JUDGMENT D. B. Lal, J.—This appeal is brought from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, convicting the appellant Hari Ram (32 years) under section 302,1. P. Code and sentencing him to death. There is the usual reference by the court for confirmation of the death sentence. 2. The prosecution case emerged out of an incident of double murder of two ladies, Smt. Bohari (60 years) and Smt. Geeta (23 years) said to be the mother and wife respectively of the accused Hari Ram. It was stated, that Hari Ram used to object to the two ladies that they should not pay a visit to his maternal uncle Ganga Ram, with whom he has some previous enmity. Despite those protests by Hari Ram it was stated that on 18-M977 at about 3.30 p. m., Bohari, mother of the accused took some ghee in a bag and also took some other articles, and told Hari Ram that she was going to visit Ganga Ram. The accused protested and did not like her to visit the house of Ganga Ram. However, Bohari started with the articles and Geeta the wife of the accused also accompanied her. It was stated that Geeta had to bring some binolas from a shop, while Laxmi the young daughter of Geeta also accompanied her as she had to go to bring grass which was meant for the cattle. While these three ladies proceeded from the house, they had gone upto a distance of about 20 paces, when Hari Ram accused came with an axe and gave two blows on the head of Bohari, which made her fall down on the ground. Thereafter he cbased Geeta and gave three blows on her head, as well as on pinna of the ear. Laxmi, the daughter, had seen this incident. She raised a hue and cry, which attracted the notice of Santa and Abdul Majid, who were working nearby in the fields. They came posthaste running and according to the prosecution, saw the accused throwing away the axe and making good his escape inside the jungle. Laxmi of course narrated the entire incident and also took the name of the assailant before these witnesses. Bohari and Geeta were then lying injured on the spot and soon thereafter they succumbed to their injuries. Thereafter Shiv Ram brother of the deceased Geeta happened to reach the spot. Laxmi of course narrated the entire incident and also took the name of the assailant before these witnesses. Bohari and Geeta were then lying injured on the spot and soon thereafter they succumbed to their injuries. Thereafter Shiv Ram brother of the deceased Geeta happened to reach the spot. He sent for the Surpanch Tulsi Ram who was found coming in the way, and both of them went to P. S. Saddar Bilaspur at a distance of 26 k. m. The first information report of the incident was given by the informant Shiv Ram, who was told about the details of the occurrence by Laxmi. The F. I. R. was recorded by Mehar Singh, S. H, O. at 8.15 p. m- on that very day. He registered a case under section 302 of the I. P. Code. Thereafter the S. H. O. proceeded to the spot and started from the P. S. at about 9.15 p. m. He found the dead bodies lying on the spot and performed the inquests. He also collected blood stained earth and also found the axe Exhibit P. 1 lying on the spot. The blood stained axe as well as the earth Exhibit P. A. were duly recovered and subsequently sent to the Chemical Examiner for report. The Serologist sent report subsequently that the axe Exhibit P. i was found stained with human blood The S. H. O. conducted the usual investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, The accused Hari Ram was found absconding. The two dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination to Bilaspur and Dr. S. S. Guleria performed the two postmortem examinations on 19-2-1977. The doctor found two lacerated wounds on the region of head in the case of Bohari while he found again two lacerated wounds over the head of Geeta and one lacerated wound over the pinna of the ear. According to the doctor these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause their death. During his statement in court the doctor was shown the axe Exhibit P. 1 and in his opinion these injuries could be caused by the blows given by the axe, Exhibit P. 1. Subsequently the accused was traced and he was arrested on 6-3-1977. 3. On these facts and allegations a case under section 302,1. P. C was instituted against the accused Hari Ram. Subsequently the accused was traced and he was arrested on 6-3-1977. 3. On these facts and allegations a case under section 302,1. P. C was instituted against the accused Hari Ram. The defence of the accused was rather nil as he refused to reply any question put to him by the court under section 313, Cr. P. C. Since the accused did not set up any defence we may presume that he claimed innocence of the crime. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 12 witnesses of whom the important ones were the eye witness Laxmi (P. W. 1), and the other two witnesses Sant Ram (P. W. 5) and Abdul Majid (P, W. 6) who came to the spot soon after the occurrence. Shiv Ram (P. W. 7) and Ganga Ram (P. W. 10) were also examined. They had also arrived at the spot and being close relations of the accused stated about the motive which Hari Ram had to commit the murder. Dr. S. S. Guleria (P. W. 2) came to state about the injuries and for the post-mortem examinations conducted by him. Mehar Singh, S. H. O. (P. W. 12) was the Investigating Officer. The accused did not produce any witness. 5. The learned Sessions Judge who tried the case believed the prosecution version and held that Hari Ram was guilty of the offence under section 302, I. P. C. However, he thought that the suitable sentence which could be awarded to him was one of death and accordingly he gave that sentence. The appellant has felt aggrieved of the decision and has preferred this appeal. 6. It is manifest, in the instant case the prosecution essentially relied upon the eye-witness account given by Laxmi (P. W. 1). She stood corroborated in her statement by several, other factors, namely, the depositions of Santa (P. W. 5) and Abdul Majid (P. W. 6), the recovery of the axe Exhibit P.I which was found at the spot and is proved to be thrown by the appellant and which contained human blood, the motive, which the appellant had to commit the murder, and his post conduct of having remained absconding and also the further circumstance that in his defence he did not speak out anything and refused even to answer any question that was put to him by the court. 7. 7. Shri M. L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant contended in the foremost that Laxmi (P. W. 1) could not be relied upon as she was a child witness. But that submission of Shri Sharma may not be correct because Laxmi (P. W. 1) was aged 16 years when she gave her statement. We have gone through the statement of Laxmi (P. W. 1) and we find that she has given an intelligent and coherent account of what she had actually seen at the time of the occurrence. It could not, therefore, be stated that Laxmi (P. W. 1) was a child witness in that sense so that her statement could be considered with any amount of hesitation. It was then stated by Shri Sharma that she was not examined by the Investigating officer on that very day. Rather, the statement of S. H. O. Mehar Singh (P. W. 12) is that she was examined on that very night. It was evident that the Investigating officer reached the spot somewhere in the midnight and the statement of Laxmi must have been recorded during the early hours of the morning and that is why Laxmi (P. W. 1) stated that she was examined by the police on the next day of the occurrence. Shri Sharma then argued that this girl fell into the hands of Shiv Ram (P. W. 7) and Ganga Ram (P. W. 10) and also one Munshi Ram, and, therefore, she could not be believed because these three persons were out to implicate the appellant. Firstly, Laxmi had the occasion to meet Sant Ram (P. W. 5) and Abdul Majid (P. W. 6) who came prior to the visit of these three witnesses. She narrated the entire occurrence to these two witnesses. She also named the assailant- Therefore, it could not be stated that when she gave out the statement before Sant Ram (P. W. 5) and Abdul Majid (P. W. 6) she was under any type of influence from Shiv Ram, Munshi Ram or Ganga Ram. In respect of Ganga Ram it could however be stated that the accused was hatching some enmity against him but nothing of that sort could be stated for Shiv Ram and Munshi Ram who are brothers. In respect of Ganga Ram it could however be stated that the accused was hatching some enmity against him but nothing of that sort could be stated for Shiv Ram and Munshi Ram who are brothers. In fact the statements of the witnesses go to prove that after the arrest of the appellant who was involved in this murder case, the price of the house owned by the appellant and sold by Ganga Ram, was given by the latter to Munshi Ram so that he supported the children of the appellant. It cannot be elucidated in what manner Shiv Ram and Munshi Ram were hostile to the appellant. Above all not one word was asked from Shiv Ram (P. W. 7) or Ganga Ram (P. W. 10) that they were responsible to foist this case of murder upon the appellant. No suggestion was made as to whether these persons were instrumental in bringing out a false case against the appellant. It does not stand to reason that Laxmi (P. W. 1) should have left out the real assailant of her mother and grand-mother and would have without reason implicated her own father Hari Ram. 8. It is abundantly clear that Laxmi (P. W. 1) stands corroborated from the statements of Sant Ram (P. W. 5) and Abdul Majid (P. W, 6). The learned Sessions Judge, however, considered that these two witnesses actually saw the appellant throwing away the axe, Exhibit P.I, and running away inside the jungle. The learned counsel, Shri Sharma, pointed out circumstances which rather indicate that probably these two witnesses could not arrive at the spot 10 soon and hence must not have seen the appellant throwing away the axe or running away inside the jungle. For this Shri Sharma pointed out that according to Laxmi (PW-1) the two witnesses arrived half an hour after the incident. According to her the blows were administered within two minutes. Abdul Majid (PW-6) also stated that he arrived at the spot 25 minutes after he heard the cries of the girl. He had to climb over a hillock all the distance he covered. According to him, Sant Ram (PW-5) arrived almost simultaneously although Sant Ram (PW-5) stated that Abdul Majid (PW-6) arrived somewhat earlier as compared to him. Abdul Majid (PW-6) also stated that he arrived at the spot 25 minutes after he heard the cries of the girl. He had to climb over a hillock all the distance he covered. According to him, Sant Ram (PW-5) arrived almost simultaneously although Sant Ram (PW-5) stated that Abdul Majid (PW-6) arrived somewhat earlier as compared to him. If the two witnesses took about halt an hour to reach the spot it may be doubtful if they could actually seen the appellant throwing away the axe or running away inside the jungle Therefore, in our opinion, the statements of these two witnesses may not be absolutely relied upon in so far as they stated that they saw the assailant on the spot. However, if we concede that the three witnesses, Laxmi, Sant Ram and Abdul Majid could not be so definite while giving the estimate of time, it could be stated that the two witnesses arrived no sooner the appellant left the spot and that they might have got a glimpse of him. At any rate, we have to discard these two statements in so far as the identity of the appellant is required to be established merely on their statements. But there can be no doubt that the statement of Laxmi (PW-1) stands corroborated by the statements of these two witnesses, inasmuch as she narrated the incident and named the assailant before them. 9. The axe, Exhibit P.I, was stated by Laxmi (PW-1) to be thrown by the appellant. It is by this axe, Exhibit P.I that the appellant caused the injuries. Subsequently the reports of the Chemical Examiner as well as of the Serologist indicated that this axe, Exhibit P.I, was besmeared with human blood and as such the recovery of the axe, Exhibit P.I, from the spot and it was obviously lying at the spot as the witnesses have stated, would be a circumstance against the appellant. Then there is a motive for the appellant to have committed the murder. Ganga Ram (PW-10) has clearly stated that the appellant did not allow the ladies to visit his house. Before coming to reside at village Karyatan the appellant resided with Ganga Ram and also constructed a house at that place. Subsequently they fell through and the appellant came to reside in village Karyatan and Ganga Ram even sold the house belonging to the appellant. Before coming to reside at village Karyatan the appellant resided with Ganga Ram and also constructed a house at that place. Subsequently they fell through and the appellant came to reside in village Karyatan and Ganga Ram even sold the house belonging to the appellant. The price of that house was paid to Munshi Ram after this occurrence of murder. Ganga Ram (PW-10) stated that the appellant did not like live with him and some enmity developed. Thereafter the appellant left the village of Ganga Ram and started living at Karyatan. Apparently, he did not allow the family members to visit the house of Ganga Ram. Since the two deceased ladies insisted to visit Ganga Ram. the objection was raised by the appellant. Laxmi (PW-1) stated that at the prior occasions also, the ladies used to visit the house of Ganga Ram, and the appellant had his objection to that. There was a marriage at village Chhadol and the deceased had gone there. According to Laxmi (PW-1) the appellant had objected to their visit at that occasion also. It is also manifest that these ladies were carrying some articles for Ganga Ram and Bohari deceased was carrying some ghee. That was another cause for objection by the appellant. He even tried to snatch away the bag containing ghee as stated by Laxmi (PW-1). Suggestions were made to Laxmi (PW-1) that the appellant used to ask these deceased ladies as to where they had kept the money given by him, Another suggestion was made to Laxmi (PW-1) that the appellant had an objection that Bohari used to give money to Ganga Ram his enemy. Shiv Ram (PW-7) stated for the price of the house paid to Munshi Ram, although that was done with a good motive as the children of the appellant were to be maintained. Shiv Ram (PW-7), however, denied the suggestion that the appellant used to object that articles were taken by the deceased ladies to Shiv Ram and Munshi Ram. At any rate, it was proved beyond doubt by the statement of this witness that the appellant objected to the visit of these ladies at the house of Ganga Ram. Since they insisted for the visit and there was obviously much bad blood between the appellant and Ganga Ram, he got enraged and perpetrated this assault. Thus there was a motive for the appellant to commit the murder. Since they insisted for the visit and there was obviously much bad blood between the appellant and Ganga Ram, he got enraged and perpetrated this assault. Thus there was a motive for the appellant to commit the murder. The post conduct of the appellant was also self-revealing. He remained absconding for over a fortnight. When put up for trial he refused to answer any question that was put to him by the trial Judge. These were again the circumstances against him. 10. Shri Sharma then contended that Jandi and Ram Pal were present probably at the house of appellant and as such they should have been examined by the prosecution. For this it has to be stated that these two persons may not necessarily be eye-witnesses. The incident took place some 20 paces outside the house while the two ladies were going towards the house of Ganga Ram. Jandi and Ram Pal if present inside the house of the appellant may not have seen the incident. Besides not one question was asked from the S. H. O. Mehar Singh (PW-12) as to whether he examined these two persons and if not what was the reason for the same. Similarly nothing can be derived from the statement of Laxmi (PW-1) that these two persons had also seen the occurrence. It is manifest, the prosecution is only required to produce such witnesses who assist in unfolding the prosecution story and any other category of witnesses who do not assist in unfolding the prosecution story would not be necessary witnesses. Multiplicity in examination of witnesses, who do not in any manner add to or subtract from what has been stated by the witnesses is always to be avoided. If Laxmi (PW-1) was the only eyewitness and Sant Ram (PW-3) and Abdul Majld (FW-6) were the two others who could reach the spot at the earliest, in our opinion, these three witnesses were sufficient to unfold the prosecution story. As such it could not be stated that Jandi or Ram Pal actually saw the incident or that they were at all necessary witnesses. At any rate, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution because these two persons were not examined. 11. As such it could not be stated that Jandi or Ram Pal actually saw the incident or that they were at all necessary witnesses. At any rate, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution because these two persons were not examined. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant Shri Sharma contended in the last, that the facts and circumstances made out in the case, hardly justify a death sentence, we are, however, conscious of the position in which the appellant seemed to have been placed. Obviously there was much enmity between him and Ganga Ram and the deceased ladies were all the time insisting that they would be visiting the house of Ganga Ram. There is also a suggestion that some money used to be given by the ladies to Ganga Ram. Some articles, including ghee, were also being taken by these ladies as gift to him. At the previous occasion also the appellant had objected that the ladies should not visit the house of Ganga Ram. It is also apparent that the appellant constructed a house in the village of Ganga Ram and the said house was sold by Ganga Ram although the price was subsequently paid to Munshi Ram for the benefit of the children. Under the circumstances, when the ladies insisted to go for a visit to Ganga Ram, and Geeta obviously supported her mother-in-law and went to leave her for some distance, the appellant became infuriated and thought to make an attack upon them. He inflicted 4/5 blows by the axe, Exhibit P. 1. Decidedly it was not a pre-planned murder nor can it be stated that it was cold blooded. The occasion no doubt invited the attack due to unfortunate past history. Therefore, we consider that the death penalty awarded by the learned trial Judge was rather on the extreme and the circumstances of the case did not ask for that penalty. We, therefore, propose to cho3se the lesser penalty for the appellant. Accordingly we modify the death sentence to life imprisonment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with this modification that the appellant shall stand convicted for the charge under section 302,1. P. C. but shall be sentenced to life imprisonment. 12. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge is accordingly rejected. Appeal dismissed.