JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 24th November, 1980, of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC to imprisonment for life. 2. The case relates to the incident, which took place on July 10, 1979, at about 10.00 A.M. in village Guda, district Jodhpur, and which resulted in the death of Smt. Sugani wife of Jetharam Meghwal of Guda. The accused also belongs to the same village. The prosecution case, in brief, was that about 15 days prior to the occurrence, the goat of Jetharam got mixed with the flock of goats belonging to Chain Singh accused. Mst. Sugani, deceased, went to the accused and requested him to return the goat, but he refused and rather misbehaved with her. Thereafter, Jatharam accompanied by Hukmaram went to him and got back his goat from him. This annoyed the accused, who threatened Jetharam that he was taking away the goat but he would deal with his wife for this. The prosecution story further was that on the date of the occurrence Mst. Sugani was returning from the well and was having a pitcher of water on her head. The accused met her on the way. He was also bringing water from the well in his bullock cart. On seeing Mst. Sugani, the accused took out a Jatura (wooden piece) from the bullock cart and ran after Mst. Sugani. On this, Mst. Sugani ran towards the Dhani of Narayanram to save herself but was chased by the accused. The accused over took her when she reached the field of Narayanram and there he inflicted a Jatura blow on her head. Another blow in succession was given by the accused which landed on her neck. Smt. Sugani, having received these injuries fell down, but the accused inflicted yet another blow on the right temple of Mst. Sugani. Mst. Sugani breathed her last on the spot itself. According to the prosecution, the incident was witnessed by Smt. Papu wife of Narayanram, who is the younger brother of Jetharam, Fatiya another younger brother of Jetharam and Ghewar Ram. Smt. Papu was in the Dhani in that field at that time and came out of the same hearing the shrieks of Smt. Sugani. According to the prosecution, the incident was witnessed by Smt. Papu wife of Narayanram, who is the younger brother of Jetharam, Fatiya another younger brother of Jetharam and Ghewar Ram. Smt. Papu was in the Dhani in that field at that time and came out of the same hearing the shrieks of Smt. Sugani. Fatiya and Ghewar Ram were then in the fields of Fatiya and were attracted to the scene of the occurrence by the cries raised by Smt. Sugani. Fatiya and Ghewar Ram tried to intervene, but the accused threatened them that they should desist lest they too would be killed. The accused left the place in his cart. On the day of the incident Jatha Ram was not in the village. He had gone to village Solankiyatala three days prior to the occurrence. Narayanram had also gone to the jungle and was not in his Dhani. Fatiya, therefore, went to the jungle and informed Narain Ram, as to what had happened. Narayan Ram then went to village Solankiyatala and informed Jetha Ram about the incident. Jetharam and Narayan Ram then returned to the village. Jetharam found that his wife was lying dead in the field. Blood scattered all over the place. He proceeded on foot to the police station, Shergarh, which is about 12 miles from the place of occurrence and there he lodged the first information report on July 11, 1979 at about 8.00 A.M. A case under Section 302, IPC was then registered by Shri Ramesh Chandra, SHO, and investigation started. Shri Ramesh Chandra proceeded to the village, reached the place of occurrence and inspected the dead body and the site. He prepared the memo of site inspection, seized the blood-stained earth and other articles from the body of the deceased, held the inquest and prepared the Panchayatnama. Dr. Jogaram was called at the spot itself to conduct the post-mortem examination. On examination of the dead body the doctor found the following injuries on the body of Smt. Sugani:- (1) Wound 4" X deep upto skull bone, lacerated near right temporal region. (2) Wound 5" X deep upto skull-bone, lacerated over middle of head anteriorly. (3) Wound 1" X 5 c.m. at the back of head, lacerated." There was a fracture 4.7" long near anterior suture between the frontal and the temporal bones and also a fracture 4" long in the right temporal bone. (2) Wound 5" X deep upto skull-bone, lacerated over middle of head anteriorly. (3) Wound 1" X 5 c.m. at the back of head, lacerated." There was a fracture 4.7" long near anterior suture between the frontal and the temporal bones and also a fracture 4" long in the right temporal bone. The membrances was torn at the sight of the fracture coagulated blood was present. Haemotoma was also present near the occipital lobe. According to the doctor, the cause of death was coma, which was the result of extensive injuries over the skull which had damages the scalp, skull bone and laceration of the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain, brain vessels and extensive haemorrahage, which involved vital centres of the brain. The Investigating Officer then arrested the accused on July 11, 1979. On the information and at the instance of the accused, he recovered the Jatura from the Dhani of the accused. The Jatura was sent to the Chemical Examiner, but blood could not be detected on the same. 3. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The accused was then committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for trial for the offence under Section 302, IPC. A charge under Section 302, IPC was framed and his plea was recorded by the learned Sessions. Judge on September 27, 1979 to which the accused pleaded not quality and claimed to the tried. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case which included three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 5 Smt. Pappu, PW 6 Fatiya and PW 9 Ghewar Ram. The cause of the incident was stated by PW 7 Jetha Ram. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P,C. in which he denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. Five witnesses were examined in defence to prove that the accused was below 16 years of age and was a child on the date of the incident. Dr. Rakesh Gaur was then examined as a court witness. He was also examined with regard to the age of the accused. 4. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated the 21st November, 1980, convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. Dr. Rakesh Gaur was then examined as a court witness. He was also examined with regard to the age of the accused. 4. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated the 21st November, 1980, convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that Smt. Sugani had died a homicidal death; the three eye-witnesses, namely, Smt. Papu, Fatiya and Ghewar Ram were reliable and trustworthy and it was proved from their evidence that it was the accused Chain Singh, who had inflicted the injuries on Smt. Sugani, which resulted in her death. The learned Sessions Judge also held that the offence made out against the accused was under Section 302 IPC, as the injuries received by the deceased were caused intentionally by the accused and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court. 5. We have heard Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri B.R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. We have also gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and have perused the record of the case. 6. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused on the date of the incident was below 16 years of age and he was entitled to be dealt with under the provisions of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act). After the commencement of the trial, the accused had filed an application before the trial court on March 6, 1980 urging that he was below 16 years of age and should, therefore, he dealt within accordance with the provisions of the Act. The trial court, by the order dated the 22nd March 1980, directed medical examination of the accused and permitted the parties to lead evidence on the question of his age. The accused examined Kishan Singh. Shaitan Singh, Sujan Singh, his brother and Rewat Singh his father to prove that he was born on Falgun Sudi Panchami. Samvat 2021 and he was thus less than 15 years of age on the date of the incident. Dr. P. Dayal was also examined as D.W. 5 on behalf of the accused. The accused examined Kishan Singh. Shaitan Singh, Sujan Singh, his brother and Rewat Singh his father to prove that he was born on Falgun Sudi Panchami. Samvat 2021 and he was thus less than 15 years of age on the date of the incident. Dr. P. Dayal was also examined as D.W. 5 on behalf of the accused. He stated that the age of the accused appeared to be 17 to 18 years. Dr. Rakesh Gaur, a Lecturer in Radiology in the Government Medical College, Bikaner, was examined as C W 1. He deposed that the age of the accused was above 17 years and below 19 years on March 28, 1980. He based his opinion on the X-ray examination of the accused, which revealed the following facts:- "(1) Palvis:- A.P. (4328) the epiphipeal centre of iliac crests have appeared but not fused, with the parent bones. (2) Right elbow: A.P. (4327). The epiphyseal centres around the right joint have fused completely. (3) Right wrist - A.P. (4326) The epiphypeal centres of the lower ends of radius and ulna have appeared but not fused with the parent bones." The trial court, by the order dated the 27th August, 1980, by an elaborate discussion of the evidence of the witnesses produced by the accused, held that the accused had failed to establish that he was below the 16 fears of age. On this finding, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused was not entitled to the benefit of the Act. Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has re-agitated the said question before us and as urged that the accused was below 16 years of age and the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously held that the accused had failed to prove this fact. We have read the statements of the four witnesses, namely. Kisdan Singh, Shaitan Singh, Sujan Singh and Rawat Singh examined on behalf of the accused to prove the fact of his age. Surprisingly these witnesses have given the exact TITHI of his birth and have stated that he was born on Falgun Sudi Panchami. Samvat 2021, but when cross-examined about the date of birth of others they admitted that they could not give the same. No material in the shape of contemporaneous document, like the Janam Kundli, memo in some Bahi etc. Surprisingly these witnesses have given the exact TITHI of his birth and have stated that he was born on Falgun Sudi Panchami. Samvat 2021, but when cross-examined about the date of birth of others they admitted that they could not give the same. No material in the shape of contemporaneous document, like the Janam Kundli, memo in some Bahi etc. or an entry in some register regularly maintained, has been produced to evince the fact that the accused was born on this date. No document has been mentioned by reference to which the witness could depose the exact date of the birth of the accused. The witnesses are interested and have come forward merely to support the accused. In our view the learned Sessions Judge was right in not placing reliance on their testimony. In the arrest memo, the age of the accused is mentioned as 18 years. In the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned it as "about 19-20 years" Dr. P. Dayal, examined as D.W. 5 on behalf of the accused, stated that the age of the accused appeared to be 17 to 18 years. His opinion was based on the basis of his own examination as also by reference to the Radiological report. Dr. Rakesh Gaur, a Lecturer in Radiology in the Government Medical College, Bikaner, who was examined as a court witness, has stated that on the basis of the trigrams, the age of the accused appeared to be between 17 to 19 years. There was thus sufficient material for the learned Sessions Judge to hold that the accused was not below the age of 16 years. By reference to the observations of the Supreme Court in Jayamala v. Home Secretary - JK (1982) 2 SCC 538 , the counsel has urged that the age of the accused should be treated two years less than the one stated by the experts. We do not agree with the contention urged by the counsel. The observations in Jaymala case are in a preventive detention case and have been made in a different context. We are not persuaded to treat the age of the accused two years less than the one stated by the two doctors. We do not agree with the contention urged by the counsel. The observations in Jaymala case are in a preventive detention case and have been made in a different context. We are not persuaded to treat the age of the accused two years less than the one stated by the two doctors. The learned Sessions Judge has given good reasons and after considering the evidence we affirm the finding that the accused was not proved to be below 16 years of age on the date of the incident. In this view of the matter, he was not entitled to the benefit of the Act. 7. The counsel for the appellant has next contended that the eye-witnesses were not trustworthy and the conviction could not be based on their evidence. The evidence of the eye-witness Papu PW 5, Fatiya PW 6 and Ghewar Ram PW 9 was read over to us. The learned Sessions Judge has placed implicit reliance on their test money. Smt Papu has stated that while she was in her Dhani, she heard the shrieks of Smt Sugani Devi. She came out of her Dhani and saw that Smt. Sugani was running to save her life in the field, closely pursued by the accused, who was having wooden Danda in his hand. The accused was saying that he would not leave her alive. The accused over took Smt Sugani and gave a Danda blow on her head, followed by another blow on her neck. Smt. Sugani fell down in the field but even, thereafter, the accused inflicted yet another Danda blow which landed on her temporal region. Smt. Sugani was crying. The witness also raised cries. Their cries attracted Fatiya and Ghewar Ram to the scene of the incident. When they were nearing the accused, he threatened them that they too would be killed, if they intervene. After this, the accused went away in his bullock cart. Smt Sugani died on the spot itself. To the same effect is the evidence of Fatiya and Ghewar Ram. The counsel for the appellant has urged that the attention of Fatiya and Ghewar Ram was directed to the scene when they heard the cries and, therefore, they were not in a position to narrate how the incident was started. Smt Sugani died on the spot itself. To the same effect is the evidence of Fatiya and Ghewar Ram. The counsel for the appellant has urged that the attention of Fatiya and Ghewar Ram was directed to the scene when they heard the cries and, therefore, they were not in a position to narrate how the incident was started. True, Fatiya and Ghewar Ram have admitted in their cross-examination that they were attracted to the scene of the incident, when they heard the cries and when Sugani, closely chased by the accused, was running to save her life and on account of this there is force in the contention of the learned counsel that these witnesses were not in a position to see, how the incident was actually initiated. But this fact would not in any way discredit their testimony to the effect that they saw the accused chasing Mst Sugani and inflicting blows on her in the field of Narayanram. About Ghewar Ram, there is one serious infirmity. He was examined after 17 days of the incident and the prosecution has not properly explained why he was examined so late We, therefore, do not feel safe to act upon his evidence. However, the evidence of Mst. Papu is alone sufficient to prove the case against the accused. She has clearly stated that the injuries on the body of Mst. Sugani were caused by the accused and these injuries resulted in her death at the spot. She is truthful and wholly reliable witness. After carefully going through her evidence, we find no infirmity in her deposition to discredit her. The learned Sessions Judge has implicitly relied on her testimony and we are in accord with his assessment. Fatiya supports her. He has stated that the accused was chasing the deceased with a Jatura and inflicted blows with it on the body of Smt. Sugani, as a result of which, she fell down and breathed her last. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that it was the accused who was responsible for inflicting injuries on the body of Mst. Sugani which were the cause for her death. 8. The counsel for the accused then contended that the offence against the accused, could not be that under Section 302 IPC. It did not exceed Section 304, Part-II, IPC. Sugani which were the cause for her death. 8. The counsel for the accused then contended that the offence against the accused, could not be that under Section 302 IPC. It did not exceed Section 304, Part-II, IPC. The learned counsel has urged that the prosecution has failed to disclose adequate motive for the accused to cause the death of Smt. Sugani. After giving our earnest thought to this question, we express our inability to accept his contention. Absence of any motive or its inadequacy loses its importance where direct evidence to prove the guilt is available. Assuming that the counsel is right in his submission that the motive attributed by the prosecution was not sufficient for the accused to commit this crime, yet the evidence led by the eye-witnesses, particularly, Smt. Pappu, was convincing and reliable to come to the conclusion that it was the accused who caused the injuries on the body of Sugani, which proved fatal. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the weapon used by the accused, we are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that the offered fell squarely within the ambit of Section 302 IPC. The injuries were caused intentionally and were individually and cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. 9. Lastly, the learned counsel has urged that directions may be given to the Jail Authorities to treat the accused as a youthful offender and extend to him the benefit of open jail. It is for the Government, after taking into consideration the conduct and behaviour of the accused in the jail and other circumstances including his age, to decide whether the accused should be dealt with as a youthful offender and given the benefit of open Jail and/or other facilities.The result is, that we find no force in the appeal. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment dated the 21st November, 1980 are upheld. The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******