JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the accused has been filed against the judgment dated May 29, 1981 of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who has convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and under Section 326 IPC to five years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The incident took place on October 13, 1980 at 12 noon in the sarhad of village Rampura in which Smt. Kanuri was killed and Bhoma Ram was injured. The injuries on the body of Kanuri consisted of an incised wound on the occipital region and fractures of the occipital and left parietal bones. She also received fractures of right humerus, left radius and ulna bones and there was complete amputation of her left hand 6" above the wrist joint. Bhoma Ram sustained two incised wounds (I) on the antero lateral aspect of right wrist, and (2) on the lateral aspect of right arm. Injury No. 2 was found to be grievous as there was fracture of the upper shaft of right humerous. 3. Smt. Kanuri was the wife of the accused. They was married about 4 years before the incident. She was not treated well and had therefore, returned to her brother Mohanram in village Rampura. About four months before the occurrence the ornaments and clothes given to her at the time of the marriage had also been returned to the accused. As per the prosecution, about five days before the incident, the accused had again come to stay at Rampura and started living there with Kanuri. On the date of the incident, Smt. Kanuri had gone to work as a labourer on the well of Poona Ram. Bhoma Ram and Ghewar Ram had also gone there to work as labourers. The prosecution case is that at about 12 noon the accused, armed with a sword, went to the well where Smt. Kanuri was working. Seeing a backed sword in his hand, Smt. Kanuri started fleeing but she was chased by the accused. The accused raised the sword to strike on the head of Smt. Kanuri. Bhoma Ram tried to ward of the same by raising his own hand. The blow fell on the right arm of Bhoma Ram resulting in the fracture of his wrist and lateral part of the right arm. Bhoma Ram fell down. The accused raised the sword to strike on the head of Smt. Kanuri. Bhoma Ram tried to ward of the same by raising his own hand. The blow fell on the right arm of Bhoma Ram resulting in the fracture of his wrist and lateral part of the right arm. Bhoma Ram fell down. The accused then gave blows by the sword on the head and arm of Smt. Kanuri. Smt. Kanuri fell down. The accused then left the place. According to the prosecution Mohan Rain had seen the accused coming with a sword towards the site of incident. He, therefore, followed him and was a witness of the incident. Ganpat Ram and Ghewar Ram, who were already working there, also witnessed the occurrence. Smt. Kanuri succumbed to the injuries and died. 4. On receiving a telephonic message at Police Station, Mathania, Shri Vishan Singh, Head Constable, reached the site and at about 10.00 P.M. recorded the statement of Mohanram which was treated as the first information report of the occurrence. A case under Sections 302, 307 and 326 IPC was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation the inquest of the dead body was held, site was inspected and a memo of inspection was drawn. Blood stained earth and other articles were seized and memos prepared. The accused was found at the 'pas' situate near the bus stand and was arrested from there. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Kanuri was conducted by Dr. K.L. Bissa, Medical Officer lncharge, Tiwari. According to him the cause of her death was injury to the brain and haemorrhage from the rupture of the large vessels and the left upper aim. The injuries of Bhoma Ram were examined by Dr. P. Dayal, Medical Jurist. on October 13, 1980. The X ray examination, conducted by Dalip Sankhla, revealed fracture of the upper shaft of his right humerus. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Osian, who committed him to the court of Sessions for trial. 5. The accused charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. In his plea recorded by the learned Sessions Judge the elapsed pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The accused charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. In his plea recorded by the learned Sessions Judge the elapsed pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, out of which four witnesses, namely, Mohan Ram, Wiomaram, Ghewar Ram and Ganpat Ram were the eye witnesses of the occurrence. la his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC the accused alleged that the prosecution story was false and concocted and that he was implicated falsely by his in-laws. No witness was examined in defence. 6. By the judgment dated May 29, the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicted and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him the accused has filed the present appeal in this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse] the record of the case. 8. The case against the accused depends on the evidence of four witnesses, namely, Mohan Ram, Bhoma Ram, Ghewar Ram and Ganpat Ram. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the evidence of these witnesses on the ground that firstly their presence itself was doubtful and secondly the story told by them was unnatural. He has further urged that there were contradictions in their statements which make them wholly unreliable. 9. After giving our earnest consideration to these submissions eve do not accept the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on their evidence and has observed that the same was plain, serene, straight-forward, free from doubt and inspired full confidence. We have ourselves read the statements of these witnesses and we arc convinced that the conclusion of the Sessions Judge is correct. Bhoma Ram has himself received injuries. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted. Mohan Ram saw the accused going towards the well with a sword in his hand and therefore, he became apprehensive and followed him. Ganpat Ram and Ghewar Ram were labourers and working on the well along with Smt. Kanuri. As such the presence of these witnesses at the spot was quite natural. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted. Mohan Ram saw the accused going towards the well with a sword in his hand and therefore, he became apprehensive and followed him. Ganpat Ram and Ghewar Ram were labourers and working on the well along with Smt. Kanuri. As such the presence of these witnesses at the spot was quite natural. After going through the statements of these witnesses we do not find anything unnatural or improbable in the story narrated by them. We are in agreement with the assessment of their evidence made by the learned Sessions Judge that their testimony was true and reliable. The witnesses have, in terms, stated that after reaching the well where Mg. Kanuri was working the accused raised the sword to strike on the head of Smt. Kanuri. Bhcma Ram tried to ward of this blow but as a result he himself got the sword injury on his own hand. The accused again raised the sword and this time struck blows on the head of Smt. Kanuri and then on her hands. Learned counsel has urged that after causing these injuries it was unnatural for the accused to have gone to words the public with a nacked sword in his hand. We do not find anything unnatural in it. Human behaviour is unpredictable. It is difficult to say with certainty how an individual would act in a given circumstance. Learned counsel has then urged that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses about the facts as regards the accused coming to Rampura; striking the blow on the right hand or the left hand etc. All these variations and contradictions are minor and not substantial in nature and in our view do not render the evidence of the witnesses unreliable. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has next urged that the document Ex. P I cannot be treated as a first information report in view of the entry in the Rojnamcha Ex P 20. We have looked into the said entry and we find that it did not furnish full information to be treated as the first information report of the offence. Another criticism about the first information report made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that though the incident took place on October 13, 1980, it was received by the concerning Magistrate on October 2 I , 1980. Another criticism about the first information report made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that though the incident took place on October 13, 1980, it was received by the concerning Magistrate on October 2 I , 1980. We called for the calendar of 1980 and we find that from 17th to 20th October, 1980 the courts were closed on account of Dashera holidays. According to the prosecution the first information report was sent to the Magistrate through post and, therefore, it was possible that the same may not have been delivered to him earlier in time. True, Mathania is very near to Jodhpur and the report of the occurrence ought to have been sent by the investigating officer to the Magistrate through a mess anger and not by post but this circumstance would not be sufficient to creates a dent in the prosecution case or discredit the testimony of the eye witnesses given on oath in the court and which otherwise was straightforward and reliable. Bhornaram himself sustained injuries. His evidence alone was sufficient to prove the case against the accused. Moreover the evidence of other eye witnesses is equally reliable and inspires confidence. We concur with the conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has established the offence against the accused under Section 302 and 326 IPC and he can be safely convicted for the same. In our view both the convictions and sentences passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge are correct and are hereby affirmed. 11. The result, is, that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******