VISHNUDEO NARAYAN,J. - (1.) 1. This appeal has been directed by the sole appellant named above against the judgment dated 21.8.1997 passed by Shri Ram Paksh Sinha, Sessions Judge, Santhal Paragana, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 237 of 1984 whereby and whereunder the said appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of P.W.9 Karan Murmu recorded by S.I., M.P.Yadav, O.C. Masalia PS., District Dumka recorded on 19.9.1982 at 16.00 hours in village Sitlo, P.S. Masalia regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 18.9.1982 between 9.00 PM. and 10.00 PM. on the village road in front of the house of the appellant. Ext. 3 is the formal F.I.R. drawn on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) which has been received in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.9.1982. 3. According to the prosecution case the appellant Kalu Murmu is the elder brother of PW.9, Karan Murmu, the informant, and Gongur Murmu, the deceased of this case is the younger brother of the said informant. It is alleged that at the time of the occurrence the appellant as well as the deceased were under intoxication and there had been an altercation between them and Gongur Murmu had asked the appellant as to why he has constructed the wall on his land. It is also alleged that the appellant and the deceased were on litigating terms from before in respect of the land on which the wall has been raised and the said case is still subjudice. It is also alleged that the appellant is the member of the party of new Pradhan, Som Marandi and he used to pressurize the informant and others to join the party of the new Pradhan. It is also alleged that this altercation was taking place north of the house of the appellant and of the deceased in the lane of the village and in course of altercation the appellant went inside his house and, thereafter, came out of his house with bow and arrow and discharged two shots from his bow and one of the shots caused an injury on the right arm of the deceased and the other arrow shot by him penetrated in the chest of the deceased. Thereafter, Gongur Murmu raised alarms that the appellant has assaulted him by arrows and on his alarms the informant came there and he found P.W.a Topne Murmu and P.W.4, Jiyamuni Hembram, the sister and wife, respectively of the deceased at the place of occurrence. It is alleged that Gongur Murmu fell on the ground and he was writhing in pains and, thereafter, the appellant hurriedly went inside his house and soon, thereafter, Gongur Murmu died there. It is also alleged that both the arrows shot by the appellant were found embedded on the right arm and the chest of the deceased. Lastly it has been alleged that genesis of the occurrence is the land dispute between the appellant and the deceased and due to that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased. 4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It has also been contended that the dead body of the deceased Gongur Murmu was recovered in the night by the informant and, thereafter, the informant in collusion with other villagers have implicated this appellant in this got up case. 5. The prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses to substantiate this case. P.W.9, Karan Murmu is the informant of this case and Ext. 3 is his fardbeyan regarding the occurrence. p.w.a, Topne Murmu is the sister of the informant as well as of the appellant and the deceased and P.W.4, Jiyamuni Hembram is the widow of the deceased of this case. P.Ws.9, a and 4 are the alleged ocular witnesses of the occurrence in question. P.W.2, Mahabir Singh, P.W.3, Kaleshwar Tudu and P.W.?, Lobin Tudu are the hearsay witnesses of the occurrence in question and claim to have learnt about the occurrence from the informant as well as P.W.a and P.W.4 and they claim to have seen the deceased having arrows embedded on his chest. P.W.1, Patu Ram, the village chowkidar, P.W.5, Devi Marandi and P.W.6, Baris Marandi have been tendered by the prosecution in this case. P.W.11, Dr. Bimal Kumar has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Gongur Murmu and the postmortem report per his pen in respect thereof is Ext. 5. P.W.10, Maheshwar Prasad Yadav is the I.O. of this case and he has proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) and the Inquest Report (Ext. 4) of the deceased. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence in support of his defence version. 6. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record the learned court below has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted and sentenced him as stated above. ? Assailing the impugned judgment as unsustainable, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly appellant is the eldest brother of the deceased and, there were enmity existing and alive between the parties prior to the occurrence in question and both, the appellant and the deceased were under intoxication as they had taken alcohol prior to the occurrence and there had been an altercation between them and as such it cannot be said that the alleged assault on the deceased by the appellant is with intention to commit his murder with any premeditation and in this view of the matter ' the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted at all to the facts of this case and utmost a case, if proved on the legal evidence on the record, under Section 304 Part " may be made out. It has also been submitted that the accused is now 60 years old as on the date of the judgment he was 45 years. It has also been submitted that P.Ws. 9, 8 and 4 are all inimical to this appellant and their evidence is unworthy of credit and the medical evidence is not at all in conformity with the manner of occurrence as deposed by the aforesaid inimical and partisan witnesses. It has also been submitted that as per the prosecution case the occurrence is said to have taken place between 9.00 P.M. and 10.00 P.M. and it was a dark night and there is no means of identification disclose9 in the fardbeyan of the informant and it cannot be said that it is the appellant who has shot arrows on the deceased causing his death and the introduction of the lamp (dhibri) at the place of the occurrence is an embellishment as a result of after thought by the prosecution. Lastly it has been contended that there is material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of altercation as well as of the occurrence which case a cloud of suspicion to the credibility of the prosecution case and the learned court below has been more swayed by the conjectures and surmises and not by legal evidence on the record in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. 7.. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that there is legal evidence on the record to substantiate the prosecution case and P.Ws. 9 and 8 are the brother and sister respectively of the appellant and the deceased and in their evidence they have substantiated the prosecution case and they can never be termed as partisan witnesses for the reason that they have no animus to depose falsely in this case in view of the fact that they have no enmity at all with the appellant or any other consideration for the deceased. PW 4. the widow of the deceased have also substantiated the prosecution case in material particulars and the medical evidence equally corroborated the manner of the occurrence. It has also been submitted that a lamp (dhibri) is the means of identification of the appellant at the place of the occurrence as at that time some relatives of the parties to this case had been seen off prior to the occurrence by them. Lastly it has been contended that the appellant has deliberately and intentionally after cool consideration has committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, offence under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. is directly attracted to the facts of this case and the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellant and the age of the accused being 60 years today has no bearing at all in this case. 8.. This is the most unfortunate case of fratricide under intoxication over a petty issue. Admittedly the appellant is the eldest brother and the deceased is his youngest brother and the informant is the younger brother of the appellant. The eye witnesses in this case are P.W.9 the informant and elder brother of the deceased and P.W.8, the full sister of the deceased and the appellant besides P.WA, the widow of the deceased. There is no denying the fact that there had already been midst (sic -metes?) and bounds partition between the appellant, the informant and the deceased much prior to the occurrence and they had their separate house and land. The house of the informant, the deceased and the appellant are adjacent to each other having partition wall in the courtyards. The house of the informant IS in the extreme west. The house of the deceased is east of the house of the informant. The house of the appellant is adjacent east of the house of the deceased. There is a village road in the north in front of the house of the informant, the deceased and the appellant. According to the prosecution case there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased and the deceased was telling to the appellant as to why he has given a wall on his (deceased's) land. P.WA, the widow of the deceased has deposed that the appellant has constructed a wall encroaching over the land of the deceased and this has led to an altercation between them and the said wall was constructed on the day of the occurrence. P.W.10, the I.O. in his objective finding in para 5 of the evidence has deposed that the houses of the informant, deceased and the appellant are adjacent south of the place of occurrence and he has found long terrace constructed adjacent to the outer wall of the said house and the said terrace was under the thatched roof of the said house. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W.4 read with the objective finding of the I.O. referred to above clearly indicates that the genesis of the occurrence in question is of the construction of the long terrace by the appellant which was the genesis of the altercation between the appellant and the deceased. However, P.W.8 does not whisper in respect thereof and in her evidence she has given a different reason for the altercation. P.W.8 has come to the house of the deceased at about 2 o'clock in the day on the date of the occurrence and in this view of the matter she may not have the knowledge or information regarding the construction of the terrace which is the instant cause of the altercation between the deceased and the appellant. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 in respect thereof has no legal bearing. 9. The dead body of the deceased was found on the southern side of the village road in front of the house of the informant, deceased and the appellant where the inquest report (Ext. 4) was prepared. It has specifically been stated in the inquest report that the arrow was found embedded on the right arm and left chest of the deceased. It is the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 9, 8 and 4 that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of the informant, deceased and the appellant in the lane. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 7, though hearsay witnesses in this case, have also found the dead body of the deceased fallen on the village road in front of the houses of the parties and there were two arrows embedded on the right arm and chest of the deceased. In view of the evidence referred to above it is established that the place of occurrence of this case is the lane in front of the house of the informant, deceased and the appellant. 10. P.W. 11 Dr. Simal Kumar has deposed to have conducted the postmortem report on the dead body of the deceased on 20.9.82 at 4.30 P.M. and he has found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) One arrow pierced in third left inter costal space lateral to the sternal border on left size of the chest. The total length of the arrow was 27" with metallic portion about 4" x 3/4". (ii) Another arrow pierced in the dorsum of the right hand between 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bone. The length of the arrow was 28 1/2". The size of the wound was 1/2" x 1/4" x 2" with sharp margin. The medical witness has further deposed to have found the metallic portion of the arrow going inside the chest backward horizontally and laterally piercing the heart cavity and the depth of the wound was 5 1/2" and the size of the, wound inside the heart was 1" x 1/2" x cavity deep and the said wound has sharp margin. The medical witness has further deposed that both the arrows were removed from the person of the deceased. His evidence is further to the effect that the death of the deceased has been caused by shock and haemorrhage caused by the injury on the chest which was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature and the time elapsed since death is 48 hours from the time of the postmortem examination. He has also deposed that the injury on the chest may cause immediate death. The said metallic portion of the arrow was sent under sealed cover to the I.O. along with the copy of the postmortem report. Material Ext (i) is the container having two metal portion of the arrows which was received by the I.O. along with the postmortem report from the hospital and P.W.11 the I.O., has also testified this fact in para 3 of this testimony. The postmortem report (Ext. 4) corroborates the testimony of P.W.11 , the medical witness. It is, therefore, crystal clear from the medical report referred to above that the death of the deceased has been caused by the arrow. 11. Let us now come to the manner of the occurrence. According to the prosecution case the altercation had taken place in the lane in front of the house of the informant, the deceased and the appellant. I have already stated above that these houses are adjacent north of the village lane and in course of the said altercation the appellant went inside his house and soon came from there armed with bow and arrow and he shot two arrows at the deceased from his bow which caused injury on his right arm and chest and both the arrows had embedded at the site of the injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.9, the informant has deposed that he was sitting in his verandah at the time of the occurrence and, thereafter, the deceased along with his wife and mother -in -law of P.W. 8 and Phuphua Sas of the deceased came out of the house of the deceased and the deceased along with his wife and P.W.9 bid farewell to the mother -in -law of Topne Murmu and Phuphua Sas of the deceased and, thereafter, the deceased along with his wife and P.W.8 Topne Murmu was returning to his house and in the meantime wife of the appellant and the appellant armed with bow and arrow came out of the house and, thereafter, the appellant shot two arrows from his bow which caused injury on the right arm and chest of the deceased. He has further deposed that, thereafter, the deceased fell on the ground and the appellant fled away inside his house. He has also deposed that the wife of the appellant had come to the place of occurrence with a lamp (dhibri). The evidence of P.W.9 is further to the effect that the deceased died at the place of occurrence and there were two arrows embedded in his chest and right arm. P.W.9 has also deposed in his evidence on oath regarding altercation having been taken place between the deceased and the appellant. P.WA, the widow of the deceased has deposed that she along with her husband Gongur Murmu came .out of her house to bid farewell to the mother -in -law of Topne Murmu and the wife of Somai and at that time the wife of the appellant had also come out of her house with a lamp. Her evidence is further to the effect that at that very time the appellant came out of his house with bow and arrow. She has categorically deposed that the appellant shot two arrows from his bow which caused injury on his arm and chest which embedded there and the deceased fell down and died. P.W.8 has also deposed that the deceased and his wife came out of their houses to bid farewell to her mother -in -law and her Phuphua Sas and after their farewell wife of the appellant came out of her house and the appellant also came out of his house armed with bow and arrow and he shot arrows twice from his bow which caused injury on the chest and right hand of the deceased as a result of which he fell down and died. She has further deposed that at that time the informant was sitting on his verandah from where he came to the place of occurrence. These three witnesses are the ocular witnesses of the occurrence. PWs.. 9 and 8 are the full brother and sister respectively of the deceased and of the appellant. P.W. 4 is the widow of the appellant and they have occasion to be present at the place of occurrence during the commission of the offence and they are the most competent and natural witnesses of the occurrence in question. They have been cross examined at length and nothing material has been elicited in their cross examination to discredit their testimony. Furthermore there is no animus for these witnesses to depose against the appellant falsely. Therefore, the false implication of the appellant in this case is totally ruled out in the facts and circumstances of this case. P.W.2 has deposed to have seen two arrows embedded on the chest and arm of the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 9 have deposed to have come to the place of occurrence on alarms and they were told about the occurrence by the ocular witnesses aforesaid and they have seen two arrows embedded in the body of the deceased fallen on the ground. Therefore, it becomes an established fact that the appellant shot two arrows from his bow on the person of the deceased which embedded in his right arm and the chest and as per the medical witness the death of the deceased has been caused by the injury on his chest caused by a shot of arrow and the injury on the chest is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. 12. Admittedly it was a dark night when the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of the parties in the village lane. P.W.9 has deposed that it was a moonlit night. No means of identification is, however, disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext. 2). However, it is the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 9, 8 and 4 that after bidding farewell of the Phuphua Sas and mother -in -law of P.W.8, Topne Murmu, the wife of the appellant had come with a lamp and, thereafter, the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, as per the evidence on the record there is a means of identification though the said lamp has not been recovered by the I.O. in course of investigation nor produced before the court below. However, P.Ws. 9, 8 and 4 are the full brother and sister as well as the wife of the deceased respectively and they have no reason to falsely identify the appellant as a participant in the occurrence in question specially when immediately prior to the occurrence there had been altercation between the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding non -disclosure of the means of identification in the fardbeyan in the facts and circumstances of this case has no substance. P.W.4 has deposed that the deceased has taken food two hours prior to the occurrence. P.W.4 has specifically deposed in her cross examination that the deceased has taken meal two hours prior to the occurrence. The learned court below in para 17 of his judgment has committed an error of record and has mentioned about taking food by the deceased at 2.00 P.M. Therefore, the medical witness has rightly found indigested rice and vegetable in the stomach of the deceased in course of postmortem examination. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel based on the averment made in para 17 of the impugned judgment is misconceived and has no substance and the postmortem report in respect thereof supports the time of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution case. P.W.9 has deposed that he has not sent anybody to the Police Station in the night of the occurrence and on the following day he has told about the occurrence to the village chowkidar Haribole and his eldest son but the younger son of Haribole had gone to the police station. He has also deposed that the younger son of Haribole aforesaid gave information to the informant that he has informed the officials of the police station regarding the death of the deceased and police is coming to the place of occurrence. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the younger son of Haribole has given any information in writing at the police station. There is no S.D. Entry on the record regarding oral statement given at the police station by him. Therefore, the fardbeyan of P.W.9 cannot be said to have been vitiated under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C, in the absence of any material contrary to it. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the fardbeyan (Ext.2) is hit under the provision of Section162 of the Cr.P.C. has no leg to stand. The submission of the learned counsel that there is total absence of intention on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased has also no leg to stand in the facts and circumstances of this case. There is clinching evidence on the record to show that there were altercation between the appellant and the deceased immediately prior to the occurrence and the appellant went inside his house and came with the bow and arrow and shot two arrows from his bow and one of the shot hit at the chest of the deceased causing his death. The coming out of the house armed with bow and arrow by the appellant is a circum stance of unimpeachable character to show that shooting by arrow by the appellant is with the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the case does not fall at all under the ambit of 304, Part II of the I,ndian Penal Code. And last but not the least, there is legal evidence on the record to substantiate the prosecution case and I see ring of truth in the evidence of P.Ws. 9, 8 and 4. Their evidence is worthy of credit and I rely upon their evidence. The learned court below has meticulously considered the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant in committing the murder of the deceased. I, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein. 13. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and the materials on the record I see no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein. The impugned judgment of the learned court below is hereby confirmed. There is no merit in this appeal and it fails. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant is hereby cancelled. The learned court below is directed to take all coercive steps in accordance with law for the apprehension of the appellant for serving out his sentence.;