JUDGMENT 1. This is a jail appeal preferred by Budhiya alias Budh Singh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated August 27, 1973, by which he was convicted under sections 302,435 and 447 I. P. C. and sentenced to, undergo imprisonment for life on the first count, on the second to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and on the third to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences on all the counts were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution, case against the appellant was that on November 28, 1972 at about 4 p. m. he committed criminal trespass on the field of Ratansingh and, inflicted several blows in quick succession with an axe on his body while the latter was sleeping on a cot at his well and thereby caused his death and thereafter committed mischief by setting fire to the heap of straw lying in the field of the deceased. The incident was eye-witnessed by Mst. Nain Kanwar, P. W. 1 and Antar Kanwar, P. W. 2 who are daughters and wife of Ratan Singh's younger brother respectively and who were working at the well at the time of occurrence, The appellant after committing the crimes was seen running away by Dharam Singh, P. W. 4 and Veera, P. W. 8, who ran after him for some distance but came back to the place of occurrence when threatened by him with dire consequences. According to the prosecution, the motive on the part of the appellant to commit these crimes was that prior to the occurrence, the deceased suspected him to be a thief of his radio-transistor and asked him not to pass through his fields in future. 3. A report of this incident was lodged with the police at police station, Sumerpur, District Pali by Ram Singh, P. W. 3. On the basis of the report, the police registered a criminal case under section 302, I. P. C. and made the usual investigation into the matter. In the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested on December 6, 1972. After his arrest, the appellant, while in the police custody, gave the Station House Officer, Sumerpur, an information which led to recoveries of broken pieces of a transistor, a blanket and `Dhoti'. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was wearing one `shirt' and `Dhoti' and one scarf on his body. After his arrest, the appellant, while in the police custody, gave the Station House Officer, Sumerpur, an information which led to recoveries of broken pieces of a transistor, a blanket and `Dhoti'. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was wearing one `shirt' and `Dhoti' and one scarf on his body. As the clothes were suspected to have stains of blood on them, they were taken off his body and seized by the police and sealed in the presence of Motbirs. An axe also was recovered from the possession of the appellant and seized by the police as it also had some stains of blood on it. The clothes of the deceased and the appellant were sent to the Chemical Examiner and to the Serologist for analysis. The Chemical Examiner found the clothes of the deceased i. e. Shirt, Dhoti and Banian positive for blood. The Serologist also reported that cuttings from Dhoti, shirt and towel of the appellant were stained with human blood. The scrapping from axe recovered from the possession of the appellant contained disintegrated blood-stains on them Stuli?. so their origin could not be determined. The post-mortem examination over the dead body of Ratan Singh was performed by Dr. Suga Chand Jain at village Pomava on November 29, 1972. Upon examination, the Doctor found the following ante-mortem external injuries on me dead body : 1. incised wound 6"x 3"x 3" over the front of the right side of the neck; 2. incised wound 3'x 2"x 2" over the left side of neck 1/2" above the left clavicle; 3. incised wound 3 x 1/2"x 2" over the left side of neck 1/2" below the left ear lobule. 4. incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the right side of neck just above the middle of the right clavicle; 5. incised wound 1 x 1/4"x 1/4" over the outer aspect of the dorsum of the right hand near the base of the right thumb; 6. incised wound 1 x 1/4"x 1/4" over the front of the left shoulder joint. 4. On dissection of the dead body, the Doctor further found that fascia, carotid muscles and carotid vessels were cut transversely. The tranche and oesophagus were cut transversely and the pupils were dilated. There were fractures of the thyroid, crecoid cartilages and thyroid bones. incised wound 1 x 1/4"x 1/4" over the front of the left shoulder joint. 4. On dissection of the dead body, the Doctor further found that fascia, carotid muscles and carotid vessels were cut transversely. The tranche and oesophagus were cut transversely and the pupils were dilated. There were fractures of the thyroid, crecoid cartilages and thyroid bones. In the opinion of the Doctor, Ratan Singh died due to shock caused by external haemorrhage as a result of cutting of the carotid vessels by a sharp-edged weapon. According to the Doctor, injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were individually sufficient to cause the death of Ratan Singh in the ordinary course of nature. The Doctor further opined that the injuries could have been caused by an axe such as Ex. 11. 5. The police collected other necessary evidence in the case against the appellant and on completion of investigation filed a charge-sheet against him in the court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Bali, under section, 302, 435 and 447 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate conducted an inquiry, preparatory to commitment, and upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, commuted the appellant to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, for trial for the aforesaid offences. The Additional Sessions Judge tried the appellant and found him guilty of all the charges framed against him at trial and sentenced him in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by his convictions and sentences the appellant has preferred this appeal through the jail authorities. As the appellant was not in a position to engage a lawyer, to argue the appeal on his behalf, this Court appointed Mr. B. Advani as Amicus Curiae to appear and argue this appeal on his behalf. 6. We have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. B. Advani, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Mr. S. L. Mardia, Public Prosecutor, for the State. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and the trial Judge committed an error in placing reliance on the testimony of the two eye-witnesses for holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302, 435 and 447,1.P.C. Mr. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and the trial Judge committed an error in placing reliance on the testimony of the two eye-witnesses for holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302, 435 and 447,1.P.C. Mr. S. L. Mardia, Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that there is cogent and unimpeachable evidence from the side of the prosecution on the record to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. It was further urged that the appellant himself admitted to have murdered Ratan Singh in his statements recorded by the committing court and the trial Judge and so no interference by this Court with the findings of the trial Judge as to the guilt of the appellant is justified on any reasonable score. 7. We have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. Upon careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on the record, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that no other person but the appellant was responsible for causing fatal injuries to Ratan Singh deceased with an axe after committing trespass on his land and for committing mischief by setting fire to the heap of straw belonging to the deceased. The prosecution has led reliable evidence of Nain Kanwar, P.W. 1, and Antar Kanwar, P. W. 2, to prove the connection of the appellant with the crimes of criminal trespass, murder and mischief by fire. Mst. Nain Kanwar, P. W. 1 clearly stated in her deposition that she was fetching water to her house from a tank situated at her well and her grand-uncle Ratan Singh was sleeping on a cot near a room where the machine for drawing water had been installed. When she was entering her house with a bucket full of water, she saw the appellant coming towards her well. She again went to the water tank for fetching water and when she was returning with the bucket full of water, she saw the appellant striking a blow on the neck of Ratan Singh with an axe. On seeing Ratan Singh being beaten by the appellant, Mst. Nain Kanwar raised an out-cry which attracted her mother Mst. Antar Kanwar, P. W. 2, to the place of occurrence. Her mother also cried aloud. On seeing Ratan Singh being beaten by the appellant, Mst. Nain Kanwar raised an out-cry which attracted her mother Mst. Antar Kanwar, P. W. 2, to the place of occurrence. Her mother also cried aloud. The appellant then ran away towards the heap of straw lying in the field of the appellant with his axe and on reaching there committed mischief by applying burning match stick to the heap of straw which immediately caught fire. The evidence of Mst. Nain Kanwar finds corroboration from the testimony of her mother Mst. Antar Kanwar in all material particulars. Mst. Antar Kanwar P. W. 2, also stated on oath that she saw the appellant striking two three blows in quick succession on the body of Ratan Singh with an axe. She further claimed to have seen the appellant applying burning match stick to the heap of straw as a result of which straw caught fire. Both these witnesses were cross-examined in the trial court by the Amicus Curiae for the appellant but nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination which may tend to destroy the value of their evidence or to impeach their credit. It is no doubt true that these two eyewitnesses are closely related to the deceased, but their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased, especially when their evidence has been found entirely credible upon close scrutiny. 8. The prosecution has led further evidence of Dharam Singh, P. W. 4 and Veera, P. W. 7 to lend assurance to the testimonies of the two eye-witnesses, P. W. 4 Dharam Singh was present in his field which is situated near the field of Ratan Singh in which the crimes were committed by the appellant. His evidence is that at the time of the occurrence he was getting his well dug. In the after noon he saw fire breaking out in the field of Ratan Singh. So he rushed to Ratan Singh's field to extinguish the fire. At that time he saw Budhiya appellant running away with an axe in his hand. Dharam Singh ran after the appellant as the latter was about to burn another heap of straw. Dharam Singh, however, could not overtake the appellant, who succeeded in making good his escape. Similar, is the evidence of P. W. 7 Veera. At that time he saw Budhiya appellant running away with an axe in his hand. Dharam Singh ran after the appellant as the latter was about to burn another heap of straw. Dharam Singh, however, could not overtake the appellant, who succeeded in making good his escape. Similar, is the evidence of P. W. 7 Veera. There is another witness Bardha who also saw the appellant running away at some distance from the place of occurrence. The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in proving that the appellant was seen running and carrying away an axe in his hand at some distance from the place of incident immediately after the occurrence. 9. There is another important piece of evidence which provides an additional link in the chain of evidence against the appellant. The circumstance is that at the time of his arrest the appellant was found wearing a Shirt, a Dhoti and a scarf on his body which were suspected to have stains of blood on them. These clothes were taken off from the body of the appellant by Durag Singh in the presence of Dungar Singh, P. W. 6. These clothes were sealed properly soon after the seizure and were later on sent in the same sealed condition to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner found them positive for blood and thereafter he sent blood-stained cuttings of these clothes to the Serologist for further analysis. The Serologist reported that the shirt, Dhoti and the scarf of the appellant were found stained with human blood. It is undoubtedly true that this circumstance taken by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant but it can be safely regarded as an additional link along with the evidence of the two eye-witnesses. 10. The appellant in his statement before the committing court admitted to have killed Ratan Singh and set fire to the heap of straw but in his statement taken down by the trial Judge, he pleaded that Ratan Singh beat him twice or thrice prior to the occurrence and on the day of occurrence also Ratan Singh called him, while he was going, and beat him with shoes. Thereupon, he picked up an axe which was lying there and killed Ratan Singh. Thereupon, he picked up an axe which was lying there and killed Ratan Singh. This plea of the appellant cannot be accepted, as there is no material on the record to show that the appellant was beaten by the deceased with shoes immediately before the occurrence. On the other hand, there is reliable evidence of the eye-witnesses that the deceased was sleeping on a cot at his well near the room in which machine from drawing water had been installed and at that time the appellant came to the field with an axe and struck several blows in quick succession with it on the body of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased died instantaneously. 11. The result of the above discussion is that in our opinion the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant was guilty of the offences of committing criminal trespass, murder and mischief by fire. The injuries found on the body of Ratan Singh clearly indicated the intention of the appellant to kill Ratan Singh. The Doctor, who performed post-mortem examination, also definitely opined that individually the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Hence, we find no substantial ground for interference with the findings of the trial Judge as to the guilt of the appellant. 12. The appeal filed by Budhiya alias Budh Singh fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******