Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The appellant has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment which has been awarded to him by the trial Court in ST No.379/99 for committing murder of deceased Etwa Ram.

2. The prosecution case, as projected in the FIR, is that at about 3.30 pm on 6.9.99 Budha Ram @ Shivnarayan (PW-5) came back to his house after collecting fire woods from the nearby forest. At that time deceased Etwa Ram Korwa and the appellant came from the school side and went towards the well of Hiran Uraon. The appellant suddenly pushed the deceased into the well. Apart from (PW-5) Shivnarayan, the incident was also witnessed by Shivlal (PW-6). Shivnarayan informed about the incident to (PW-7) Chamru Ram, Panch and thereafter Shivnarayan, Mangru Ram (PW-8), Nandlal, Bajru went towards the well and brought out the dead body. Thereafter Nandlal and Mangru Ram went to the house of the deceased and informed his daughter-in-law Urmila (PW-2), on which she came to the place of occurrence and witnessed the dead body. Merg intimation (Ex.-P/14) was recorded at 18.00 hours on 6.9.99 upon information given by co-accused Roop Sai, who has been acquitted by the trial Court. FIR (Ex.-P/16) was recorded at 20.15 hours on 7.9.99. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of other witnesses and postmortem of the dead body was performed by PW-1 Dr. Roop Singh Parihar, who submitted his report vide Ex.-P/2, opining that the death has occurred on account of Asphyxia due to drowning and precipitated by injury. The time passed since death is between 20 to 32 hours and the nature of death depends upon circumstantial evidence.

3. In the charge-sheet filed against the appellant and co-accused Roop Sai, (PW-5) Shivnarayan and (PW-6) Shivlal were cited as eyewitness whereas (PW-2) Urmila, (PW-3) Nandlal and (PW-7) Chamru Ram were cited as witnesses to whom Shivnarayan and Shivlal had immediately informed about the incident and thus, they being witnesses in the part of same transaction, their statements are admissible in evidence.

4. Despite (PW-5) Shivnarayan and (PW-6) Shivlal turning hostile and refusing to support the prosecution even in cross-examination, the trial Court has convicted the appellant on the evidence of (PW-2) Urmila and (PW-3) Nandlal.

5. Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the statements of Nandlal (PW-3) and Urmila (PW-2) are wholly unbelievable apart from being in the nature of hearsay evidence. It is also argued that the trial Court has wrongly relied upon the principle of res gestae to believe the statements of these two witnesses.

6. Per contra, Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer would argue that the principles contained under Section 6 of the Evidence Act popularly known as res gestae would apply with full force in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the statements of Nandlal (PW-3) and Urmila (PW-2) are not in the category of hearsay evidence but it is admissible in evidence, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction.

7. The seminal question falling for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought forth such cogent and reliable evidence, which is otherwise admissible in evidence under the principle of res gestae so as to sustain conviction.

8. Before proceeding to evaluate the statements of witnesses, it would be apt to remember the principle enshrined under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The said provision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

“6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.”

9. The principle on which the provision referred above is based is popularly defined as res gestae. It has be