9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the appellants' conviction has been secured on the basis of the testimonies of 3 eye-witnesses PWs- 1, 2 and the informant PW-6. They have categorically testified that while the deceased was coming home by road, Gabrail Samad came there by holding 'Baluwa' and assaulted over the neck of the deceased causing injury resulting into his death but the defence failed to elicit anything to discredit the testimonies of those witnesses and, thereby, even if the Investigating Officer failed to collect earth smeared with blood from the place of occurrence and to prepare a sketch map and also failed to produce the weapon before the Court, it will not affect the case of the prosecution adversely. Further, it was submitted that it is not that the incriminating evidence appearing against the appellants has not been put under Section 313 Cr.P.C., rather the incriminating evidence against the appellants, which was there that they assaulted the deceased with 'Baluwa' have been put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, thereby, it can not be said that statutory provision as contained in Section 313 Cr.P.C was not complied with.
