge out. PW4 (Sanichar Uraon) uncle of the deceased. He stated that when he heard sound of crying of his sister-in-law he reached near their house and saw the dead body. He put his signature on the inquest report of the body of deceased which is marked as Ext.1/1. PW5 (Mangra Uraon) had stated the occurrence is of May 1999 on one of the Saturday. He had learnt that the deceased was killed by Chhedu, Ghasia and Binay in front of the house of Chhedu by dhelpasa and gupti. PW6 (Bhadru Uraon) had supported the prosecution case. He stated that mother of the deceased came and told him that Chhedu, Binay and Ghasia killed her son by dhelpasa and gupti. He went there and found Sohrai dead. PW6 (Bhadru Uraon) had supported the prosecution case. He stated that mother of the deceased came and told him that Chhedu, Binay and Ghasia killed her son by dhelpasa and gupti. He went there and found Sohrai dead. He also stated that before death Sohrai had told him that he warned Chhotu that akhara made by government fund is not up to the mark and he will demolish it. PW7 (Gandra Uraon), PW8 (Mangal Uraon), PW12 (Sita Uraon) and PW13 (Rama Uraon) are the hearsay witnesses. PW9 (Gandur Uraon) is the father of the deceased. He stated that the occurrence is of 15th May at about 8:00 PM. On that day he asked his another son Birsai to call Sohrai (deceased) as the dinner was ready. Birsai returned weeping and said that Chhedu, Ghasia and Binay had killed Sohrai with the help of dhelpasa and gupti. He further stated that few days before the occurrence an altercation had taken place and Sohrai had warned Chhedu that akhara made from government fund is not up to the mark and he will demolish it. PW10 (Mangru Uraon) is the seizure list witness of blood smeared earth and blood stained dhelpasa. PW11 (Birsai Uraon) is the informant of this case. He stated that the occurrence had taken place at 8:00 PM. He stated that when told by his mother and father to call Sohrai he went near the house of Chhedu where he had seen Chhedu, Ghasia and Binay assaulting Sohrai with dhelpasa and gupti. On his shouting Sanichar Uraon came to the place of occurrence. Then he went to his house and informed about the occurrence to his mother, father and family members. Then all reached to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Sohrai. PW14 (Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwari) is the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found the following injuries: i. Bleeding from both the ears. ii. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x cavity deep present over the right frontal area on scalp. iii. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x cavity deep present over left frontal area of the scalp. iv. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x orbital cavity deep present over lateral part of eye brow. Left eye ball were also ruptured. v. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x muscle deep present over right mid eyebrow. vi. iii. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x cavity deep present over left frontal area of the scalp. iv. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x orbital cavity deep present over lateral part of eye brow. Left eye ball were also ruptured. v. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x muscle deep present over right mid eyebrow. vi. Incised wound 1½” x ½” x bone deep present over left side of the ramus of the mandible. vii. Abrasion 4” x 1½” red in colour present over the frontal area of scalp. viii. The abrasion 6” x 1½” red in colour present over the left side of the chest ix. Abrasion 4” x ½” red in colour present over the left deltoid area of upper arm On dissection : Both frontal bone and left maxillary bone were fractured. Intracranial hemorrhage present in the cranial cavity. Both lungs were intact and pale. Both chambers of the heart empty. Stomach empty. The doctor opined that the death is caused due to head injury caused by injury nos. 2 and 3. Injury nos. 4, 5 and 6 were caused by sharp cutting substance and injury nos. 7, 8 and 9 were caused by hard and blunt substance. The postmortem report was marked as Ext.-2. PW15 (Birendra Kumar) is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He stated that on receiving information on 16.05.1999 at about 8:15 a.m. in the morning that a person in Armai Mahuatoli had been killed, he entered the information in diary no. 283 and went to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body lying in the courtyard of Chhedu Oraon. He recorded the fardbeyan of Birsai Uraon marked as Ext.-3, prepared inquest report of the dead body marked as Ext.-4 and seizure list of blood soaked earth and blood stained dhelpasa marked as Ext.-5. The formal FIR was marked as Ext.6. 11. Homicidal death of the deceased is objectively established by the Post Mortem Examination Report and is not under any serious challenge in appeal. From the evidence of the doctor (PW14) it is clear that the cause of the death is due to head injuries which are injury nos. 2 and 3. The doctor also opined that the injury nos. 4, 5 and 6 were caused by sharp cutting weapon. We find that there are 9 injures on the body of the deceased. From the evidence of the doctor (PW14) it is clear that the cause of the death is due to head injuries which are injury nos. 2 and 3. The doctor also opined that the injury nos. 4, 5 and 6 were caused by sharp cutting weapon. We find that there are 9 injures on the body of the deceased. Out of these 9 injuries which have been dealt above in the foregoing paragraphs, 5 injuries were of incised wounds. These incised wounds clearly suggest use of sharp cutting weapon. The weapon which was used as per the prosecution case and the witnesses is sharp cutting weapon which is gupti and dhelpasa. The doctor found the frontal bone and the left maxillary bone fractured. The opinion of the doctor coupled with the postmortem report, it is clear and it has been proved that the deceased died a homicidal death. 12. From the oral evidence, we find that it is only PW11 who is the brother of the deceased can be said to be an eye witness. As per his statement he had seen this appellant assaulting the deceased with dhelpasa and gupti. There is nothing in the cross examination to disbelieve him. His testimony that the incidence took place in front of the house of Chotu Oraon is corroborated by the investigating officer (PW15) who stated that the dead body was found lying in front of house of Chotu Oraon, which was an open field and a courtyard. He seized the blood soaked earth and blood stained dhelpasa from there. 13. As per the evidence of PW11 weapon of offence was dhelpasa and gupti which was recovered from there. All these aspects have been well considered by the learned Trial Court in its judgment dated 30.05.2002. 14. I am also of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of this appellant no.3 beyond all reasonable doubt as there is nothing to disbelieve the ocular evidence of PW11. The number of injuries on the body of the deceased and internal injury on the vital part of the body clearly suggests that the intention of the appellant was to commit murder of the deceased and he had knowledge that these injuries were sufficient to cause death. 15. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant no. The number of injuries on the body of the deceased and internal injury on the vital part of the body clearly suggests that the intention of the appellant was to commit murder of the deceased and he had knowledge that these injuries were sufficient to cause death. 15. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant no. 3 (Ghasia Oraon) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 16. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. 17. The judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2002 and the order of sentence dated 31.05.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 1999 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gumla is affirmed. 18. Since the appellant no.3 is on bail, his bail is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Court concerned forthwith to serve the rest of the sentence, if he had not already served. 19. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. I agree - Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.