B. N. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against -the judgment and order dated 15-9-1976 of the Third Additional Sessions Judge. Shahjahanpur, by means of which the four appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) APPELLANTS Budha and Bhaganney are brothers. Ajuddhi is their relation and Kalika is their associate. They all are residents of village Anjnapur. P. S. Banda, district Shahjahanpur. The deceased Shiv Dayal was also a resident of the same village. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 22. 4. 1975 the deceased Shiv Dayal had gone to see his ailing brother-in-law Moonga Lal in village Bihar which was about half a furlong away from his village. His brother Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1) and nephew Rajpal (P. W. 3) had also accompanied him. While returning they had reached near the house of the appellant Budha at about 3. 00 P. M. Shiv Dayal deceased was at that time about 15 paces ahead of Rameshwar Dayal and Rajpal. When Shiv Dayal was infront of the house of Budha, he was confronted by the appellants. Budha caught him from behind and Bhaganney (appellant) pulled out the lathi, which he (deceased) was carrying under his armpit. Shiv Dayal was then pushed into the house of Budha where he was beaten to death with lathis and Kantas. Rameshwar Dayal and Rajpal raised an alarm. The appellants ran away when some persons arrived there on that alarm. ( 4 ) THE motive of the crime as alleged by the prosecution is that about three years before this incident the deceased Shiv Dayal had enticed away Nakti, the wife of Budha (appellant) and had taken her to Mauza Mira in the district of Lakhimpur Kheri where they were living in the farm of Raja Saheb, although she was again restored to him. The appellant Ajudhi also had a grievance against the deceased who had forcibly cultivated 5 bighas of his land in village Bihar and which once belonged to Gaon Samaj and which Ajuddhi had himself occupied forcibly. ( 5 ) THE first information report of the incident was lodged on 22. 4. 19 75 at 6. The appellant Ajudhi also had a grievance against the deceased who had forcibly cultivated 5 bighas of his land in village Bihar and which once belonged to Gaon Samaj and which Ajuddhi had himself occupied forcibly. ( 5 ) THE first information report of the incident was lodged on 22. 4. 19 75 at 6. 30 P. M. at P. S. Banda, 8-1/2 miles away from the place of occurrence by Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1) ( 6 ) THE post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shiv Dayal was conducted by the Dr. S. K. Mehrotra (P. W. 2) on 24. 4. 1975 at 4. 15 P. M. and the doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries: - 1. Incised wound 10 cm. x 3 cm. X bone deep over middle of scalp. Fracture of right parietal on dissectied. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. X scalp deep just lateral to inj. no 1 fracture of left parietal on dissocition. 3. Incised wound 8 cm. X cm. 2 cm. X bone cut over left mastoid process extending towards oceipit. 4. Incised wound 10 cm. X 1. 5 cm. X bone out over oceipt. Fracture of oceipt present. 5. Incised wound 3 cm. X 1. 2 cm. X full thickness of left year. 6. Lacerated wound 3 cm. X 1cm. X muscle deep over left cheek. Fracture of zygmetic bone. Incised wound 4 cm. X 1 cm below left mandible over neck (?) Lacerated wound 3 cm. X 0. 5 cm. over left eye brow. Lacerated wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. over middle of nose. Incised wound 6 cm. X 2 cm. X bone deep over left wrist. Fracture both boner (P. form) left forearm. Lacerated wound 3 cm. X 2 cm. X muscle deep over left elbow. Lacerated wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. X 0. 4 cm. over left index finger. Incised wound 1. 2 cm. X 0. 5 cm. over right middle finger. 13b. Incised wound 3 cm. X 0. 5 cm. over right ring finger. Lacerated wound 4 cm. X 3 cm, over lower 1/3 right forearm with fracture both bones. (paper torm and pasted ). Contusion 6 cm. X 2 cm. below right elbow. Contusion 8 cm. X 1 cm. over front of chest left side. Contusion 6 cm. X 1. 5 cm. X 0. 5 cm. over right ring finger. Lacerated wound 4 cm. X 3 cm, over lower 1/3 right forearm with fracture both bones. (paper torm and pasted ). Contusion 6 cm. X 2 cm. below right elbow. Contusion 8 cm. X 1 cm. over front of chest left side. Contusion 6 cm. X 1. 5 cm. over right leg frount (?) Multiple small contusions, over back of chest. Incised wound caused by sharp edged weapon, lacerated and contusion caused by hard and blunt weapon. ( 7 ) IN the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Shiv Dayal. ( 8 ) THE prosecution examined Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 1), Rajpal (P. W. 3) and Pearey (P. W. 4) as eye-witnesses of the occurrences, besides Dr. S. K. Malhotra (P. W. 2) and the Investigating Officer Abid Ali (P. W. 5 ). ( 9 ) THE appellants have denied the prosecution case. They have produced one witness Subedar (D. W. 1) in their defence. ( 10 ) AFTER considering this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the case of the prosecution has been proved against all the appellants who were accordingly convicted and sentenced as already mentioned above. ( 11 ) OUT of the three prosecution witnesses, Rameshwar Dayatand Rajpal had accompanied the deceased Shiv Dayal when he had gone to see his ailing brother-in-law in village Bihar and were also with him while he was returning. The occurrence had taken place at about 300 P. M. and the report was lodged at 6. 30 P. M. The statement of Rameshwar Dayal is corroborated both by the medical evidence and the first information report. Rajpal will with him and Pearey had reached the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm while he was going to purchases Biries. Nothing has come out in their cross-examinations which may through doubt about their presence at the time of the occurrence. The presence of Rameshwar Dayal and Rajpal cannot be doubted simply because they have stated that the deceased was ahead or them with he reached the door or the appellant. Similarly the presence of Rajpal (P. W. 3) also cannot he doubted. His statement is not un-natural. The presence of Rameshwar Dayal and Rajpal cannot be doubted simply because they have stated that the deceased was ahead or them with he reached the door or the appellant. Similarly the presence of Rajpal (P. W. 3) also cannot he doubted. His statement is not un-natural. The statement of the defence witness that the dead body was discovered in the house of Budha (appellant) on the next morning is also riot borne out from any material Oil the record. Subedar (D. W. 1) has admitted that he had not told this fact to anyone and had stated this fact for the first time in the trial court. His statement appears to be improbable also because the deceased must have raised an alarm when he received injuries and that alarm could that have failed to attract persons living in the vicinity. The house of the deceased itself was only about 63 paces from the place of occurrence. It is, therefore, not believable that the dead body would have been discovered not at the time of the Incident but on the following morning. The report in this case was lodged the same evening in the presence of the Investigating Officer who had himself reached the place of occurrence at 11. 00 P. M. on the same day (22. 4. 1975 ). These facts further support the statements of the prosecution witness already referred to above. ( 12 ) THE Investigating Officer conducted the inquest, proceedings on the dead body next morning (23. 4. 1975) at 6. 00 A. M. and despatched it from there at 8. 00 A. M. No doubt the dead body was received 4t the mortuary on 24. 4. 1975 at 4. 00 P. M. but it does not in any way militate against the prosecution case particularly when the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time of the occurrence is not doubtful and their statements about the occurrence are reliable. The dead body was despatched for the place of occurrence on the morning of 23. 4. 1975 after the inquest proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer. The delay, if any, made by the constables would not discredit the statements of the witnesses. The dead body was despatched for the place of occurrence on the morning of 23. 4. 1975 after the inquest proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer. The delay, if any, made by the constables would not discredit the statements of the witnesses. ( 13 ) IT has been suggested that Pearey (P. W. 4) is not a reliable witness as he is on inimical terms with Budha (appellant) because the elder brother of Pearey had appeared as a witness for Baijnath brother of the deceased, in a case against Puttu Kurmi. It is true that Bandhu had started a case against Kalika and some others, before the Nyaya Panchayat several years before the incident, but it is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of Pearey against the appellants. ( 14 ) IN the above circumstances, the witnesses of prosecution, referred to above, have fully proved the guilt of the appellants under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. The order of conviction and sentence of the appellants does not call for any interference. 15. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of all the appellants under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to them there under are upheld. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences. Appeal accordingly dismissed. .