JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal is directed against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated April 17, 1980, whereby the accused Natha was convicted under section 302, I.P C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/., in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Jafra Garasiya, aged about 60 years who is the deceased victim in the case was a resident of Thamalvari (Marwan) P. S. Bokariya district Udaipur. The appellant is also a resident of the same village. At about 7:00 A M. on May 11, 1979, Jafra went with his cattle in jungle known as Daladar situate in Fiduriwali Valley. This place is nearly a mile away from village Thamalvari. The accused went behind Jafra with a gun in his hand. The accused fired a shot at Jafra which hit him on his back between the lower part of left scapular and vertebrae column. The shot caused two entry wounds and two exit wounds. Jafra fell down and passed away instantaneously on the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by PW 3 Poona, who was standing at some distance from the place of occurrence. Poona went to the village and went to Dhula and apprised him of the occurrence. Dhula passed this information to deceaseds brother Jeeva (P. W. 3). Jeeva went to Police Station, Bokariya and verbaily lodged report Ex. P. 2 of the occurrence there at about 5.00 P. M. on the same day. The police station is nearly at a distance of 25 kilometer from Thamalveri. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. PW. 9 A.S.I. Laxmansingh arrived on the spot on the same day. He prepared the site plan Ex. P.3 and the inquest report Ex, P.4. He also seized and sealed the blood-stained soil, an axe and other articles lying there on the spot. The accused was arrested at about 5.30 P. M. on that very day. At the time of his arrest, he was having a gun with him, which was seized and sealed. The post-mortem examination of the victims dead body was conducted by PW 1 Dr. S. S. Jhala, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Dispensary, Gagunda. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victims dead body. At the time of his arrest, he was having a gun with him, which was seized and sealed. The post-mortem examination of the victims dead body was conducted by PW 1 Dr. S. S. Jhala, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Dispensary, Gagunda. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victims dead body. (1) Two oval shape wounds on back side between the lower part of left scapula and vertebral column. Size (a) 1/2" x 1/4" (b) 1/4'x 1/4" Wound No. (a) is above the wound No. (b). Distance between two wounds is one inch. Clotted blood present on margin of wounds. Both wounds are directed slightly upwards and forwards communicated to frong side of chest wounds. (1) Two oval shape exit wounds on left side on front of chest near the lower part of sternum, Size (i) 3/4" x 1/2" (ii) 1" x 1/2" Wound No. (i) is above the wound No. (ii) Distance between them is 3/4". 3. Both these injuries were stated to have been caused by a gun shot. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death of the victim was excessive haemorrhage due to heart injury by gun shot. The postmortem examination report issued by him is Ex. P. 8. It is suggested that the accused had become impotent before this occurrence. His wife developed illegal intimacy with the deceased Jafra and became pregnant. At the time of occurrence, she was running in the 4th week of pregnancy. This illegal intimacy instigated the accused to finish Jafra for ever. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kotra, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial, before the Additional Sessions Judge, who framed a charge under section 302, IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He denounced the whole prosecution story and claimed absolute innocence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the charge duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Hence this appeal. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the charge duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learnnd, amicus curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the cause of death of Jafra was not challenged before us by the learned amicus curiae. We have also carefully gone the statement of PW 1 Dr. Jhala. He postively stated that the cause of death of Jafra was the gun-shot wounds. We find no reasons to distrust his opinion. There is, thus, no difficulty in stating that Jafra met death. 6. In assailing the conviction, learned amicus curiae vehemently contended that PW3 Poona is the only eye witness in the case. The accused was convicted on his soiltary statement. It was argued that though an accused can be convicted on the testimony of a soiltary witness that solitary witness should be of sterling worth and his testimony should be acceptable without any reservation. It was argued that the testimony of PW 3 Poona was not of sterling worth, on which the conviction of the accused can be safely based. He was a relative of the deceased and was thus, an interested person. It was also argued that the presence of PW 3 Poona at the place of occurrence is shrouded with suspicion. There was no corroboration from any source in support of his testimony. The conviction should therefore, be set aside. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW 3 Poona is an independent witness having no grouse against the appellant. He reached the place of occurrence while searching his cattle. He immediately informed Dhola about this incident. His name has been mentioned in the First Information Report Ex. P.2, which was lodged promply without any delay. The trial court accepted him as a witness of truth. There are no good and cogent reasons to disturb this finding. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 7. Now, the only eye witness in the case is PW. 3 Poona. P.2, which was lodged promply without any delay. The trial court accepted him as a witness of truth. There are no good and cogent reasons to disturb this finding. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 7. Now, the only eye witness in the case is PW. 3 Poona. If he is disbelieved, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the murder of Jafra. But in case his testimony is found reliable and dependable, there is no escape for the appellant. PW. 3 Poona stated that in the morning of the day of occurrence he went in search of his missing cattle. While doing so, be reached a hillock near the place of occurrence. While he was standing there, he saw the accused firing a shot with his gun at Jafra. The shot hit on the back side of Jafra and Jafra fell down, The witness stated that he got frightened and from there came straight to his village. He went to Dhula and apprised him of the incident. He was cross-examined at same length. In cross-examination he stated that he was standing nearly 200-250 yards away from the place of occurrence. There were no trees standing in between him and the place of occurrence. Nothing could be brought on record that he has any enmity with the accused so as to falsely implicate him. It is true that he is a nephew of the deceased in some distant degrees, but that cannot be taken to be a good or sound reason to discard or discredit what he testified on oath. The testimony of a witness cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that he happens to be a relative of the deceased. Here the relationship is somewhat distant. The learned amicus curiae invited our attention that in his police statement he had not stated that he saw the accused firing the shot. Later on, during trial, he introduced the story that he bad seen the accused firing the shot with his gun. His police statement is Ex. D. 1. We have gone through Ex. D. 1 with which the witness was confronted. In his police statement Ex. D-l, he stated that he was standing on the hillock and heard the gun shot and saw the accused running away after firing a shot at Jafra. His police statement is Ex. D. 1. We have gone through Ex. D. 1 with which the witness was confronted. In his police statement Ex. D-l, he stated that he was standing on the hillock and heard the gun shot and saw the accused running away after firing a shot at Jafra. Thus, it can be easily gathered that virtually there is no contradiction between the version given by this witness in Ex. D. 1 and that given by him in the Court. The trial court placed faith on what he stated and on a careful of his testimony, we are unable to take a view different from that taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In our considered opinion, the testimony of PW. 3 Poona is strong and formidable enough to maintain the conviction of the accused. The first contention, therefore, fails. 8. It was next contended that no motive has been alleged against the accused for committing the murder of Jafra. It was argued that the absence of motive makes the entire prosecution story highly suspicious. We are unable to accept the contention. It was suggested by the prosecution that the accused suspected his wife to be in illegal intimacy with the deceased Jafra. At the time of occurrence, his wife Mst. Reshmi was running in 4th week of pregnancy. The prosecution examined PW. 13 Rama to prove this motive. But, unfortunately, he turned hostile and lent no support to the prosecution. He was confronted with his statement Ex. P. 14 recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. in the course of investigation. But this illegal intimacy, disclosed by him in Ex. P 14, was by him during trial. The motive though suggested does not stand proved. However, the absence of motive or inadequacy of it is only a circumstance to be taken into consideration while assessing the prosecution evidence. If there is direct evidence in proof of the guilt of the accused, motive loses its significance and recedes in the background. The testimony of PW. 3 Poona, as discussed above, is free taint and cannot be discarded. As such, the absence of motive is of no material consequence. The testimony of PW. 3 Poona cannot be thrown away or discarded only on account of the absence of motive. The contention, therefore, fails. 9. It was then argued that the proscention is guilty of withholding some material witnesses. As such, the absence of motive is of no material consequence. The testimony of PW. 3 Poona cannot be thrown away or discarded only on account of the absence of motive. The contention, therefore, fails. 9. It was then argued that the proscention is guilty of withholding some material witnesses. In the F.I.R. Ex. P 2, the names of Jagga and Dhula have been mentioned. Jagga had seen the accused going with a gun while Dhula had heard the gun-shot. Admittedly, none of them Jagga or Dhula is a witness of fee occurrence. As such, their non-production in evidence by the prosecution has no material consequence in judging the guilt of the appellant. The evidence of these witnesses, even if they were examined, would have nothing material to the prosecution. The case hinges on the testimony of PW. 3 Poona. As discussed above, we are unable to discard the testimony of this witness PW. 3 Poona. All such, the non-production of Jagga and Dhula in evidence by the prosecution does not help the appellant in any way. 10. No other contention was raised. 11. From what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. No interference is called for. The appeal of accused Natha is consequently dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******