GOBINDA CHANDRA CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) ON 24. 10. 1979 at about 10. 30 a. m. the deceased Brojendra Kumar Mondal was cultivating his land situate at village Jatiadaha, P. S. Jalangi being accompanied by his two sons Kanai and the accused appellant Mahadev. All of a sudden Mahadev, aged about 15 years, struck his father Brojen with a hensua (Material Ext. I) causing serious injury on his abdomen. Brojendra pressed his injury and walked a few steps forbidding and requesting his son not to strike him any more. Immediately thereafter Mahadev struck him over again with the selfsame hensua on his back. The poor father could not withstand all these attacks. He fell down on the ground and breathed his last then and there. In the meantime hearing the cries of the other son the villagers assembled on the spot. Mahadev, however, managed to flee away. Amongst the villagers who came to the spot was Shri Bhakta Kumar Mondal (P. W. 2 ). Kanai related the incident to him and hearing the facts Bhakta at once rushed to the police station being accompanied by other witnesses and there lie lodged the F. I. R. Police came to the spot thereafter, seized the hensua (Material Ext. 1), examined the witnesses, sent the deceased for his postmortem examination. There after in due course police submitted chargesheet against the accused Mahadev. ( 2 ) WE have already indicated before that the age of Mahadev was roughly 15 years on the date of the commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad noticed this fact of the tender age of the accused. Accordingly, in conformity with the provisions laid down in section 25 etc. of the West Bengal Children Act 1959 the accused was tried in respect of the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. In course of the trial the learned Sessions Judge assuming the powers of a Juvenile court held Mahadev guilty of the offence under section 302 I. P. C. and in accordance with section 24 of the said Act he sentenced Mahadev with imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge also sent a report to the State Government in consonance with section 24 (3) of the West Bengal Children Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence Mahadev has preferred this appeal from jail. The learned Sessions Judge also sent a report to the State Government in consonance with section 24 (3) of the West Bengal Children Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence Mahadev has preferred this appeal from jail. ( 3 ) NONE was engaged on behalf of the accused appellant to present his case before us. Lest the interest of the accused appellant is prejudiced we requested Mr. A. R. Saha learned Advocate of this Court to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant as an Amicus Curiae. We note with satisfaction and we do place it on record that Mr. Saha has argued the case of the appellant to his fullest capacity. Miss Krishna Ghosh, learned Advocate, argued the appeal on behalf of the State Government, as respondent. ( 4 ) MR. Saba took us through the deposition of P. Ws: 1, 2, 3 and 4, the alleged eye witnesses of the case. P. W. 1 Hararuddin Sk. resides at village Jatiadaha within P. S. Jalangi, where, as we have seen before, the incident did take place at about 10. 30 a. m. At the time of the incident Hararuddin Sk. was grazing his own buffaloes in a contiguous field. In his evidence be gave out that he could even hear Brojen shouting Do not kill me. Hararuddin Sk. could further see the acts of assault made by Mahadev by means of a hensua (Material Ext. 1 ). He also could see Mahadev assaulting his father for the second time on his back with the selfsame hensua. P. W. 2 Bhakta Kumar Mondal is also a resident of Jatiadaba. At the time of the occurrence he was inside his own house. His evidence is that immediately after the occurrence Kanai, the elder brother of Mahadev came to his house and gave the information that his father was being killed by his brother Mahadev. We have already seen that Bhakta happened to be the co-villager who had been to the police station to lodge the information. P. W. 3 is Halema Bewa. The house of this witness is situate adjacent to the land in question. This witness claimed that she could see the actual acts of assault made by Mahadev by means of a hensua. To the same tune runs the evidence of Patan Das (P. W. 4 ). P. W. 3 is Halema Bewa. The house of this witness is situate adjacent to the land in question. This witness claimed that she could see the actual acts of assault made by Mahadev by means of a hensua. To the same tune runs the evidence of Patan Das (P. W. 4 ). At the time of the occurrence he was cultivating the lands of one Himan Biswas. The land of Himan Hiswas was adjoining to Brojens land. It was thus very much probable for Patan to see the incident in details. The evidence of this witness was that standing from a distance of about 10 to 15 cubits be could see all the things which did happen on that date. His further evidence is that just before the incident started he was taking rice from a co-villager. Standing close to the spot of occurrence he saw Mahadev assaulting his father on his abdomen. He saw the second attack made by Mahadev. His evidence was that Brojen could not withstand the second attack and that the father fell down on the field on his back. Mr. Saha contends that it is for this Court to consider whether these eyewitnesses should or should not be believed. We have carefully perused the evidence-in-chief as also the evidence in cross-examination of all these four eve-witnesses. The significant thing which has attracted our attention is that no cross-examination was directed as to why all these witnesses would speak lie against a tender aged boy of their locality. Mr. Saha invited our attention to the sworn testimony of P. W. 13 Gajendra Nath Mondal who claimed to have seen the accused Mahadev flying away from the field with a hensua in his hand at the time of the occurrence. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to suggest that this witness falsely implicated the accused by inventing a story of his own. It is true that the widow of the victim as also the elder brother of the accused were declared hostile by the prosecution. This attitude of the mother and the brother of Mahadev is, however, nothing abnormal. The poor widow lost her husband and perhaps she consoled with the idea that she was going to save her son, the only thing which she could do at her best. Mr. This attitude of the mother and the brother of Mahadev is, however, nothing abnormal. The poor widow lost her husband and perhaps she consoled with the idea that she was going to save her son, the only thing which she could do at her best. Mr. Saha argues that the conspicuous thing which is apparent on the face of the record is that this was a case of motive-less murder and that this Court, therefore, can very witnesses the gravity of the case by taking notice of this significant fact. Mr. Saha of course concedes that presence of motive is not a necessity in a murder case. We, therefore, do not attach much importance to this special feature of the case. The fact remains that Brojendra was murdered. The evidence of as many as four disinterested witnesses read with the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 18) makes it abundantly clear that Brojendra was murdered with the help of a hensua. This hensua was seen by the witnesses and Mahadev was further seen carrying the hensua in his hand both at the time of the occurrence and thereafter. The witnesses produced by the prosecution were all natural and probable witnesses. At the time of the occurrence which took place at about 10. 30 a. m. the witnesses were all working or were engaged otherwise in fields contiguous or close to the spot where the sad incident took place. The hensua was shown to the doctor. The doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the victim in his abdomen and at his back could be caused by the hen sua (material Ext. 1 ). The doctor further opined that the injuries were antemortem and homicidal in nature. ( 5 ) FROM what has been disclosed above it is clear that the materials of the record points straight to the guilty mind of Mahadev. We need not imagine what could be his motive behind. But this much is clear that he struck his father with the hensua which, as everybody knows, is a dangerous weapon. The evidence has disclosed that not being satisfied with the first attack he even indulged in a second attack subsequently and it is this second attack which caused his father to fall on the ground immediately by lying on his back. The evidence has disclosed that not being satisfied with the first attack he even indulged in a second attack subsequently and it is this second attack which caused his father to fall on the ground immediately by lying on his back. The subsequent conduct of Mahadev calls for nothing but condemnation, for the evidence oil record goes to show that immediately after striking has father he left the spot along with the hensua (material Ext. 1) in his hand. All these facts and circumstances, it appears, were well considered by the learned Sessions Judge. We have satisfied ourselves to see that the learned Sessions. Judge passed the sentence of life imprisonment in close obedience to section 24 of the West Bengal Children Act. We have also satisfied ourselves to see that under section 48 of the Act an appeal from an order passed by a Court of Sessions lies in this Court. We have accordingly gone through the materials on record and have weighed them with care in the course of our appellate jurisdiction and. We have satisfied ourselves to see further that in sentencing the accused appellant to life imprisonment the learned Sessions. Judge did nothing wrong in the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed on contest. The judgment appealed against is affirmed both on the point of conviction and sentence. N. C. Chaudhuri, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.