Short Note : 1. On 22.8.1975 which was Rakhi-day, the appellant had gone to Bhimsingh with an intention to get back his wife Ranki (PW-8). The same day, Ranki brother Nandla had gone there to see his sister. In the night Nandla stayed with Jamsingh Patel (PW-3), who happened to be his relation. At about mid-night, when Nandla was sleeping in the house of Jamsingh (PW-3) on the same cot, five persons came there, two of them with torches guarding the house and the rest three entered the room where Nandla was sleeping with Jamsingh (PW-3) In that torch light, the appellant along with the co-accused Parsingh (now acquitted) rained lathi blows upon Nandla, who was sleeping and due to the injuries he co-accessed and died. Jamsingh (PW-3) also got up from the sleep and when he raised an alarm he was also given a lathi blow by Apsingh. Thereafter all the assailants ran away. Motiram (PW-4) son Jamsingh and Chiroti (PW-5) daughter of Jamsingh, who were also sleeping nearby were aroused by the alarm raised by their father Jamsingh and they also witnessed the incident. 2. The statement of Jamsingh is substantially corroborated by Motiram (PW-4) and Chiroti (PW-5) who have categorically stated that they also saw the appellant giving lathi blows on the person of Nandla. The evidence of these three eye-witnesses appears to be consistent and reliable. 3. The first information report (Ex.P-10) was lodged by Motiram (PW-4) in which while narrating the incident he has named the appellant as one of assailants whom he could identify in the light of the torch. That apart, it being the Rakhi-day, in the early hour the moon-light also must have been sufficiently bright and there could be no difficulty in identifying the appellant as one of the assailants. 4. The prosecution has also led evidence regarding the motive. Admittedly, Nandla's sister Ranki (PW-8) was married to the appellant but had left him and was staying with Tansingh as his wife, obviously the appellant was interested in getting back his wife in which he was unsuccessful and apparently he thought that it was Nandla the deceased who was an obstruction in his way and, therefore, thought it proper to do away with Nandla and it is in this background that he assaulted the deceased Nandla. 5. 5. The direct evidence of the eye-witnesses supported by the medical evidence has clearly established the prosecution case, against the appellant and we see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, which has considered the evidence properly. The presence of the appellant in the village at the relevant time at the house of Jamsingh where the incident took place, does not appear to have been challenged seriously nor the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses indicate any such thing to that effect. Appeal dismissed.