JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Kalyan, who is a dhobi by profession and is a resident of Notana, police station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, on the charge of murder of Shankar Singh, a resident of the same village. By her judgment and order dated November 28, 1977, the learned Sessions Judge, found Kalyan guilty of the said charge, convicted him under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Us. 200/-, or in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. On May 19, 1977, all about 5 p.m. Nand Kanwar (P.W. 3) was sitting in front of her house situate in village Notana. Bhanwar Singh (P.W. 5) approached her and requested her for permission to draw water from her hand-pump. While Nand Kanwar and Bhanwar Singh were taking to each other in front of Nand Kanwais house, they saw that Shankar Singh deceased and Sita Ram (PW. 6) were coming from the direction of their house. They also saw that after they had just passed by the house of Kalyan accused, the latter emerged from his house armed with an axe, sneaked behind Shankar Singh and struck an axe blow on the back of his head. Shankar Singh fell down on the ground. Sita Ram who was terrified ran away from the scene of occurrence. Nand Kanwar also went inside her house. It was Bhanwar Singh alone, who rushed to the help of the fallen man. Kalyan threatened Bhanwar Singh with axe. Bhanwar Singh cried for help. Hearing his cries a number of persons including Kanhaiyalal Dhakar, Mangilal Dhankar and Mohanlal Dhakar reached there. They applied bandage to the wound on the head of Shankar Singh. The injured was removed to the civil hospital Kota the same night. He died soon after reaching the hospital. On being informed about the death by the hospital authorities, AS1 Heeralal (PW. 9) of police station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota rushed to the hospital and saw the deed body of Shankar Singh lying in the dressing room. Bhanwar Singh PW was also present there. He wrote out the report Ex. 5, and handed it over to the ASI Heera Lal. On being informed about the death by the hospital authorities, AS1 Heeralal (PW. 9) of police station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota rushed to the hospital and saw the deed body of Shankar Singh lying in the dressing room. Bhanwar Singh PW was also present there. He wrote out the report Ex. 5, and handed it over to the ASI Heera Lal. The formal F.I.R. (Ex.P/6) was registered on the basis of the written report Ex.P/5, on May 19, 1977, at 11.45 p.m. 3. SI Abdul Wahid, S.H.O. returned to the police station at about 12.30 A.M. that night. He took charge of the investigation from ASI Heera Lal and went to village Notana the same night. The accused had already disappeared from the village. His house was found locked. SI Abdul Wahid searched for him in a number of villages without any success. It was on May 24, 1977, that police constables were able to arrest him and bring him to the police station. While in custody of the police on May 24, the accused made a statement (Ex. P/11) to the effect that he had kept the axe in his house and that he could get it recovered from there. It is alleged that in consequence of this disclosure SI Abdul Wahid recovered the axe A/3, from the house of the accused and took it in his possession vide recovery memo Ex. P/8. The axe was stained with blood. It was made into a sealed Sparely and sent for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiners reported (see Ex. P/12) that it was stained with human blood. The Serologist was however not able to determine the blood group of the blood present on the axe as it was not suitable for such a test. 4. On completion of the Investigation the Bhimganj Mandi police filed a charge-sheet against the accused under section 302 I.P.C. After being committed to the court of session, the accused was tried on the charge of murder. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined among others all the three eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It also examined Kanhaiyalal, Mangilal Dr. M.M. Mishra, ASI Heera Lal and SI Abdul Wahid among its witnesses. 6. All these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story as narrated above. The allegations appearing in their evidence were then put to the accused to enable him to render his explanation if any. It also examined Kanhaiyalal, Mangilal Dr. M.M. Mishra, ASI Heera Lal and SI Abdul Wahid among its witnesses. 6. All these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story as narrated above. The allegations appearing in their evidence were then put to the accused to enable him to render his explanation if any. In his statement under section 315 Cr. P.C. as recorded by the trial Judge the accused denied all these allegations. He even denied having made a disclosure statement Ex. P/11 to the police and thereby causing the weapon of offence to be recovered from his house. He did not produce any evidence in defence. 7. Mr. D.D. Bajaj learned counsel for the appellant in this case did not question of finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Shankar Singh met with homicidal death. It is abundantly proved on the evidence of Dr. M.M. Mishra, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shankar Singh that the latter died due to comma and fracture of the left occipital bone of scalp further causing laceration. He found incised wound 2,1/2" x 1" x 1" (bone deed) on left occipital area of scalp with compound fracture of left occipital bone. The bone was cut through with sharp margins and the bar in matter came out of the gaping wound. He opined that death had taken place within 24 hours of the postmortem examination which was conducted on May 20, 1977, at 9.20 a.m. We may therefore safely affirm the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Shankar Singh died due to injury inflicted on the back of his head on May 19, 1977. 8. The question which falls for determination next is as to who inflicted the fatal blow to the deceased. On this point we have the evidence of three independent eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They are PWs Bhanwar Singh, Nand Kanwar and Sita Ram. Bhanwar Singh who is a collateral nephew of the deceased was a young boy of 16 at the time of the occurrence. He was studying in 9th class at that time. He testified that he had gone to Nand Kanwars house to fetch water from there and that while he was still talking to Nand Kanwar Bai, he saw the accused giving an axe blow on the back of the head of Shankar Singh deceased. He was studying in 9th class at that time. He testified that he had gone to Nand Kanwars house to fetch water from there and that while he was still talking to Nand Kanwar Bai, he saw the accused giving an axe blow on the back of the head of Shankar Singh deceased. He also mentioned in this context that Sita Ram (P.W. 6) had been accompanying the deceased at that time. He further stated that he had immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence. He was holding the head of the deceased in his hands when the accused threatened him. He further stated that on his raising a cry a number of villagers including Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 1) reached there. They all removed the injured to the hospital when he died later that evening. Bhanwar Singh further stated that on arrival of the police in the hospital he wrote out the report Ex. P/5 and gave it to ASI Heeralal. He was then taken to the police station where the police obtained his signatures on a number of documents. 9. PW Sita Ram deposed that on the fateful evening he was out in search of his missing cow. He met Shanker Singh deceased in the street. Both of them were going together and had just crossed the house of Dhannalal Patel, when the accused mounted his sneak attack on the back of head of Shankar Singh. He further stated that Shankar Singh fell down on the ground on receipt of the blow. He explained that Dhannalal Patel, near whose house the occurrence took place is the husband of PW Nand Kanwar Bai. 10. We have carefully considered the statements of these three eyewitnesses and are satisfied that they are truthful and reliable witnesses. The learned trial Judge was fully justified in accepting their evidence. 11. Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellant then referred to the Rojnamcha in which ASI Heeralal claims to have reproduced the contents of the F.I.R. on the basis of written report made by PW. Bhanwar Singh on May 19, 1977, at 11.45 p.m. He argued that ASI Heeralal had clearly made certain over-writings in this document and thus converted the date 20-5-77 as originally written into 19-7-77. He also submitted that sheet No. 94 of the Rojnamch on which the relevant report is written appears to have been substituted for the original sheet. Bhanwar Singh on May 19, 1977, at 11.45 p.m. He argued that ASI Heeralal had clearly made certain over-writings in this document and thus converted the date 20-5-77 as originally written into 19-7-77. He also submitted that sheet No. 94 of the Rojnamch on which the relevant report is written appears to have been substituted for the original sheet. This is an argument which was raised in the trial court as well. The learned trial Judge held and in our opinion rightly, that the report as reproduced in the Rojnamch at sheet No. 94 is a suspicious document. The matters as to removal of the original sheet from the Rojnamch and its substitution by another sheet containing the present report and aforementioned over writings in the report require further probe and appropriate action by the higher police authorities. This is however a circumstance which does not in any way adversely affect the evidence of Bhanwar Singh PW. As observed by the learned trial Judge there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Bhanwar Singh PW that he was one of those persons who had accompanied the injured Shanker Singh to the civil hospital and made written report Ex. P/5 to the Police. The mere fact that PWS Kanhaiyalal and Mohanlal who had also accompanied the injured to the hospital that evening did not mention the presence of Bhanwar Singh in the hospital is no ground for holding that Bhanwar Singh was not present there. It is significant to note that counsel concerned did not question Kanhaiyalal and Mohanlal as to whether or not Bhanwar Singh was present in the hospital in the evening. That being so, their evidence cannot be so construed as to mean Bhanwar Singh was not present there. 12. Reliance is also placed by the prosecution on the fact that immediately after tie commission of the crime the accused absconded from the village and could not be arrested till May 24, 1977. PW. Abdul Wahid, the Investigating Officer, deposed that he went to village Notona on the night between May 19 and 20, 1977 and found that the accused had disappeared from the village after locking the house. He further stated that he was unable to trace him out inspite of search in a number of villages. 13. PW. Abdul Wahid, the Investigating Officer, deposed that he went to village Notona on the night between May 19 and 20, 1977 and found that the accused had disappeared from the village after locking the house. He further stated that he was unable to trace him out inspite of search in a number of villages. 13. We are also satisfied that Kulhari A/3, was recovered by the police from the house of the accused in consequence of the information supplied by him. PWs. Mangilal and SI Abdul Wahid which have given evidence in that behalf. The documents Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/11 also corroborated their evidence. Kulhari A/3 was found on chemical analysis to be stained with human blood. This is a circumstance though of a weak nature corroborating other evidence on record. 14. The prosecution did not produce any evidence in respect of motive of the crime. The motive however becomes evident, if we read the statement in cross-examination of PW Kanhaiyalal. It is significant to note that a positive suggestion was made to Kanhaiyalal on behalf of the accused that Kalyan accused had been going about complaining in the village prior to the occurrence that the deceased had been clandestinely visiting the accuseds wife in her house. Of course, Kanhaiyalal pleaded ignorance about such complaints. The question put on behalf of the accused to Kanhaiyalal gives us ample indication as to what was going on in the back of the mind of the accused in relation to the conduct of the deceased vis-a-vis the accuseds wife. 15. For all these reasons, we find that the accused was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302 I.P.C. The appeal accordingly fails and it is hereby dismissed. *******