1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th June, 2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Pitrus Soreng, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.11.2002 at about 11 a.m. Pitrus Soreng left home for coming to forest for bringing fire-wood and also to look to the paddy field. In the way, he met with this appellant who asked Pitrus Soreng [deceased] not to go to forest. That led to an altercation in between the appellant and the deceased. In that course, the tangi which the deceased was holding in his hand, fell down on the foot of the appellant causing injury and, therefore, the appellant became quite angry and assaulted the deceased. When the deceased came home, he told all about it to his wife -Saloni Soreng, the informant (P.W.3). In the evening at about 5 O clock, the appellant came near the house of Rajesh Soreng (P.W.2). There he declared that he will be killing the deceased. Upon it, Saloni Soreng [P.W.3], the wife of the deceased and also Rajesh Soreng [P.W.2] tried to pacify him, but they failed to do so. Thereupon Saloni Soreng came home and asked her husband not to go out of the house and made him to sleep on the cot. Thereafter she left home. Soon thereafter his son, Nelson Soreng (P.W.6) came running to her and told that the appellant has killed his father. Upon it, Saloni Soreng (P.W.3) rushed back to her home and found her husband dead. There she found a tangi lying which was smeared with blood. Since no means was there to go to the Police Station, she waited for morning to break out. In the morning when Binay Kumar Singh (P.W.10), Officer-in-Charge of Bolwa Police Station came to the village, P.W.3 (informant) gave her fardbeyan (Ext.3), upon which a formal F.I.R. was drawn. P.W.10 himself took up the investigation during which he held inquest on the dead-body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.1). During inspection of the place of occurrence, the I.O. found a Tangi under the cot which was seized under seizure list (Ext.2). The I.O. after holding inquest on the dead-body, sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination which was done by Dr. Krishna Dev Choudhary (P.W.9). On holding post-mortem examination, he did find the following external injuries:-

(i) Lacerated injury 3"X2"X2 1/2" the right parietal and occipatal region at head with fracture of underlying bone.

(ii) Lacerated injury 2"X1/2" deep up to brain over the occipital region of head with fracture of occipital bone with blood clot inside the cranial cavity.

Internal Examination:- Brain and meninges were lacerated and damaged with blood clot inside the cranial cavity below the injuries. Larynx, trachea, pleura and lungs were pale. Both side of heart chamber were empty. Large vessels collapsed. Liver, Spleen and Kidneys were pale. Bladder empty. Stomach containing undigested rice and pulse.

3. The Doctor issued post-mortem examination report (Ext.5) with an opinion that death was caused due to coma and syncope on account of head injuries.

4. The I.O. during investigation, also got the injury of the appellant examined by Dr. Sanjay Kujur (P.W.8). The Doctor did find lacerated wound over dorsum of left leg at great toe. Size of injury 1/2"X1/2"X1/4". The injury was found simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object.

5. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. When the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. During which, the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses. Of them, P.W.1 is the inquest witness, who when came to the place of occurrence, after knowing about the occurrence, found the tangi smeared with blood lying under the cot. P.W.-2 Rajesh Soreng and P.W.7 the wife of Rajesh Soreng, did testify that when they were in their house, the appellant came near their house and declared that he will kill the deceased. The informant, Saloni Soreng (P.W.3) did testify in the same manner as she had made statement in her fardbeyan.

6. P.W.5- Pradeep Soreng is the witness who has testified that when he met with the appellant, the appellant showed him the injury which has been caused due to fall of the tangi on his foot.

7. P.W.6:- Nelson Soreng, the son of the deceased, claimed himself to be the eye-witness. According to him when he returned home after grazing cattle, he found the appellant fleeing away after killing his father. Further he has testified that he had seen the appellant killing the deceased through a window.

8. After closure of the prosecution case, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him to which he denied.

9. Thereupon the Court having placed reliance on the testimony of P.W.6, the eye-witness and also the testimonies of other witnesses, did find the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under-challenge in this appeal.

10. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the court has placed reliance over the testimony of P.W.6 claiming himself to be the eye-witness, but he as per his evidence, never happens to be an eye-witness. In this regard, it was submitted that the witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased through a window, but in his cross-examination when his attention was drawn towards the statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he candidly accepted that he had not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased and thus, it is evident that he had never seen the appellant assaulting the deceased.

11. Further submission which was advanced on behalf of the appellant is that if the evidence of P.W.6 goes, nothing remains except certain circumstances, but those circumstances never complete the chain so as to come to the conclusion that it was the appellant only who has killed the deceased and under the circumstances, the court committed illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and thereby, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside.

12. As against this, Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circumstances which are appearing against the appellant are so clinching that one can easily come to the conclusion that it was only the appeal Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 535 of 2014.ant who killed the deceased and none else and thereby, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence never warrants to be interfered with.

13. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that case of the prosecution is in three parts:- first one relates to the occurrence when the deceased was going to the forest for bringing fire-wood and also keeping watch over his paddy field. In the way, the deceased came across with the appellant. The appellant asked the deceased not to go to the forest.

That led to an altercation. During which the tangi which the deceased was holding, fell on the foot of the appellant causing injury. This fact gets established from the evidence of P.W.5 - Pradeep Soreng who has testified that when he met with the appellant, the appellant disclosed to him that he had received injury as the tangi fell down on his foot. That fact further gets corroboration from the evidence of Dr. Sanjay Kujur (P.W.8) who had also found lacerated wound over the dorsum portion of the left foot.

14. The 2nd part of the prosecution story is that after the appellant received injury on account of fall of tangi, he became quite angry and challenged that he would be killing the deceased. In the evening he came near the house of Rajesh Soreng (P.W.2) and his wife P.W.7 and there he declared that he will be killing the deceased. When Saloni Soreng (P.W.3), the wife of the deceased came to know about that fact, she came to the appellant and tried to pacify him. This fact gets established not only from the evidence of P.W.3, but also from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7. The 3rd part of the prosecution case is that P.W.3 after having made request to the appellant not to do any act, came home and left her home. Meanwhile, when P.W.6 -Nelson Soreng, the son of the deceased came home after grazing his cattle, he saw the appellant fleeing away from his house. However, he has also testified that he saw the appellant killing the deceased through the window, but that piece of evidence is not worth acceptable in view of the fact that he had never stated such fact before the I.O. which he in his cross-examination, has himself accepted but that piece of evidence of P.W.6 that he saw the appellant fleeing away from the house remained intact as nothing could be elicited on behalf of the defence to put a dent over the said piece of evidence.

15. Thus, all the three circumstances, as have been stated above fully proved, clearly go to indicate that it was the appellant who committed murder of the deceased and under the circumstances, we do find that the trial court has rightly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby, affirmed.

16. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.