Counsel for the applicant is not pressing this Interlocutory Application.

2. Hence, this Interlocutory Application is disposed of as not pressed.

Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2003

3. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant accused Sundar Baraik @ Sasodhar Baraik against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13th August, 2003, passed by the 10th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 2002, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

4. It is a case of the prosecution that on 14th November, 2001, at about 2 P.M., when the informant Jhaiyo Devi (P.W. 5) was at Bero Bazar, her daughter (P.W.6) informed her that her Mama (maternal uncle of P.W. 6) Sundar Baraik @ Sasodhar Baraik, who is the accused appellant, has cut the neck of her father, namely Harakh Baraik by Tangi. The informant (P.W. 5) immediately rushed to her house along with her daughter (P.W. 6) and there she found her husband lying in a critically injured condition but was still breathing. With the help of the villagers the informant took her husband on a 'Thela' and rushed for medical' aid, but her husband Harakh Baraik expired on the way.

5. Thereafter, her Fardbayan was recorded immediately at Police Station-Bero, District-Ranchi on 14th November, 2001, at about 15 hours approx. and on the basis of the said Fard-beyan, First Information Report being Bero P.S. Case No. 74 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered. The appellant accused, who was caught hold of by the villagers, was named in the F.I.R. (Exhibit-3). Thereafter, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8). Inquest report (Panchnama) was prepared, which has been marked as Ext.-5. Sharp cutting weapon 'Tangi' and the blood stained 'Chaddar' were also seized and Seizure List (Ext.-4) was prepared accordingly. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W.7). The post mortem report has been marked as Ext.-2.

6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and, thereafter, after commitment, the trial proceeded. During trial, deposition of the prosecution witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 8) were recorded and the trial court after appreciating the depositions of the witnesses and evidences on record, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. Against this order of conviction and sentence, present appeal has been preferred.

5. Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the case of the prosecution is based mainly upon the deposition of Meena Kumari (P.W. 6), who is daughter of the deceased, aged about 7 years, who is an interested witness and looking to her cross-examination, she is not a reliable witness. It is further submitted that rest of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. Moreover, looking to the deposition of the Investigating Officer, there was no bloodstain on the place of occurrence. It is .further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. We have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor, who has vehemently submitted-that the case of the prosecution is based upon the deposition of several witnesses, including P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, to" be read with the deposition given by P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 keeping in mind the documentary evidence such as, Exts.-2, 3, 4 and 5. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that on the day of Deepavali, murder has taken place in the house of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. The murder has