B. N. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) AU Ahmad has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Session Judge, Bijnor dated 7-6-1979 passed in Session Trial No. 149 of 1978 convicting him under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that Sattar Ahmad deceased was the elder brother of Ashfaq Ahmad. Their houses were near each other in Qasba Tajpur. Ali Ahmad appellant lived in the same house in which the deceased lived. The appellant told the deceased many times before the occurrence that he should construct a wall in their common court-yard but the deceased said that he was poor person and that he would construct the wall when he has money. On 3-4-1978 at about 12. 30 p. m. while Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1) the wife of Ashfaq Ahmad was in the house of the deceased talking to the wife of the deceased the deceased came inside his house and began to wash his hands. In the meantime the appellant came there and told him to construct the wall. When the deceased replied that he would do so when he had money the appellant abused him and picked up an iron rod (Saria) and tried to assault him but it did not hit the deceased as he stepped back. The appellant then took out a knife from his pocket and gave a blow with it to the deceased. When Km. Mehshar (P. W. 3) the daughter of Ashfaq Ahmad and Smt. Haneefa the wife of the deceased tried to save the deceased they were also assulted by the appellant with his knife. The deceased after receiving knife injury ran a few paces and fell down and died. The appellant went near the body of the deceased and started swinging the iron rod (Saria) and knife and saying that if anyone come to help the deceased he would also be assaulted. In the meantime-three constables who were on patrol duty came inside the house of the deceased and arrested the appellant and recovered the iron rod and knife from his possession. ( 3 ) THE appellant, Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1) and Km. In the meantime-three constables who were on patrol duty came inside the house of the deceased and arrested the appellant and recovered the iron rod and knife from his possession. ( 3 ) THE appellant, Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1) and Km. Mehshar (P. W. 3) were taken to Police Station, Noorpur by constable Jiley Singh (P. W. 5) and the first information report was lodged there by Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1 ) at 2 p. m. on the same day (3-4-78), the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence being six kilometers. ( 4 ) THE injuries of Km. Mehshar (P. W. 3) and Smt. Haneefa were examined by Dr. Furkan Hayder (P. W. 7) at 7 p. m. and 7. 15 p. m. respectively on the same day (3-4-1978) and the under mentioned injuries were found on their person: km. Mehshar 1. Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 1. 25 cm directing upwards on the front of right forearm 3. 5 cm below the elbow joint. Red blood clots present. Bleeding occurs during probing. Smt. Haneefa: 2. Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 75 cm x 1 cm on the lateral aspect of it. Upper are 2. 5 cm above the left elbow joint. Direction of wound is upwards. Red clots are present. Bleeding occurs during probing. 3. Redish blue contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the front of left upper arm just above the left elbow joint. ( 5 ) THE postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. RS. Sharma (P. W. 2) on 4-4-1978 at 1. 20 p. m. and the under mentioned antermortem injuries were found on the- body of the deceased. 1. Stab wound 1 3/4 cm. x 2/3 cm. medically and below from right nipple and 1 cm lateral from mid sternal line on exposure the injury sternum is cut below the injury. On further exposure pericardium was found cut and the right auricle is punctured, Directions of injury is upwards, and medically. (f 2. Incised wound 11/2 cm.-x 1/2 cm. on exposure muscle deep at lateral upper side of left forearm. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of Dr. R. S. Sharma (P. W. 2) the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (f 2. Incised wound 11/2 cm.-x 1/2 cm. on exposure muscle deep at lateral upper side of left forearm. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of Dr. R. S. Sharma (P. W. 2) the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined two eyewitnesses, namely, Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1) and Km. Mehshar (P. W. 3 ). ( 8 ) HAFIZ Shafiq Ahmad (P. W. 4) and Jiley Singh constable (P. W. 5) deposed regarding the arrest of the appellant from the house of the deceased soon after the incident. ( 9 ) THE appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity. ( 10 ) THE Trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. ( 11 ) SMT. Saira Banu (P. W. 1) narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. Her evidence is corroborated by the First Information Report lodged by her and is also supported by the medical evidence and by the fact that the appellant was arrested soon after the incident by Jiley Singh Constable (P. W. 5) and others. It was stated by her that she was talking to Smt. Haneefa the wife of the deceased in the house of the deceased when the incident took place and Km. Mehshar (P. W. 3) her daughter aged about 12 years was also present with her which appears to be natural as her house was close to that of the deceased. She had no previous enmity with the appellant. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that she would have implicated him falsely. It is true that it was stated by her in her cross-examination that after her statement was recorded by the Daroga, the Daroga got a report written by a doctor in her house but this appears to have been stated by her under some confusion as three policemen had arrested the appellant soon after the incident and the report must have been written by Dr. Shabbir Ahmad Siddiqi in their presence in the village. Nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to shake her credit. In our opinion her evidence is reliable. ( 12 ) KM. Shabbir Ahmad Siddiqi in their presence in the village. Nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to shake her credit. In our opinion her evidence is reliable. ( 12 ) KM. Mehshar (P. W. 3) is the daughter of Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1 ). She corroborated the evidence of Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1) regarding the incident. Her presence is e3tablished by the injuries received by her. It is true that she is the niece of the deceased but this is not sufficient to reject her testimony. Nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to shake her credit. In our opinion her evidence is reliable. ( 13 ) HAFIZ Shafiq Ahmad (P. W. 4) deposed that his house is near the house of the deceased. On the day of occurrence at about 12. 30 p. m. he heard noise and went to the house of the deceased and found the body of the deceased lying there and the appellant was standing near the body of the deceased and swinging an iron rod and a knife and saying that if anyone come near he would also be assaulted. In the meantime three police constables who were on patrol duty came there arrested the appellant and recovered the iron rod and knife from his possession. He appears to be independent as there were no previous enmity between him and the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. In our opinion his evidence is reliable. ( 14 ) CONSTABLE Jiley Singh (P. W. 5) deposed that on 3-4-1978 he was posted at Police Station Noorpur, on that day he, constable Gajraj Singh and constable Tota Ram sent on patrol duty to Tajpur. He was informed by a person that a quarrel had taken place and that one person had been killed. He and other constables went to the place of occurrence and found the body of the deceased lying there and the appellant was standing near the body of the deceased and swinging an iron rod and a knife. He and other constables tried to persuade the appellant to surrender and also tried to catch him but were unsuccessful. Constable Gajraj Singh then fired his gun in the air to terrorise the appellant but the appellant could not be arrested. He and other constables tried to persuade the appellant to surrender and also tried to catch him but were unsuccessful. Constable Gajraj Singh then fired his gun in the air to terrorise the appellant but the appellant could not be arrested. The appellant thereafter struck the rifle of Jiley Singh constable (P. W. 5) with the iron rod. He was, however, beaten and arrested and the iron rod and the knife were recovered from his possession. After preparing a recovery memo regarding the aforersaid articles the appellant, Smt: Saira Banu (P. W. 1), Km. Mehshar (P. W. 5) and Smt. Haneefa were taken to Police Station Noorpur by him and the First Information Report was lodged by Smt. Saira Banu (P. W. 1 ). His evidence is supported by the arrest of the appellant soon after the incident. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. In our opinion his evidence is also reliable. ( 15 ) IT may be mentined that during the trial an application was moved on behalf of the appellant in which it was mentioned that the appellant was of unsound mind and was incapable of understanding the proceedings and to defend himself. The Trial Court directed the Chief Medical Officer Bijnor to examine the appellant who was in Jail and to submit his report regarding his mental condition. The appellant was thereafter examained by Dr. R. K. Nigam Jail Doctor (C. W. 1) who reported that the appellant was of sound mind and was capable of defending himself. ( 16 ) THE result, therefore, is that the evidence of Smt. Saira Banu (P. W, 1) and Km, Mehshar (P. W. 3) establishes that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a knife and also assulted Smt. Haneefa and Km. Mehshar with a knife at the time of the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased shortly after the incident. Considering that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death the appellant was rightly convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian penal Code. ( 17 ) THERE is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ( 18 ) THE appellant is in Jail. He shall serve out the sentences awarded to him. Appeal dismissed. .