with injury and they had also seen the accused kept apprehended by the villagers, who was produced before the police and the accused himself produced the axe from his house before the police, which was the weapon of offence, which fact is also supported by the I.O. of the case, P.W.-9 Madan Mohan Singh, in his cross-examination. We also find from the record that the deceased, accused and the witnesses are closely related, in as much as, it is admitted by P.W.-8 Nikani Hansda that the accused was related as his brother-in-law and P.W.-3 Dhiren Hansda has also stated that the accused was related to him as his uncle. P.W.-1 Sona Ram Hansda is nephew of the deceased and he is equally related with the deceased as well as the informant. There is no evidence of any enmity between P.W.-1 Sona Ram Hansda and the accused, and this witness has also fully supported the prosecution case. As such, there is no chance of false implication of the accused. The evidence of P.W.-10 Dr. Y. Nath and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-5, fully corroborates the evidence of the informant eye-witness and the other hearsay witnesses and it shows there were two incised wounds on the head of the deceased, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses on the point of reason of enmity between the parties, i.e., enmity for liquor or enmity for fishing, or non-production of the weapon of offence in the Court, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that P.W.-1 Sona Ram Hansda has stated that he had informed the police at the Police Station, but that information has been withheld by the prosecution, which ought to have been treated as the F.I.R. in the case, is also of no help to the defence, as P.W.-1 Sona Ram Hansda himself has stated that the information given by him was not recorded. Even the evidence of the I.O., P.W.-9 Madan Mohan Singh, shows that only sanha entry was made about that information. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused Sitaram Tudu beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality / irregularity in the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence, passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court.
