S. S. SHARROA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant by this appeal challenges his conviction for the murder of his father-in-law Mohan and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 1980. ( 2 ) SATIBAI (P. W. 1) is the churied wife of the appellant. Gajribai (P. W. 15) is the mother of Satibai. Sewak Ram (P. W. 2) is the brother of Gajribai. Deceased Mohan, along with his wife, used to live in village Pachri. The appellant was the resident of village Farhada. ( 3 ) SATIBAI (P. W. 1) had been married to the appellant about three to four years before and thus she was Jiving with the appellant in village Farhada. It is alleged that after the marriage the appellant had been mal-treating his wife Satibai and sometimes even used to beat her. It also is alleged that Satibai (P. W. 1) had once observed a fast and according to the custom, the appellant was required to pour some milk over cow-dung and it could be thereafter that Satibai could eat something after the fast. On being told, the appellant did not agree to perform that part of the act and even abused Satibai. The next day Satibai went away to her parents house in village Pachri. ( 4 ) THE prosecution case further is that on the next day or so, the appellant along with one another by name Gadbad, reached his father-in-laws house and told his wife to return back. Deceased Mohan had then told the appellant that he had been abusing his wife Satibai and that he (Mohan) would summon a PANCHAYAT. This annoyed the appellant and he. Therefore, left his father-in-laws house. Gadbad had then told Satibia and deceased Mohan that the appellant has left saying that if Satibar did not return to his house within four days, he would kill Mohan. ( 5 ) SO far as the incident is concerned, the prosecution case that in the night intervening 24th and 25th May 1980 while Satibai, her mother Gajribai, Sewak Ram (P. W. 2) and Mohan were sleeping in the court-yard, appellant came there and struck a TANGIYA blow on the chest of Mohan. At this Mohan had shouted naming the appellant as his assailant. At this Mohan had shouted naming the appellant as his assailant. The appellant, however, fled away and could not be apprehended though he had been chased. When Mohan took out that TANGIYA from his chest, he fell down. On the shouts being raised by the inmates of the house, other people including Kotwar Gangadas (P. W. 6) came there. The TANGIYA was also lying there. Gangadas (P. W. 6) was informed of the incident naming the appellant as the person who had inflicted the TANGIYA blow on Mohan. Thereafter Gangadas went to police station Kharora and lodged the first information report Ex. P8. ( 6 ) SUB-INSPECTOR J. K. Bramhe (P. W. 18) in the night intervening 24th and 25th May 1980 at about 1. 50 A. M. recorded the report Ex. P. 8 lodged by Gangadas, The Sub-Inspector then went to the spot. He held an inquest and thereafter forwarded the dead body of Mohan for post-mortem examination. He has also seized TANGIYA besides the blood stained and unstained earth and some other articles. ( 7 ) DR. S. Sanyal (P. W. 3) performed the post-mortem over the dead body of Mohan and he found one incised wound 2 X 1/4 X chest cavity deep on the chest in between the nipples. The edges of the wound were clean cut. This injury was ante-mortem and could be caused by a weapon like TANGIYA. On internal examination, besides the injury to sternum the pericardium of heart was also found to be cut which was 3- in length. The cut of the heart was seen on right auricle, right ventricle and left ventricle. In his opinion the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the injury to heart and aorta. The TANGIYA which had been seized from the spot had also been sent to him for his opinion. The TANGIYA. Art-A could according to him cause the injury that he had found on the dead body of Mohan. ( 8 ) THE appellant in his examination, admitted that his wife Satibai had gone away to her parents house. He alleged that his wife had illicit relations with some other person and that it was that person who had brought some fruits on the day when she had observed fast. ( 8 ) THE appellant in his examination, admitted that his wife Satibai had gone away to her parents house. He alleged that his wife had illicit relations with some other person and that it was that person who had brought some fruits on the day when she had observed fast. He also admitted that she had gone away to her parents house thereafter. He denied that there was any such person by name Gadbad. He also stated that on the day when Satibai had observed the fast, some body had brought the fruits and on being asked she explained that it was her brother who had brought the fruits for her. This according to him resulted in exchange of abuses. Thereafter Satibai was turned out from the house. He denied to have gone to Mohans house to bring back Satibai. ( 9 ) THE conviction of the appellant rests on the direct testimony of Satibai (P. W. 1) and Gajribai (P. W. 15 ). The prosecution had also examined Sewakram (P. W. 2) as an eye witness but the learned trial Judge has rejected his evidence. Before proceeding further it may be pointed out that on the night in question, then; was moon light. There is further evidence of these witnesses that a half lit lantern was also kept in the courtyard where they were sleeping. The version of these witnesses is that till the time of the incident, they were not completely asleep. They woke up soon after they got the noise and had identified the appellant while he was running away. The appellant was quite known to both Satibai and Gajribai. It was quite natural for Mohan to have immediately made a noise at the very moment when the TANGIYA blow was inflicted on him. The circumstances very clearly indicate that these witnesses, namely Satibai and Gajribai had time and opportunity to identify the appellant whilst he was in the process of running after assaulting Mohan with the TANGIYA. ( 10 ) THE evidence of Satibai and Gajribai further gets corroboration from Gangadas (P. W. 6) who on reaching the spot soon after the incident was informed by Satibai and Gajribai about the appellant having inflicted the TANGIYA blow to Mohan. That fact finds support even from the first information report Ex. P. 8 which was lodged by Gangadas. ( 10 ) THE evidence of Satibai and Gajribai further gets corroboration from Gangadas (P. W. 6) who on reaching the spot soon after the incident was informed by Satibai and Gajribai about the appellant having inflicted the TANGIYA blow to Mohan. That fact finds support even from the first information report Ex. P. 8 which was lodged by Gangadas. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further challenged the testimony of Satibai and Gajribai on the ground that in view of the iliwill between the appellant and his wife, they have falsely implicated the appellant. His other submission was that they could not have identified the assailant who after assaulting Mohan had run away from the spot. In our opinion, neither of the two contentions deserve to be accepted. The evidence dearly makes out that the relations between the appellant and his wife Satibai had become strained. This has even been admitted by the appellant in his examination. As a matter of fact, the prosecution bas also adduced evidence on this fact to show that the appellant bad a motive. So far as the opportunity to these witnesses to identify the assailant is concerned, we are satisfied that in the circumstances, more so there being moon light and the half lit lantern light, the witnesses could have well identified the assailant. The appellant, as stated earlier, was quite known to the witnesses and we find no reason as to why should not the witnesses have identified him at the moment when after indicting the blow he was trying to run away. In the evidence of Satibai and Gajribai nothing has been brought out in their respective cross-examination so as to impeach their credit or to make their testimony untrustworthy. ( 12 ) FROM the evidence we are satisfied that the offence for which the appellant was charged has been conclusively brought borne against him. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and the sentence of the .