Kumar Murmu, accused persons will also take life of one person of his family. Learned senior counsel has submitted that as per evidence of the prosecution witnesses, no body has seen the occurrence. It is only after recovery of dead body of the deceased, the F.I.R has been lodged against these appellants with whom the informant has enmity and grudge and that is the reason there is a vital contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1, Subodh Kumar Murmu and P.W.2 Devan Murmu. Both prosecution witnesses, namely, Subodh Kumar Murmu and Devan Murmu have claimed themselves to be eye witnesses to the occurrence but in their deposition the presence of one-another has not proved, as such it is submitted by learned senior counsel that presence of both the witnesses i.e., informant (P.W.1) and his brother Devan Murmu, (P.W.2) at the place of occurrence is not established and proved by the prosecution. Learned senior counsel has submitted that this fact has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, Dasrath Besra, who is none else than the maternal uncle of the informant. This witness has categorically stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence but while deposing as P.W.3, he has categorically stated in the examination-in-chief, that when the occurrence took place, Kapara Murmu (victim) was alone in her house. This fact has subsequently been reiterated by this witness during his cross-examination in paragraph-5. Learned senior counsel has submitted that on the basis of materials brought on record by the prosecution, the victim was alone and none of the brothers i.e., Subodh Kumar Murmu (P.W.1) or Devan Murmu(P.W.2) have seen the occurrence and it is only after the recovery of the dead body of the victim from the Jungle, a concocted prosecution case has been brought before Officer-In-charge, alleging against these appellants. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Ragho Murmu has been examined as P.W.4. He is a seizure-list witness to the effect that food and water mixed with poison, as alleged in the First Information Report, has been seized but neither the forensic report has been brought on record to substantiate the allegation against the accused persons nor seizure-list of the food and water mixed with poison have been brought on record. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that Sapo Mardi (P.W.5) has been tendered by the prosecution. Mr. Maheshwar Prasad, Sub Inspector of Police and Officer-Incharge, who has submitted the charge-sheet in the case has been examined as P.W.6, but from the evidence of P.W.6, it appears that the entire investigation was conducted by another police officer, namely, Mr. V.D.Ram, the then Officer-inCharge, who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant has not been examined
