not been examined in the case appears to be a fault on the part of the I.O., as he has admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any independent witness and for this fault also we cannot discard the evidence of P.W.-1 Sukro Urayan and P.W.-4, Jatru Oraon altogether, particularly in view of the fact that there is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment and without the intension to cause the death of the deceased, cannot be accepted in view of the nature of the injuries found by P.W.-5 Dr. A.D.N. Prasad on the dead body of the deceased, which he has proved, and is also supported by the post-mortem report proved as Exhibit-1. The skull of the deceased was found fractured, the neck injury was deep enough and the cervical vertebra was fractured. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that such injury was caused without any intention to cause the death of the deceased. On the basis of the evidence on record, we find that the offence is clearly made out under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code against these appellants, and it is not a case in which their conviction can be converted into the one, under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against all the three accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgement, calling for any interference by this Court.
