JUDGMENT 1. This is a jail appeal preferred by Jangir Singh and Nichhatar Singh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated August 8, 1974, by which each of them was convicted under section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case against the appellants was as follows : 3. Pritam Singh, deceased, was a servant of Budh Singh and in that capacity he used to work at the latters agricultural farm, Bachan Singh and Mallu Ram also were engaged as labourers on daily wages by Budh Singh for his work at the farm. At about 7 P. M. on September 7, 1972, Nathu Singh son of Budh Singh, accompanied by Bachan Singh, Mallu Ram and Pritam Singh, deceased left the farm, after finishing tbe work. All of them were going along with a water channel. Bachan Singh and Mallu Ram were moving a little ahead of Nathu Singh and Pritam Singh. On both the sides of the water channel there were standing Arhar crops in the fields. When they hardly gone a few yards from the farm, both the appellants, who were lying in an ambush inside the crops, came out all of a sudden. Nichhatar Singh appellant was armed with an axe while Jangir Singh appellant had a Barcha in his hand. At the sight of Pritam Singh, they made a concerted attack on him and struck blows on his bead with the reverse side of their weapons. As a result of the blows, Pritam Singh fell down and his wounds bled profusely. Nathu Singh, who was with Pritam Singh, raised an outcry which attracted Jalora Singh to the place of occurrence. On hearing his cries, Bachan Singh and Mallu Ram, who were going a little ahead of him, ran away on account of fear. When Jalora Singh came to the place of occurrence, he and Nathu Singh asked the assailants not to beat Pritam Singh, but the latter continued to shower blows on the deceased. When Nathu Singh and Jalora Singh raised a hue and cry, the appellants disappeared from the place of occurrence along with the dead body of Pritam Singh. Nathu Singh and Jalora Singh, thereupon, rushed to the village and related the whole of the incident to Budh Singh, P. W. 4, and other persons in the village. When Nathu Singh and Jalora Singh raised a hue and cry, the appellants disappeared from the place of occurrence along with the dead body of Pritam Singh. Nathu Singh and Jalora Singh, thereupon, rushed to the village and related the whole of the incident to Budh Singh, P. W. 4, and other persons in the village. Some of the villagers went to the place of incident but they could not found there the dead body of Pritam Singh. Nathu Singh then went to the police station, Sangaria, on the next day of the occurrence and lodged a verbal report with the police about the occurrence at 8.30 a. m. The police registered a criminal case under sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. on the basis of the first information report made to them by Nathu Singh and took up usual investigation into the matter. Niranjan Singh, A. S. I. came to the spot, inspected the site, prepared a site inspection memo and a site-plan and arrested the appellants in the evening. After their arrest Jangir Singh and Nichhater Singh furnished separate information's, while in police custody, to Nirarijan Singh, A. S. I. which, later on, led to the recoveries of one Barcha and one axe from their houses respectively. On September 9, 1972, Nachhattar Singh supplied an information to the police about the place where the dead body of Pritam Singh had been concealed by him and Jangir Singh. In pursuance of the above information the dead body was recovered from the field of one Roop Singh at the instance of Nichhattar Singh. The police prepared an inquest report on the dead body and then called for Dr. S. M. Saini, Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Sangaria, to perform post-mortem examination. Dr. S. M. Saini examined the dead body and found the following external injuries on it:- 1. lacerated wound 21/2 x 3/4" bone deep on right parietal region, parietal bone of right side fractured visibally near mid line; 2. lacerated wound 13/4 x 3/4" bone deep on left perietal region, above the left ear, left perietal bone fractured visibally; 3. incised wound 3" x 1/2: bone deep on left leg anteriorly middle part; 4. incised wound 3" x 13/4" If bone deep on left leg anteriorly middle part; 5. bruise with abrasion 3" x 1" on left thigh laterally. lacerated wound 13/4 x 3/4" bone deep on left perietal region, above the left ear, left perietal bone fractured visibally; 3. incised wound 3" x 1/2: bone deep on left leg anteriorly middle part; 4. incised wound 3" x 13/4" If bone deep on left leg anteriorly middle part; 5. bruise with abrasion 3" x 1" on left thigh laterally. Upon dissection of the deep body, he noticed the following internal injuries also:- 1. right perietal bone fractured in mid line from this point fracture proceeds to frontal and parietal bone posteriorly; 2. left parietal bone is also fractured; 3. fronto-parietal joints opened widely through and through; 4. big haematoma was present on the brain underlying the fractures, dursmeter and lepto-mengiges torn off, brain lacerated. 4. In his opinion, death of Pritam Singh occurred due to shock and stoppage of vital functions caused by blunt weapon injuries on brain. The duration of Pritam Singhs death was about two days at the time of post-mortem examination. All the injuries found on the dead body were ante-mortem in nature and external injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The police then sent the clothes of the deceased, the sample of earth and the axe to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner found all the articles positive for blood except unstained earth. Cuttings from the clothes and scrapings from axe were sent to the Serologist also who found them stained with human blood. Niranjan Singh. A. S. I. collected other necessary evidence in the case and, eventually, filed a Chilian against both the appellants under sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. in the court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who, upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Session, committed both the appellants to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for trial for the aforesaid offences. The appellants were, however, tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, as the case was transferred to his court by the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after conclusion of the trial, came to a conclusion upon evidence that both the appellants were guilty of the offence of murder punishable under section 302, I. P. C. and the charges under section 201, I. P. C., against them were not proved. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after conclusion of the trial, came to a conclusion upon evidence that both the appellants were guilty of the offence of murder punishable under section 302, I. P. C. and the charges under section 201, I. P. C., against them were not proved. So he convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the appellants have preferred this jail appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, ; Jodhpur. As the appellants were unrepresented by any counsel, Shri B. Advani was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent them and to argue the appeal on their behalf. 5. We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. B. Advani, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, for the State. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants by Mr. B. Advani that the trial Judge committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence of murder. It was further urged by him that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence was highly discrepant and unworthy of credence and no implicit reliance could reasonably be placed on it. Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of both the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Judge rightly held the appellants guilty of the crime of murder upon evidence given by the eye-witnessess. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. At the outset we may observe that the prosecution has produced as many as four eye-witnesses to prove the connection of both the appellants with the crime. Out of these four witnesses, one is Nathu Singh, P. W. 1. who was going along with the deceased. Immediately preceding the assault made on the latter. His evidence is that when he and Pritam Singh, deceased, were going along with a water channel from the agricultural farm of his father Budh Singh, the two appellants, who were lying in an ambush in a field having cotton crops, all of a sudden, came out and attacked Pritam Singh with the reverse side of an axe and a `Bercha. As a result of the blow dealt by the assailants on his head, Pritam Singh fall down. Nathu Singh, thereupon raised an outcry which attracted Jalora Singh to the place of occurrence. As a result of the blow dealt by the assailants on his head, Pritam Singh fall down. Nathu Singh, thereupon raised an outcry which attracted Jalora Singh to the place of occurrence. Both of them then challenged the appellants but the latter threatened them to kill in case they made an attempt to rescue the deceased. Out of fear Nathu Singh and Jalora Singh rushed to the village and the two appellants disappeared from there along with the dead body of Pritam Singh. The above statement given by Nathu Singh in the trial court appears to be true and reliable, as it has not been shaken at all in cross-examination, and, as it finds support from the evidence of Jalora Singh and Mallu Ram. P. W. 8 in material particulars. Both these witnesses, namely, Jalora Singh and Mallu Ram also claimed to have seen both the appellants causing injuries to the body of the deceased. Bachan Singh, P. W. 2 also is alleged to have eye-witnessed the occurrence, but he admitted in his cross-examination that he could not see the injuries being inflicted on the body of Pritam Singh however definitely stated that Jangir Singh had a Barcha in his hand while Nichhattar Singh had an axe in his hand and that both of them were beating Pritam Singh. The evidence of these four eye-witnesses leaves no doubt in our minds that no other person but the appellants were the assailants who dealt blows on the body of the deceased and thereby caused his instantaneous death. The presence of these eye-witnesses at the place and time of occurrence cannot be doubted because Nathu Singh P.W.l was the son of Budh Singh who had employed Bachan Singh P.W. 2 and Mallu Ram P.W.8 and Pritam Singh, deceased, as labourers to work at his farm. On the farm and after finishing their work they started from there for going to their houses. In the way, the appellants, all of a sudden came out of the field having cotton crops and made a joint attack on Pritam Singh deceased in their presence. Likewise, Jalora Singh's presence at the time and place of occurrence also is beyond dispute, because he reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of Nathu Singh and saw Pritam Singh being beaten by the two appellants. Likewise, Jalora Singh's presence at the time and place of occurrence also is beyond dispute, because he reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of Nathu Singh and saw Pritam Singh being beaten by the two appellants. Apart from this, these four eye-witnesses were not inimical to the appellants and were not in any way interested in the deceased. Upon careful review of their evidence, we found it entirely trustworthy and, in our view, the trial Judge committed no wrong in placing reliance on the testimonies of these witnesses in convicting the appellants for the offence under section 302, I.P.C. 7. The evidence of the eye-witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Dr. S. M. Saini found two lacerated wounds - one on the right parietal region and the other on the left parietal region of the head of the deceased. In the opinion of the Doctor, these two injuries with their internal effects were sufficient to cause the death of Pritam Singh. Nathu Singh, P.W.8, and Jalora Singh, P.W.3, clearly stated in their depositions that these two injuries were caused by the two appellants with the reverse side of their axe and the `Barcha'. The Doctor also opined that these two injuries could be caused by the reverse side of the axe and the Barcha recovered from the house of the appellants. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that the two appellants intended to cause injuries received by the deceased on his head and the intended injuries were found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 8. Mr. B. Advani, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellants, however, contended that the version given by the eye-witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence in regard to the incised wounds on the left leg of the deceased. This contention is based on the fact that amongst five injuries, which were inflicted on the body of the deceased, there were three injuries caused by blunt weapon and two injuries on his leg were caused by sharp-edged weapon. This contention is based on the fact that amongst five injuries, which were inflicted on the body of the deceased, there were three injuries caused by blunt weapon and two injuries on his leg were caused by sharp-edged weapon. According to the version given out by the eye-witnesses, both the appellants dealt blows on the body of the deceased with the reverse sides of their sharp-edged weapons and so according to the learned Amicus Curiae the eye-witnesses could not fully explain all the injuries received by the deceased, because neither the reverse side of the axe used by Nichhattar Singh nor the reverse side of the Barcha used by Jangir Singh could cause incised wound on the left leg of Pritam Singh, deceased. On the basis of this conflict between medical evidence and the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae, is that the story given out by the eye-witnesses must be held unsafe to provide a solid foundation for the conviction of the appellants. We have considered the above contention and found it untenable. It is possible that the eye-witnesses who saw the occurrence from some distance failed to notice that some blows were inflicted by the appellants on the leg of the deceased with the sharp sides of their weapons also. Thus, the conflict pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye-witnesses is of no material significance in this case, especially when two eye-witnesses Nathu Singh and Jalora Singh definitely deposed that the two fatal injuries were caused by the appellants on the parietal regions of the deceased with the reverse sides of their axe and the Barcha. 9. There is another incriminating circumstance which lends support to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The circumstance is the recovery of an axe from the house of Nichhattar Singh at the latter's instance and in consequence of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery of the axe is proved by the evidence of A. S. I. Niranjan Singh, P.W.9 and Motbir Singh, P.W.4. Budh Singh, P.W4, stated in his deposition that Nichhattar Singh went inside his house and brought an axe Ex. 2 and produced it before Niranjan Singh, A.S. I. who took it into his possession vide memo of recovery Ex. P.6. Budh Singh, P.W4, stated in his deposition that Nichhattar Singh went inside his house and brought an axe Ex. 2 and produced it before Niranjan Singh, A.S. I. who took it into his possession vide memo of recovery Ex. P.6. Niranjan Singh A. S. I. also testified to this fact. His statement is that Nichhattar Singh, while in police custody, gave him an information (Ex.P.16) that he had concealed an axe with bamboo handle beneath his cot lying in his house and that he was prepared to get it recovered at his instance. The A. S. I. recorded the above information in a memo Ex.P.6, and, later on, recovered the axe from the house of Nichhattar Singh. The axe was seized and sealed properly, and, later on, sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found it stained with blood. The Chemical Examiner sent scrapping from the axe to the Serologist, who found them stained with human blood. The recovery of the bloodstained axe at the instance of Nichhattar Singh and in consequence of his information is an additional link in the chain of evidence against Nichhattar Singh appellant. The appellants in their statements taken down under section 342, old Cr. P. C. denied to have made a concerted attack on Pritam Singh deceased with the reverse side of an axe and a Barcha. Their mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the cogent and unimpeachable evidence of the eye-witnesses led by the prosecution to prove their guilt. The recovery of the Barcha from the house of Jangir Singh is, however, of no consequences because do blood-stains were found on them. 10. Hence, we find no substantial grounds for disturbing the findings of the trial Judge as to the guilt of both the appellants. The result is that the appeal filed by Nichhattar Singh and Jangir Singh fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants are serving out the sentence imposed on them by the trial court.Appeal dismissed. *******