Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that on the basis of Fardbeyan of P.W.1, Smt. Amrita Dhanwar, wife of the deceased, recorded by A.S.I, Danial Kujur on 2.3.2009 at 13.40 Hours at the house of the informant, the prosecution has set into motion. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that in the First Information Report, the informant has categorically stated that Vijay Dhanwar and Chhote Lal Mahto had gone to watch Murga Para game on 1.3.2009 and while they were returning after taking toddy, some dispute cropped up between her husband, Vijay Dhanwar and Chhote Lal Mahto (accused), due to which Vijay Dhanwar pushed Chhote Lal Mahto, causing minor injury. Because of the said act of Vijay Dhanwar, Chhote Lal Mahto in anger took out Tangi from his house, came to the house of informant and assaulted the husband of the informant, who was sitting with his wife, in the courtyard of his house causing injury resulting into death of Vijay Dhanwar at the spot. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Chhote Lal Mahto, after killing Vijay Dhanwar has fled away with Tangi, which was subsequently recovered from the house of the appellant, seizure-list of the same has been proved and marked as Ext.-1/2. Leaned State counsel has submitted that P.W.2.-Sanika Dhanwar, sister of the deceased, P.W.3-Budhu Oraon, P.W.4-Chetan Dhanwar, nephew of the deceased, P.W.5- Sheetal Dhanwar, another nephew of the deceased and P.W.6-Vishwanath Oraon, elder brother of the deceased have been examined in this case and they have supported the version of the informant. Learned State counsel has submitted that the Investigating Officer has been examined in this case as P.W. 7, Edward Jenus Hansda. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in the statement of the informant recorded in the Fardbeyan as well as her evidence recorded as P.W.-1, there is no contradiction in the prosecution case coupled with the fact that the injury found on the person of the deceased as mentioned in the postmortem report, which has been proved and marked as Ext.-4, under Section 294 Cr.P.C as the conducting doctor had died during the pendency of trial, are consistent to each other and as such there is an oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence which does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court.
