JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Ganesh son of Kalu, resident of village Hali Heda, Police Station Patan, district Bundi was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi under section 302 I. P. C. for the murder of one Shanker resident of the same village, alleged to have been committed on March 21, 1975 at 1.30 p.m. at deceaseds own house. By his judgment, dated March 17, 1977, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty under section 304 Part II instead of section 302 I. P. C. He convicted and sentenced him thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The first information report in the case was lodged by Mst. Goran P.W. 11 on March 21, 1975 at 5 p. m. on the allegations that the appellant had attacked her husband in their house and inflicted a number of injuries with a weapon described as Khanita. She told the police that the appellant harboured ill-will against her husband having permitted Mst. Phoolan, a widow, to reside in his house. The appellant, it is alleged, wanted Mst. Phoolan, to take up residence with him instead of the deceased. The appellant apprehended that if Mst. Phoolan continued her residence with the deceased the latter would be able to grab her land to the exclusion of the appellant. The story goes that the appellant and the deceased had quarrelled over this matter on a number of previous occasions. It is alleged that the appellant had threatened the deceased with death. On the fateful afternoon i.e. on March 21, 1975, at about 1.30 p. m. Shanker was lying in a cot spread under a tree in his `Bara' (out house). The appellant came there armed with a `Khanita' which is a sort of a sharp-edged and pointed weapon with a long wooden handle. He inflicted a number of blows to the deceased with this weapon. Hearing theories of the deceased, Mst. Goran, wife of the deceased came out of her house and saw the appellant inflicting the injuries to the deceased. She also saw the Khanita breaking loose from the wooden handle and falling on the ground. The appellant thereafter struck more blows to the deceased with the wooden handle. Mst. Goran raised hue and cry. Hearing the same Mangilal Meena, Mangiial Gujar and Bala Gujar reached there. Later, more persons ftom the village arrived at the scene of the occurrence. 3. The appellant thereafter struck more blows to the deceased with the wooden handle. Mst. Goran raised hue and cry. Hearing the same Mangilal Meena, Mangiial Gujar and Bala Gujar reached there. Later, more persons ftom the village arrived at the scene of the occurrence. 3. Shanker who had thus been grievously wounded and was unconscious was carried in a bullock cart to police station Patan. He was taken from there to the Civil Hospital, Bundi. Mst. Goran lodged the first information report at the police station before going to the hospital. 4. Dr. K. Lal, P. W. 8, examined the injured at 8-30 p. m. that evening, and found 8 injuries on his person. He also noticed that he was restless and irritable. He found that the injured was not fit to make any statement. Shanker succumbed to his injuries on March 23, 1975. Dr. Lal conducted the post mortem examination that evening and found the following external injuries on the dead body. 1. Incised wound 2"x 1/4"x ⅓" oblique left side of fore-head in hairline. 2. Incised wound l"x 1/2"x 1/2" transverse angle of the left mandible. 3. Incised wound 2"x 3/4"x 3/4" first down, then out behind left ear. 4. Punched out incised wounds (two) 1/2" x 1/2"x 1" and 1"x 1/2 x 3/4 on lateral side and back of left upper arm respectively. 5. Bruise 10"x 3/4" oblique in left chest from left shoulder to epigastrium. On internal examination he found the following injury:- 1. A communicated depressed fracture of left parietal bone near its joint with frontal bone below and behind the external injury No. 1. A big haematoma below duramatter at the same site infiltrating anteriorly and posteriorly. Chocolate blue colour clot is of about 3"x 2"x 1" in the centre. 2. There was congestion of vessels black and thick full of blood at the site of haematoma, in the brain. Dr. Lal recorded the opinion that Shanker died of head injury caused by hit on the left side of the head resulting in fracture of the skull bone subdural haematoma pressing the brain. 5. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a report for committal proceedings against the appellant preparatory to his trial under section 302 I. P. C. 6. Lal recorded the opinion that Shanker died of head injury caused by hit on the left side of the head resulting in fracture of the skull bone subdural haematoma pressing the brain. 5. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a report for committal proceedings against the appellant preparatory to his trial under section 302 I. P. C. 6. On committal to the court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge as already stated, tried the accused under section 302 I. P. C. He recorded the statements among others, of PWs Rameshwar son of Ganpat, Gendilal, Ramesh son of Shanker deceased. Mangilal Gujar, Dr. K. Lal, Moolchand alias Moolia and Mst. Goran widow of Shanker deceased. By and large, these witnesses supported the prosecution case as narrated above. 7. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied the allegations made against him and complained that the witnesses produced against him were on inimical terms with him for one reason or the other. He pleaded that once he caught red-handed Shanker deceased and the wife of PW Moolchand alias Moolia in a compromising position and that Moolia had falsely implicated him in this case so that he may not disclose that incident to anyone and thus spoil his reputation in the village. 8. Relying on the evidence produced, the learned trial Judge held that the appellant had inflicted injuries to Shanker deceased in the latter's `Bara' on March 21,1975, at about 1.30 p.m. and that Shanker died thereafter on March 23, as a result of those injuries. He, therefore, convicted the appellant under section 304 Part II I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. 9. In this appeal by Ganesh his counsel amicus curiae Shri Ranveer Singh has taken me through the record in an attempt to point out that the entire evidence to be relied upon by the trial court is of a suspicious character and, therefore, reserves to be ignored. He submitted that the story put up in the trial is materially at variance with the story as disclosed in the first information report. It will be recalled that according to the first information report the occurrence had been witnessed by, besides PW. Mst. Goran, wife of the deceased Mangilal Gujar, Mangilal Meena and Bala Gujar. He submitted that the story put up in the trial is materially at variance with the story as disclosed in the first information report. It will be recalled that according to the first information report the occurrence had been witnessed by, besides PW. Mst. Goran, wife of the deceased Mangilal Gujar, Mangilal Meena and Bala Gujar. The case sought to be established by the prosecution in the course of the trial was that these witnesses had in fact arrived at the scene of occurrence after the appellant had already made good his escape. It is alleged that the occurrence was in fact witnessed by Moolchand alias Moolia, the barber and a child namely, Ramesh son of the deceased. 10. There is no denying the fact that the names of Moolchand alias Moolia and Ramesh have not been mentioned in the first information report as eye witnesses I of the occurrence. Instead, the names mentioned in that context in the first information report are Mangilal Meena, Mangilal Gujar and Bala Gujar. It appears that it was only on March 22, i. e. the day following the occurrence that the Investigating Officer discovered the truth about the presence at the scene of occurrence of PWs Moolchand alias Moolia and Ramesh. I am not prepared to discard the evidence of these witnesses merely because Mst. Goran, for one reason or the other, did not disclose their names in the first information report as eye-witnesses. 11. PW Moolchand alias Moolia testified that he was present in the `Bara' of the deceased at the time of the occurrence and giving a hair cut to the deceaseds son, namely, Ramesh at a distance of nearly 2 or 3 yards from the place where the deceased was lying in a cot. He further stated that he saw the appellant coming there and attacking the deceased with a Prania having a Khanita fixed to one of its ends. He further stated that after the appellant had struck 3 or 4 Khanita blows to the deceased, he ran towards the deceased raising a hue and cry. The appellant then ran away from there. According to him, Gendilal and Mst. Goran, father and widow, respectively, of the deceased arrived there on hearing the hue and cry raised by him. 12. He further stated that after the appellant had struck 3 or 4 Khanita blows to the deceased, he ran towards the deceased raising a hue and cry. The appellant then ran away from there. According to him, Gendilal and Mst. Goran, father and widow, respectively, of the deceased arrived there on hearing the hue and cry raised by him. 12. PW Gendilal, father of the deceased, has testified that he was sitting on a Chabutra near his house where PW Moolchand alias Moolia came to him crying and saying that Ganesh (appellant) had killed Shanker. He further stated that he then went to the `Bara' and saw the appellant striking the blows to Shanker deceased and that the appellant ran away from there only after he challenged him. 13. Sizing up the evidence of this Gendilal, I am of opinion, that he could not have possibly witnessed the occurrence, for he was informed about it only after the injuries had been inflicted and the deceased had, as a result, fallen down. The appellant must have disappeared from the scene by the time Gendilal reached there on getting information from Moolia. 14. Similarly, Mangilal Gujar, Mangilal Meena, Bala Gujar and Mst. Goran appear to have reached the scene of occurrence after it was all over and the culprit had run away. Mst. Goran who is an illiterate woman and who must have been in a state of shock as a result of the tragedy which had befallen on her acted over-zealously in mentioning the names of the persons who had arrived at the scene of occurrence after the appellant had disappeared from there as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The case of the prosecution cannot be thrown over board merely because of the confusion resulting from the statements of Mst. Goran and Gendilal. 15. Going back to the statement of PW Moolchand alias Moolia, I am of the considered opinion that he is a type of witness on whose sworn word one can safely place implicit reliance. It will be seen that he is working as a barber in the village and cannot therefore be accused of partiality for one side and bias against the other. Persons working in petty professions like barbers, carpenters, blacksmiths in a village can ill afford to take sides. They would come forward to testify in a case only out of compulsions of conscience and truth. Persons working in petty professions like barbers, carpenters, blacksmiths in a village can ill afford to take sides. They would come forward to testify in a case only out of compulsions of conscience and truth. The learned trial Judge was therefore fully justified in relying on the evidence of PW Moolchand alias Moolia. 16. Moolia's evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of Ramesh a child 11 years of age. It is true that Ramesh happens to be the unfortunate son of Shanker deceased and as uch his evidence has to be examined with extra care and caution. Ramesh has supported Moolia's testimony that at the time of the occurrence Moolia was giving him a hair cut in the Bara near the place where Shanker deceased lying and waiting for his turn for a hair cut. Ramesh has further stated that he saw appellant Ganesh striking Khanita blows to his father and that when Moolia went to his fathers rescue the appellant threatened him and thus kept him away. Ramesh further stated that it was only after Moolia had raised a hue and cry that others arrived at the scene of occurrence. Incidentally it may be mentioned here that, even according to Ramesh, PW Gendilal arrived there only after the appellant had run away from there. He further stated that his mother Mst. Goran arrived there after Gendilal had already arrived. This would i confirm the finding given in an earlier part of this judgment that Gendilal and Mst. Goran could not have possibly witnessed the appellant giving blows to Shanker deceased. 17. The story adumbrated by the appellant in his statement under section 323 Cr. P. C. that Moolchand alias Moolia, the barber, has falsely implicated him in this case because Moolia fears that he would otherwise disclose to others the incident of Moolias wife having been seen by him in a compromising position with Shanker deceased sometime before the present occurrence, is in the nature of a fairy tale and, therefore, cannot be given much credence. Moolia cannot possibly apprehend the appellant from spreading the story, true or false, by falsely implicating the appellant in this case. 18. All said and done, PWs Moolchend alias Moolia and Ramesh are wholly reliable witnesses and they prove that the appellant inflicted the fatal blows to Shanker deceased. Moolia cannot possibly apprehend the appellant from spreading the story, true or false, by falsely implicating the appellant in this case. 18. All said and done, PWs Moolchend alias Moolia and Ramesh are wholly reliable witnesses and they prove that the appellant inflicted the fatal blows to Shanker deceased. PW Mangilal Gujar who reached the spot shortly after the occurrence has testified that he saw the appellant going away towards the Khaliyan. This would also lend support to the testimony of PWs Moolia and Ramesh that the appellant had run away from the spot after inflicting injuries to the deceased. 19. As already stated, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under section 304 Part II I. P. C. There is no doubt whatever that the appellant caused the death of Shanker by inflicting a number of blows to him including the fatal blow on the head, the sentence awarded is by no means excessive. 20. For all these reasons there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******