JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment and conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 30-8-1976 where by he has sentenced the accused appellants to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that a First Information Report was filed by one Govinda on 4-11-1975 at about 11-15 a.m. at police station, Sikar that today i.e. 4-11-1975 at about 5 a.m. in village Sanvloda he was informed by Birda son of Surja Balai in the early morning at about 5 a.m. that Chandra son of Natha was thrown in the well by Ram Singh and Bhag Singh sons of Chain Singh and he has been killed. On the basis of this report, a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered against both the accused persons Thereafter, investigation was taken up by the police and the Investigating Officer reached on the scene of the occurrence and the dead body of the deceased was taken out from the well. The site plan was prepared, dead body was seized and sent for post mortem. According to the medical evidence, the death of deceased Chandra was caused by dragging. Both the accused persons were arrested and necessary investigation was taken up. After close of the investigation, the police charged both the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and thereafter the c;se was committed for trial to the court of Sessions. 3. During the trial the prosecution examined about 12 witnesses and got a large number of documents exhibited. Out of the 12 prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution, two have been cited as eye-witnesses, namely. PW 7 Lalaram and PW 9 Birdaram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after due trial found the accused persons guilty on the evidence produced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this, the accused persons have preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the record. 5. Mr. Aggrieved against this, the accused persons have preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the record. 5. Mr. Doongar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has streneously urged that the learned Additional Seesions Judge has wrongly relied upon the testimony of the so-called eye-witnesses PW 7 Lalaram and PW 9 Birdaram. Learned Counsel submitted that there was no motive and the conduct of both the eye-witnesses is improbable. 6. In the present case, the whole prosecution case depends on the testimony of two eye witnesses, namely, PW 7 Lalaram and PW 9 Birdaram. PW 7 Lalaram and PW 9 Birdaram have deposed that in the morning of 4-11-1975 at about 5 a.m. when they were going for 'Rama Shama' on account of Diwali at about 5 a.m. and passing near the well they heard some sound and saw that both the accused persons i.e. Ram Singh and Bhag Singh were dragging the deceased Chandra and throwing him in the well. They protested and shouted for help. Some persons came on the scene like PW 6 Tanaram though he turned hostile. After this a First Information Report was also got written by PW 1 Ganpat Sarpanch at d the same was filed at police station by Govinda The motive which as has been suggested by the prosecution is that one lady of Rajput community was thrown in this very well and deceased Chandra was said to be one of accused in the said case. But the fact remains that whether the testimony of these two persons is reliable one or not. 7. Mr. Doongar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the presence of these accused persons at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful. Learned Counsel submits that it is incredible that these witnesses will go out for RAMA SHAMA that early. Learned Counsel further submits that the conduct of these witnesses is also unnatural, no effort was made to rescue the deceased nor did they inform the family of the deceased, it has also been pointed out that the name of PW 7 Lalaram eye-witness does not find mention in the First Information Report. On these facts, learned Counsel submits that the testimony of these witnesses should be discarded. 8. On these facts, learned Counsel submits that the testimony of these witnesses should be discarded. 8. We have bestowed our best of the consideration and we are of the opinion that the testimony of both these witnesses appears to be reliable and trust worthy. 9. The conduct of PW 7 Lalaram and PW 9 Birdaram for going for 'Rama Shama' in the early morning at 5 a.m. cannot be said to be an unnatural conduct. It is just possible that these witnesses might have to go a longer distance and as such they have started in the early morning on foot. The fact is that Ganpat PW 1 Sarpanch who has written the report has mentioned about the names of these witnesses and he has further mentioned the names of the accused persons. The First Information Report has been lodged at 11 a.m. on the same day. Thus, the presence of both the eye-witnesses at the relevant time at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. It has been pointed out that the name of Lalaram PW 7 does not find mention in the FIR. This is an omission. But Birdaram PW 9 has clearly deposed that both of them were going together and simply the omission of the name of this witness in the FIR will not render the testimony of these witnesses as unreliable. It has been further argued that no effort was made to rescue and inform the family of the decased. This suggestion also does not have much relevance. They have approached the Sarpanch Ganpat PW 1 and got the report written and took it to the police station. All the relations of the deceased meanwhile have also arrived at the scene. Thereafter the police came and got the body of the deceased recovered from the well. Thus, in these circumstances, it cannot be said the testimony of both these witnesses is lacking in any manner. PW 3 Shanker has also admitted that both the witnesses were present at the time when the dead body was taken out from the well. Thus, these two witnesses appear to be reliable and we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the testimony of there two witnesses. 10. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Thus, these two witnesses appear to be reliable and we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the testimony of there two witnesses. 10. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellants is maintained. The accused appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they should surrender themselves before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar within a period of one month to serve out the remaining sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to get the accused appellants arrested to serve out the sentence if they do not surrender within the aforesaid period before him.Appeal dismissed. *******