JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Appellant has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accused was originally a resident of village Todra of which the deceased was the gountia. He left the village about 15 years ago and settled in the district of Raipur in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He abandoned his land which lay fallow for some years. So the deceased gountia cultivated the same. In the morning of 18-4-1964, the accused was found ploughing the land with a plough borrowed from his son-in-law (p.w.7). At about 8 A. 1\'1. the deceased noticed the forcible cultivation by the accused. He went to the field and appeared to have lodged a protest. There seems to be some altercation. 'When the deceased was returning, the accused caught hold of his waist and threw him down. With the help of the Tangia (M.O. I) he indiscriminately assaulted the deceased as a result of which the latter met with instantaneous death. The defence was one of denial. The accused admits to have gone upon the land and cultivated the same. He admits that he left the village for a number of years. According to him, the deceased was cultivating his land on terms of Bhag and not after the accused abandoned the land. He denies to have murdered the deceased. 2. The learned Sessions Judge held that the accused indiscriminately assaulted the deceased with an axe and that the deceased had instantaneous death on the spot. That the death was homicidal as a result of cruel attack on the deceased by infliction of several blows with a sharp cutting axe is not disputed. The only point for consideration is whether the accused killed the deceased. 3. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of three eye-witnesses (p. ws. 8 to 10). P. ws. 9 and 10 are child witnesses of 7 years old. Both of them say that they cannot identify the man who killed the deceased. Their evidence, if accepted, would only establish that they saw somebody killing the deceased On their evidence it cannot be held that the accused killed the deceased. It is regrettable that the learned Sessions Judge did not notice their answers in the judgment The evidence of p.w.8 is fully acceptable. Their evidence, if accepted, would only establish that they saw somebody killing the deceased On their evidence it cannot be held that the accused killed the deceased. It is regrettable that the learned Sessions Judge did not notice their answers in the judgment The evidence of p.w.8 is fully acceptable. We have gone through his evidence with meticulous care and are satisfied that he is a witness of truth. He deposes that he saw the accused indiscriminately assaulting the deceased as a result of which the latter met with instantaneous death. Some criticisms have been levelled against his evidence as to the distance from which he saw and if he could at all see the murder due to defective vision. On a careful scrutiny of his evidence it appears that he is an old man of 60 and has no accurate idea of time and space. We are not impressed with the argument that his evidence is liable to be discarded on the ground that he could not have seen the occurrence from a distance of about 160 cubits in broad day-light. His evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of p. ws. 2 and 5. On being informed by p.w.8 that the accused killed the gountia, p.w.2 ran to the spot shouting that the gountia had been killed and found the accused unyoking the plough bullocks and running away. On being challenged, the accused admitted before him that he had killed the deceased. P.w.5 saw the accused running away. He also deposes to the fact that the accused admitted before him that he killed the gountia. Their evidence has not been shaken by cross-examination. The accused himself produced the Tangia (M.O. I) at the police station. The I.O. seized a dhoti and a genji (M. Os. II and III respectively) from the body of the accused. On serological test M. Os. I to III were found to contain human blood. After having given anxious consideration we are satisfied that the evidence of p.w.8 stating that the accused killed the deceased is true. The prosecution case had been established beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is well founded. 4. We have heard a number of criminal appeals against the judgments of Sri. R.C. Kar last week. After having given anxious consideration we are satisfied that the evidence of p.w.8 stating that the accused killed the deceased is true. The prosecution case had been established beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is well founded. 4. We have heard a number of criminal appeals against the judgments of Sri. R.C. Kar last week. We cannot part with this case without observing that in almost every case we noticed the fact that while the witnesses are confronted u/s 145, Evidence Act, with their previous statements before the police, the learned possessions Judge does not appear to keep the Case Diary by his side to check up whether in fact contradictions arose. Most often he allows inadmissible questions to be put. The questions that are put to the witnesses do not tally with the statements in the Case Diary and with the questions put to the I.O. It would be profitable to give an illustration. Before the police, Ganesram Mali (p.w.5) stated as follows: He (Ganesh) saw him (accused) running.... But the accused told him that he had murdered one. If he would come near him he will face the same result as Gountia had. In examination-in-chief p.w.5 stated I saw the accused running away.... He told me that he had killed the gountia. In cross-examination the answer elicited from him was It is not a fact that I have not stated before the police that I had seen the accused running and he had told me that he had killed the gountia. It would thus appear that there is no contradiction in the statements of p.w.5 before the police and the Court. When the defence lawyer put the question to p.w.5 that he did not state before the police that he had seen the accused running and that the accused did not tell him that he had killed the gountia, the learned Sessions Judge should have scrutinised the Case It is also noticed that though the learned Sessions Judge himself records deposition, he over-looks some of the essential infirmities to be discussed and noticed in the judgment. To give an instance, though the eye-witnesses p. ws. To give an instance, though the eye-witnesses p. ws. 9 and 10 stated that they were not in a position to identify the person who killed the deceased, the learned Session Judge did not refer to their admissions and concluded that their evidence was acceptable to establish murder having been committed by the accused. It gives us the least satisfaction to be addressed with an argument that even Sessions Judges do not exercise proper control and do not evince interest in the conduction of cases. 5. For reasons already stated, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Barman, A.C.J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed