The sole appellant Hadi Ram Singh Sardar has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1994 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.1992 at about 11:00 A.M., the informant Hablu Murmu (P.W.-4) and his elder brother Sona Ram Murmu @ Bedgu (deceased) were going to village Gotultand on a bullock cart for bringing soil. It is further stated that when the bullock cart reached in front of the house of appellant, Hadi Ram Singh Sardar (appellant) suddenly came out of his house and gave 5-6 farsa blow on the deceased due to that deceased received injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that on query made by informant, appellant disclosed that the deceased had illicit relation with his wife and because of that the appellant killed him.

3. On the basis of aforesaid information the police instituted Chandil P.S. Case No. 24 of 1994 dated 24.02.1994 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and took up investigation. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Cognizance of the offence under Section 302 was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned court below framed the charge and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution had examined altogether 08 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also brought some documents or record and got the same exhibited. Ext-1 Series – are the signatures of witnesses on Inquest Report, Seizure List, Fardbeyan and F.I.R., Ext-2 – is the Postmortem Report, Ext-3 –is the fardbeyan, Ext-4 – is the Inquest Report, Ext5 – is the Seizure List. Learned court below after considering the materials available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. The present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment/order of the Court below.

5. Shri A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that from the joint reading of statement of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, it is apparent that there is material contradiction on the point of manner of occurrence. He further submitted that P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are the relatives of deceased and they are highly interested in the case of prosecution and in the absence of corroboration from independent witness, it is not safe to convict the appellant on the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses. It is further submitted that the seizure of farsa has not been proved properly. The said farsa has not been produced in court and no proper explanation has been given, which cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to prove the motive of the case as well which also cast a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. He urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in law.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidences of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, who are the eye-witness of the occurrence, find full support from the medical evidence as well as from the physical finding of the I.O. The other prosecution witness including the independent witnesses such as P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 have supported and corroborated the statement of eye witnesses. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting any interference by this Court.

7. Having heard the submissions, we have carefully examined the evidences available on record. P.W.-7 Dr. Lalan Choudhary has deposed that on 25.02.1994, at about 11:30 A.M, he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sona Ram Murmu and found nine incised wound mostly on the neck, face and shoulder of the deceased. The Doctor has gi