Agnu Singh @ Bandra vs The State of Jharkhand

D.K. Sinha. J.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded respectively on 25.11.2000 and 27.11.2000 by Shri H.B.P. Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1997 arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 53 of 1995.

The sole Appellant was convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He was further convicted u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, with the observation that both the sentences would run concurrently.

The prosecution story, as it stands narrated in the Fard Bayan of the informant P.W. 5 (Pokli Devi) recorded on 30.07.1995 before the Simdega Police at her village home Thogipani, was that on the previous day i.e. on 29.07.1995 the co-villager P.W. 9 Kandra Rai Kotwar had given feast at his house and in that feast the host had invited his near dears. The villagers had attended the feast at about 12 O''clock in the day hours but since her husband Naru Singh (since decensed) did not go there, his food was sent to her home. In the evening at about 7 O''clock Kandra Rai Kotwar again came and on his invitation her husband accompanied him to his home. She further narrated that when her husband came out after haying his food from the house of the host, the accused-Agnu Singh @ Bandra, who happened to be the nephew of her husband started assaulting him by inflicting injuries by means of axe. On the alarm raised by her husband, her son Parbhu Singh, aged about 7 years went out of the home and witnesses that Agnu Singh @ Bandra was assaulting his father, opposite the house of Kandra Rai Kotwar. On his alarm, the informant came out with the lantern in her hand and she also witnessed Agnu Singh @ Bandra assaulting her husband on his back, arms and neck by means of axe and had been extending threat that he would kill such person, who would come forward to rescue. She could not rescue her husband and in the meantime he inflicted blows on the neck of Naru Singh. The accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra was giving explanation there that Naru Singh was a big Ojha (witch), who planted ghost in his body, as such, he was suffering from illness which could not be cured hence admitted having committed murder of Naru Singh, The occurrence was witnessed by the witnesses viz. Mandar Singh, Chander Singh and Tilak Singh, all sons of Paltan Singh and the accused escaped after cutting the neck of her husband. The occurrence took place at about 8 p.m. and having received the information the "Mukhia" came to her in the morning to whom she apprised the incident and on his advise while she was about to go to the Police Station to lodge the case, the police came and recorded her Fard Bayan, on the basis of which Simdega P.S. Case No. 53 of 1995 was registered on 30.07.1995 u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra. It is relevant to mention that the head of Naru Singh was severed from his trunk and the assailant had taken away the head from the place of occurrence. In course of investigation, the Petitioner was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded before the police, which led to discovery of the axe used in the killing and discovery of the severed head of Naru Singh. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charge against the Appellant Agnu Singh @ Bandra was framed u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial.

As many as 14 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution besides, the prosecution proved the formal F.I.R.- Ext. 1, Fard Bayan of the informant Ext. 2, Endorsement made on the Fard Bayan Ext. 3, seizure list of the blood stained "Lungi" of the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra Ext. 4, signature of Chander Singh as a witness on the Fard Bayan Ext. 5, his signature on the inquest report Ext. 5/1, signatures of Chander Singh and one Silbanus Minz on the seizure list of blood stained earth mixed with sand Ext. 5/2 and 5/3, signatures of Chander Singh and Silbanus Minz on the seizure list of the blood stained axe Ext. 5/4 and Ext. 5/5, signature of Chander Singh and Silbanus Minz on the blood stained "Lungi" Ext. 5/6 and 5/7. Similarly, signature of Chander Singh and signature of Silbanus Minz on the carbon copy of the inquest report was proved and marked Ext. 5/8 and Ext. 5/9. Signature of Serwan Rai Kotwar and Silbanus Minz on the confessional statement of the co-accused Exts. 5/10 and Ext. 5/11. Two separate inquest reports of the trunk and head were proved and marked Ext. 6 and 6/1 whereas the seizure lists aforesaid were marked Ext. 7 & 7/1. The confessional statement of the accused was marked Ext. 8 and the postmortem report of the parts of the body of the deceased was marked Ext. 9.

The learned Trial Judge after scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and appreciating the arguments of the prosecution and the defence held the Appellant guilty for the charge u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the Appellant has prefeired the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order the prosecution evidence needs, reappraisal.

P.W. 5 (Pokli Devi) is the widow of the deceased Naru Singh as well as the informant of this case. She deposed that the occurrence took place some three years ago. It was Saturday night at about 8 O''clock. Her husband Naru Singh and son. Parbhu Singh were invited by Kandra Rai Kotwar, who had hosted feast in his home. While they were returning after having their meal, in the meantime, it was alleged that Agnu Singh @ Bandra assaulted her husband by means of axe upon pronouncing him as a witch. Alarm was raised by her husband and his son Parbhu Singh whereupon she went there having lantern in her hand and by that time other witnesses such as Tilak Singh, Chander Singh, Lohra Rai Kotwar, Kandra Kotwar and many other assembled there but none of them came for ward to rescue her husband out of fear. She further narrated that Agnu Singh @ Bandra took away the head after slitting it from the trunk of her husband and escaped towards the hillocks. He could not be located on the same day. On the information received, the police came to the village on subsequent day and recorded her statement. She identified Agnu Singh @ Bandra in the dock. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that the Appellant Agnu Singh @ Bandra was her nephew and during occurrence agnates were living In a common house but now they have constructed their own separate houses and that there was no dispute prior to the occurrence with the accused. The house of Kandra Rai Kotwar was situated at the distance of about 40 yards towards west with the intervening house of one Bhuneshwar Naik adjacent to her house. She narrated about the place of occurrence that there was a rock and a drain in between her house and the house of said Kandra Rai Kotwar. She further narrated that she witnessed the accused at the distance of 6 yards inflicting blows with an axe on her husband. She was interrogated by the police but she had not stated that by the time she arrived there accused had cut his neck. The blow was inflicted on the neck from the back side of her husband but she could not count the number of blows inflicted by means of axe. Though she attempted to rescue him but Agnu Singh @ Bandra had been threatening that he would kill whoever would come forward. She had caught hold his body but he threatened and removed his body. Alarm was raised after he had severed the neck. She denied the suggestion that with the intention to usurp his property, a false case was instituted against the accused.

P.W. 1 Loban Lugan, an Advocate''s clerk proved the formal F.I.R. in the pen and signature of Rana Ram Badan Singh, the then Officer-in-Charge of Simdega Police Station which was marked Ext. 1. He admitted that the formal F.I.R. was not drawn in his presence. P.W. 2 Mangarnath Mahto proved the Fard Bayan in the pen and signature of the said Rana Ram Badan Singh, which was marked Ext.2. The endorsement made on the Fad Bayan was proved by P.W. 3 Chandar Prasad another Advocate''s clerk which was also marked in the pen and signature Of Rana Ram Badan Singh and it was marked Ext. 3. The seizure list was proved and marked Ext. A by the P.W. 4 William Kerketta, Advocate''s clerk.

P.W. 6 Chandar Singh is the full brother of the deceased. He deposed that the occurrence took place some 3 years 3 months ago. It was Saturday night at about 8 O''clock. He was there in the house. His brother Naru Singh as had not attended the feast hosted by Lohra Rai Kotwar, his son Kandra Rai Kotwar invited and upon such invitation Naru Singh accompanied Kandra Rai Kotwar to his home. The witness further admitted that as soon as Naru Singh came out after finishing his food, he was assaulted by Agnu Singh @ Bandra by means of axe and in the meantime his wife Pokli Devi arrived at the scene of occurrence with the lantern in her hand and she raised alarm. She was accompanied by her son Parbhu Singh. He and other witnesses also came out at the door of Lohra Rai Kotwar and witnessed the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra assaulting Naru Singh, who threatened that he would kill whoever would come forward to rescue and he pronounced that Naru Singh was a witch, who had introduced ghost in his body and for this reason ha committed his murder. After such pronouncement, Agnu Singh @ Bandra escaped by taking away the severed head from the trunk with the axe used in such murder and escaped towards forest. He could not be located in spite of starch. The police arrived at the place of occurrence on subsequent day and recorded the statement of his Bhabhi Pokli Devi to which he had attested her statement by putting signature. He proved his signature Ext. 5. The police seized the trunk of Naru Singh from the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report which was signed by him Ext 5/1. He also proved his signature on the seizure list of blood stained earth which was attested by him and Silbanus Minz and their signatures were marked Ext. 5/2 and. 5/3 on the inquest report. The witness further testified that he accompanied the police to the forest in search of the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra and recovered a blood stained axe, head of Naru Singh and his blood stained "Lungi" to which two separate seizure lists were prepared. A separate inquest report of the head of Nam Singh was prepared, which was attested by him and another witness. He identified the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra in the dock. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was five brothers and the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra was his own nephew. His brother Tiru Singh father of Agnu Singh was already dead and partition of the property amongst his brothers was effected in the life time of his father. He denied the suggestion that with the intention to usurp the property of Agnu Singh @ Bandra he was falsely implicated and that Agnu Singh was forcibly removed from the possession of his property with the members of his family. The witness deposed that he arrived at the scene on the alarm raised by Pokli Devi and her son Parbhu Singh. The other witnesses had neither carried lantern nor torch with them. He testified that he witnessed Agnu Singh @ Bandra at the distance of about 25 yards and counted that three blows by means of axe were inflicted which caused injury in both the hands and neck of the deceased and further corroborated the evidence of P.W. 5 Pokli Devi about the manner of occurrence. The police recovered the severed head of Naru Singh from Burhi Chataine Tongri where he and other witnesses accompanied the police but Agnu Singh @ Bandra was not with them there. A seizure list of the severed head of Naru Singh was prepared there at the place of recovery.

P.W. 7 Shrawan Rai Kotwar, testified that occurrence took place in the night on 29.07.1995 and he came to learn about the occurrence from Vijay Chaukidar on subsequent day that Naru Singh was done to death by his own nephew Agnu Singh @ Bandra. He went there at the place of occurrence, opposite the house of Lohra Rai Kotwar where he found the be-headed trunk of Naru Singh. The police arrested Agnu Singh @ Bandra. He identified Agnu Singh @ Bandra in the dock and further deposed that Bandra had confessed his guilt before the police that he had committed murder of Naru Singh and disclosed that he had concealed the head and axe in the cave of Bhawarkhol Burilatha. The police discovered the head and axe from the place pointed out by the accused. His confessional statement was recorded by the police in his presence and he had put his signature. The witness further admitted that Naru Singh was killed by the accused only because his profession was of Ojha (witch doctor). The witness admitted in the cross-examination that the village Benchi Pani was situated at the distance of about 2 Kms. He was the Sarpanch of the said Panchayat and the accused was known to him prior to the occurrence. He admitted that he was very much present there with the other witnesses when the accused had confessed his guilt. The police had discovered the head and axe in his presence but no seizure list was prepared in his presence and that the accused stated before the police that Naru Singh''s profession was of an Ojha.

P.W. 8 Lohra Rai Kotwar is an important witness of the case, who deposed that the occurence took place some three years five months ago, It was Saturday night at about 8 O''clock. He had invited the villagers on feast during day hours but since Naru Singh did not come in the day, he sent his son Kandra Rai Kotwar to call for and Naru Singh accompanied him and took his meal in the house of this witness. As soon as he came out after having his meal at about 8 O''clock, he heard alarm Bachao Bachao whereupon he came out from his house. He witnessed the trunk of Naru Singh on the road opposite his house. The witness was declared hostile but nothing material could be obtained except what he stated in the foregoing lines. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused he admitted that he had seen the trunk of Naru Singh at the distance of about 15 yards of his house. He further stated that when he came out, he did not find anyone having any source of light but after short while the people assembled there with the light and that he and the villagers arrived there almost at the same time. Amongst them were Chander Singh, Segul Kartar and Surju Kartar. The witness admitted that when he arrived at the scene, he did not find Agnu Singh @ Bandra there except that the son of deceased Parbhu Singh was raising alarm that Agnu Singh @ Bandra had killed his father.

P.W. 9 Kandra Rai Kotwar deposed that the occurrence took place some three years five months ago. It was Saturday at about 8 O''clock in the night he had been to the house of Naru Singh to invite him on the feast hosted by his father to which Naru Singh accompanied him and took his food in his house. When he came out from the house after having his food, he heard the alarm raised by Parbhu Singh that something was happening with his father whereupon he came out and saw the dead body of Naru Singh at some distance of about 10 yards from his door. He did not see as to by whom ha was Killed. This witness was also declared hostile but admitted when his attention was drawn towards his earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure that he had stated before the police that on alarm the wife of Naru Singh and his son Parbhu Singh arrived there whereupon Agnu Singh @ Bandra severed the head of Naru Singh from his trunk and escaped with an axe He identified Agnu Singh @ Bandra in the dock. In the cross-examination, he stated that by the time he arrived near the dead body, Agnu Singh @ Bandra had already escaped.

P.W. 10 Chandru Naik testified by stating to the extent that he had seen the dead body of Naru Singh opposite the house of Lohra Rai Kotwar when he came out from the house after hearing alarm. In the question put by the Court, the witness stated that he had not seen any assailant committing murder of Naru Singh and that the head of Naru Singh was not there with his trunk. The witness was declared hostile. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the police had not recovered any axe or the head of Naru Singh in his presence and that he did not know as to why Naru Singh was killed.

P.W. 11 Parbhu Singh is a child witness, son of Naru Singh (since deceased). His age was assessed 12 years by the Court and was a student of class-III. The child witness deposed that the occurrence took place some three years ten months ago. It was Saturday at about 7/8 p.m. He had accompanied his father to the house of Lohra Rai Kotwar pursuant to the invitation of feast. As soon as he along with his father (Naru Singh) came out after having their meals, the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra started assaulting his father by means of axe to which he raised alarm and his father also asked Bandra not to assault but the accused continued assaulting him. He then went to his home by raising alarm that the accused was assaulting his father by means of axe. His mother also raised alarm whereupon Chander Singh, Bhandar Singh and his mother with the lantern in her hand came to the place of occurrence and even then accused continued assaulting his father with axe, who was terrorizing that he would kill those who would come forward. He severed the head of his father from the trunk and escaped with the severed head and the blood stained axe towards forest. The accused could not be located in the night by the villagers. He had committed murder of his father by pronouncing that his father was a witch doctor (Ojha). He identified Agnu Singh @ Bandra in the dock. The witness admitted that the accused was his first cousin and the house of Lohra Rai Kotwar was situated at the distance of about 20 yards from his house and there was no intervening house between the two. It was not the fact that there was rock between the house. The witness was not having any source of light while he was returning with his father after having their meal and that his father was killed at the distance of about a cubit of the house of the host and on his alarm Lohra Rai Kotwar also arrived there and that Agnu @ Bandra had continued assaulting his father till arrival of his mother along with him at the place of occurrence and by that time his father died.

P.W. 12 Tilak Singh deposed that he came out on the alarm raised by his Bhabhi (sister-in-law) Pokli Devi and went to the door of Lohra Rai Kotwar where he witnessed Agnu Singh @ Bandra committing murder of Naru Singh by means of axe. The accused was pronouncing Naru Singh as Ojha and was also extending threat that he would kill those who would come forward. Naru Singh was his brother. He identified Agnu Singh @ Bandra in the dock. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the house of Lohra Rai Kotwar was situated at the distance of about 25 yards from their houses including of Pokli Devi, with the intervening house of one Kishun Naik. The house of Kishun Naik was situated on the rock. He deposed that when he arrived at the scene at the house of Lohra Rai Kotwar, though it was dark, but his sister-in-law Pokli Devi was holding a burning lantern and the other witnesses also arrived there. He had seen the occurrence at the distance of about 6/7 yards while the accused was assaulting Naru Singh by means of axe. He tried to rescue his brother but he was terrorized by the accused.

P.W. 13 Rana Ram Badan Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case as also the then Officer-in-Charge of Simdega Police Station on 30.07.1995 when he heard rumour that a man was murdered at village Thogipani. After making necessary entry in the station diary, he proceeded to the place of occurrence where he recorded the statement of Pokli Devi. He found the trunk of Naru Singh lying there but his head was missing. He prepared inquest report Ext. 6. He visited the place of occurrence and recorded objective finding. He found blood at the place of occurrence smeared with the earth and there was blood on the rock also which was at some distance from the dead body. He prepared the seizure list of the blood stained earth, Ext. 7. Describing the place of occurrence, the witness stated that there was lane towards north at the distance of about 10 yards in the direction of east, west and the house of Pokli Devi was situated at the distance of about 10-12 wards from the lane and in between the house of Lohra Raj Kotwar was situated. He arrested the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra and recorded his confessional statement which led to discovery of the severed head of the deceased as also an axe used in the commission of murder. He prepared a separate inguest of the severed head in presence of the witnesses. The witness specified the place from where the head as well as the blood smeared axe were recovered The head and the trunk were sent to the Hospital for postmortem. His attention was drawn towards the statement of the hostile witnesses Lohra Rai Kotwar. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that the village Thogipani was situated at the distance of about 40 Kms. towards west from the Simdega Police Station. He had arrested the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra from the Booty Laha cave of Bhawar Pahar. His confessional statement was recorded on 30.07.1995 at about 15-45 hours in presence of Mukhia Silbanus Minz and Sarpanch Shrawan Rai Kotwar. The cave was situated at the distance of about 3/4 Kms. from the village Dhogipani. He further testified that he found blood stains on the back side of the edge of the axe having wooden handle fitted with the axe. He sent the blood stained earth as well as the seized axe to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi and its report was received on 28.08.1995.

P.W. 14 Dr. Arun Kumar Singh deposed that Dr. Jamil Ahmad was known to him who had gone out to foreign country. He proved the postmortem report in the pen and signature of Dr. Jamil Ahmad, which was marked Ext.9. He admitted that postmortem report was not prepared in his presence and he expressed his ignorance as to whether Dr. Jamil was in the service or not. After examination of the witnesses, the accused-Appellant was examined and his confessional statement was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by which he was confronted with the incriminating materials collected in course of his trial but he denied his guilt and declined to adduce defence witness.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the entire allegation against the Appellant was false and concocted and the learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the deceased was the own uncle of the Appellant, living collectively under the common roof with the members of their family in the ancestral house. According to the informant- widow of the deceased there was no dispute from before between the two on any issue. However, an explanation was given as to the motive of the Appellant that the Appellant killed Naru Singh because he was an Ojha and had introduced ghost in his body which appeared palpably absurd and the motive assigned by the prosecution cannot be relied upon at all for the alleged murder. The death of Naru Singh was not denied and further that the head of Naru Singh was severed from his trunk in the night of occurrence at about 8 O''clock but the complicity of the Appellant in the alleged murder was denied even there was no source of light to identify the assailant at the place of occurrence.

Advancing his argument, learned Counsel pointed out towards major discrepancy in the statement of the informant on the vital issue. In her Fard Bayan recorded first point in time the informant Pokli Devi had stated that her husband Naru Singh had proceeded alone on the call of the host to attend the feast and after short while when he came out from the house of Kandra Rai Kotwar, it was alleged that Agnu Singh @ Bandra assaulted him by means of axe and on his screaming his son Parbhu Singh, aged about 7 years rushed there and witnessed the occurrence. The boy rased alarm whereupon the informant also went there with the lantern in her hand and found the Appellant assaulting on the back and neck of her husband Nam Singh near a rock. In her deposition before the Trial Court she made substantial development and narrated that her son Parbhu Singh aged about 7 years had accompanied his father to attend the feast and as soon as they came out from the house of the host her husband was assaulted by the Appellant by means of axe to which her son Parbhu Singh raised alarm and she rushed there with other witnesses having lantern in her hand. Therefore, such contradiction in the statement of the informant Pokli Devi on material particulars made the prosecution story doubtful so much so involvement of Appellant therein. The cause of death of Nam Singh could not be established as the Doctor, who had held postmortem examination of the trunk, and head of Nam Singh abstained from the witness box and the Appellant was denied opportunity to cross-examine the Doctor on the number and nature of injuries and as to whether such injuries were possible in the manner presented by the prosecution alleged to be caused by the Appellant. Such vital discrepancy gives rise to the probability that the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution and that neither the informant Pokli Devi nor her minor son Parbhu Singh appeared to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, who implicated the Appellant by deposing false evidence with the intention to (sic) his property. The other witnesses such as P.W. 6 Chander Singh,. P.W. 12 Tilak Singh were the full brothers of the deceased and arrived at the scene of occurrence after it was already given effect to, as such, their statements cannot be relied upon being the interested witness that they were also the uncles of the Appellant i.e. the full brothers of the father of the Appellant. P.W. 7 Shrawan Rai Kotwar, P.W. 8 Lohra Rai Kotwar and P.W. 9 Kandra Rai Kotwar were also not the eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence except they had claimed having seen the trunk of Nam Singh which was lying opposite the house of Lohra Rai Kotwar. The statement of child witness P.W. 11 Parbhu Singh whose age was assessed about 12 years at the time of his statement in the Court cannot be relied upon, who claimed having accompanied his father to attend his feast and was there along with his father at the time of assault being made to his father as this fact is not in conformity with the statement given by his mother Pokli Devi at the first instance before the police.

Finally, learned Counsel submitted that for the reasons stated above a reasonable doubt is created as to the complicity of the Appellant, who was admittedly the own nephew of the deceased living under the common roof and that the occurrence did not take place in the manner it has been presented by the informant Pokli Davi and the other witnesses including the partisan witnesses P.W. 6 and P.W. 12, as such, the Appellant may be acquitted from his conviction and sentence by allowing the instant appeal.

Miss Anita Sinha, learned A.P.P. strongly controverted the contentions of argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant and submitted that the prosecution case was well proved as against the sole Appellant Agnu Singh @ Bandra for the charge u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and he was adequately sentenced which did not call for interference.

Advancing her argument, learned A.P.P. submitted that there were four eye-witnesses of the occurrence viz. P.W. 5 Pokli Devi, P.W. 6 Chander Singh, P.W. 11 Parbhu Singh, a child witness and P.W. 12 Tilak Singh, who arrived at the place of occurrence and claimed having seen the Appellant Agnu Singh @ Bandra assaulting Naru Singh by means of an axe with the dominant intention to commit his murder and in such sequence the Appellant by displaying extreme form of brutality severed the head of Naru Singh from his trunk and escaped taking away the head and the axe, which was used in such assault. The victim died at the spot. Murder of Naru Singh and finding of his be-headed body at the place of occurrence was not denied by the defence. The witnesses aforesaid were consistent that the Appellant assaulted Nam Singh by giving the genesis that he had introduced the ghost in his body as he was an Ojha by profession, as such, he could not be recovered from his long ailment. In the same sequence he terrorized that he would kill those, who would come forward. The death was caused in presence of these witnesses who arrived at the place of occurrence from a common house with the lantern carried by the informant which was the natural conduct of the kith and kins, who went there on the screaming of Nam Singh but latter could not be saved and the Appellant succeeded in eliminating his own uncle Nam Singh on trifling matter. The defence raised the discrepancy in the statements of the informant Pokli Devi who in her statement recorded first point in time by way of Fard Bayan had not stated that her minor son Parbhu Singh accompanied his father to attend the feast and that Parbhu Singh rushed there at the place of occurrence on hearing the screaming of his father and witnessed the occurrence. But in her deposition she narrated that Parbhu Singh accompanied his father to the feast and he was very much there at the time of assault by the Appellant. The learned A.P.P. urged that minor discrepancy in the statements of a rustic lady who was under mental trauma and shock on the murder of her husband can be ignored when there appeared elements of truth in her testimony. Otherwise also it was practically possible for the close relations to identify another member of the family by his voice, posture and movement in absence of source of light. It was the definite case of the prosecution that the assailant Agnu Singh @ Bandra was identified in the light of lantern, which was carried by the informant. Pointing out towards the other materials, learned A.P.P. submitted that the assailant Agnu Singh @ Bandra was arrested by the police in presence of the witnesses P.W. 7 Shrawan Rai Kotwar and P.W. 13 Rana Ram Badan Singh, Investigating Officer of the case and many others who were consistent that the Appellant confessed his guilt before them and other witnesses which was recorded in writing and such statement laid to discovery of the severed head from the trunk of Naru Singh, blood smeared axe and blood stained ''Lungi'' to which two separate seizure lists were prepared. The head and trunk of Naru Singh were sent for postmortem examination and the cause of death of Naru Singh can very well be inferred by common sense as the head was severed from the trunk in absence of the statement of the Doctor in the Court, who had held postmortem examination. The prosecution case is well proved and the Trial Court had taken lenient view while awarding sentence of life imprisonment to the Appellant. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence therefore needed no interference.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant as well as the Respondent-State, we find that the Appellant was convicted u/s 302/201 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for his life and two years simple imprisonment on each count for the commission of murder of Naru Singh. The motive was assigned that he was not being cured of his persisting ailment as the ghost was introduced in his body by his deceased uncle, who was professionally an Ojha. We hold it very unfortunate that such superstitious belief and blind faith is still persisting in remote villages out of ignorance and illiteracy and some class of people have firm faith in the existence of ghost.

The death of Naru Singh is not denied and this fact has also not been denied by the independent witnesses also who came out first point in time viz. P.W. 7 Shrawan Rai Kotwar, P.W. 8 Lohra Rai Kotwar and P.W. 9 Kandra Rai Kotwar that be-headed trunk of Naru Singh was found lying at the door of Loha Rai Kotwar. P.W. 8 Lohra Rai Kotwar was consistent that when he came out from his house, he did not find Agnu Singh @ Bandra there except that the son of ''ne deceased Parbhu Singh was raising alarm that Agnu Singh @ Bandra had killed his father.

P.W. 7 Shrawan Rai Kotwar is an important witness on the point of the confessional statement of the accused Agnu Singh @ Bandra, which led to discovery of the severed head and blood smeared axe which was recovered from the cave of Bhawarkhol Burilatha on pointing out by the Appellant. The seizure of such incriminating articles were signed by the witnesses, which were marked Ext. 7 and 7/1 which assume significance being important piece of evidence. The eye-witnesses P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 consistently claimed having seen the occurrence of murder in their presence and participation of the Appellant Agnu Singh @ Bandra therein who committed murder of his own uncle Naru Singh by means of axe and severed his head from the trunk and escaped with the severed head and the axe which was used in murder. This fact has been discussed in foregoing paragraphs.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out discrepancy in the statement of the informant Pokli Devi that there was development made with variation in her substantial evidence before the Trial Judge, who deposed that her minor son Parbhu Singh had accompanied his father whereas in her statement recorded at the first point in time she had stated that her husband Naru Singh had gone to attend the feast alone. To our view, such variation comes in the category of minor discrepancy. The material points for consideration in the instant case is as to whether Parbhu Singh was the eyewitness or not in the given facts and circumstances. In both the circumstances, we are of the view from the evidence of the witnesses that Parbhu Singh was the witness of the first instance having seen the assailant assaulting his father by means of axe. Besides, it is relevant to mention with reference to the statement of. P.W. 8 Lohra Rai Kotwar that when he came out at his door, though he did not find Agnu Singh @ Bandra there but Parbhu Singh was raising alarm that Agnu Singh @ Bandra had killed his father. P.W. 9 Kandra Rai Kotwar though was declared hostile but in the cross-examination he admitted that no sooner did he arrive near the dead body, Agnu Singh @ Bandra had already escaped.

In the facts and circumstances, evidence discussed hereinbefore and arguments made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent-State, we find that no error was committed in convicting the Appellant Agnu Singh @ Bandra for the charge u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant failed to show any reasonable ground and appropriate cause so as to call for interference in the judgment of conviction of the Appellant recorded u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1997 arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 53 of 1995 We do not find merit in this appeal, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.