Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. The sole appellant has been convicted under Secs. 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 and for default in payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 31.10.1989 at about it is hours P.W. 8 Manohar Prasad recorded the fardbeyan of the informant P.W. 5 Mangari Mundain where she stated that at about 5 p.m. on 30th October, 1989 while she was in her house, her mother was engaged in some work in the western lane (Gali) with her younger brother Samu Mundain in her lap arm. She heard a cry of her mother and no sooner she went near her mother, she found her mother and her younger brother aged about one year lying on the ground and there the appellant Dago Munda was seen assaulting her mother and brother with a farsa. When she questioned the appellant, she was chased and was assaulted with farsa on her left arm and out of fear, she went inside her house and informed her father P.W. 6 who was ill from before. On getting information, her father P.W. 6 also came out from the house and he was chased by the appellant. At the same time, P.W. 2 Hathi Ram Munda came there and he also saw her father being chased by the appellant and thereafter Dago Munda fled away. The information was given to the village Chaukidar who in turn informed the police on the next day and the police recorded the statement of the informant. On the basis of the fardbeyan, a formal First Information Report was drawn up and a case under Sec. 302 read with other ancillary Sections of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the appellant.

4. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he was sent up for trial wherein he was ultimately found guilty and was sentenced as referred to above. The defence of the appellant is the plea of innocence and false implication.

5. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 5 Mangari Mundain, the informant and P.W. 6 Baliya Munda are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 6 is a witness on the point that on the information, he went outside the house and he found her wife and his son lying on the ground and saw the appellant with farsa in his hand and he was chased by the appellant. P.Ws. 3 and 4, namely, Birsa Munda and Shiv Ram Munda, are seizure-list witnesses. However, P.W. 4 is also a witness on the point that he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. P.W. 1, Dr. Umesh Chandra Sinha is the Medical Officer who examined injuries on the person of the informant, P.W. 5 P.W. 7 is Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta who held autopsy over the dead body. P.W. 8 Manohar Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and time of occurrence being evening hours of 30th October, 1989, it was not probable for the witnesses to identify the appellant as no source of identification has been disclosed. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that injuries found on the persons of the deceased do not correspond to the injuries caused by the weapon allegedly used by the appellant.

7. P.W. 5 in her evidence has Supported the prosecution version of the case as disclosed in the fardbeyan. She has categorically stated in her evidence that in the evening hours of 30th October, 1989, she heard cry of her mother and immediately thereafter, she came out of her house and saw her mother and younger brother aged about one year lying on the ground and had seen the appellant assaulting them with farsa. When she protested, she was also assaulted by the appellant as a result of which she sustained