JUDGMENT Pareed Pillay, J. : Appellant is the accused in S.C. No.61 of 1985 of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta. He was charged under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of Ayanikkad Narayanan on 9.7.1985 at 12 noon. Learned Sessions Judge, found him guilty under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Ayanikkad Narayanan (deceased) was deepen-ingachannel on the boundary of his paddy field. It is the prosecution case that the accused hit him with a spade and inflicted injuries which proved to be fatal. P.W.1 brother-in-law of the deceased went to Vellamunda Police Station and lodged Ext.p1 first information statement before P.W.10 Sub Inspector. P.W.12 completed investigated and laid the charge before the Court. 3. Accused filed statement pleading right of private defence. He stated that he saw the deceased destroying his boundary, that there ensued a verbal altercation between him and the deceased, that the deceased trespassed into his property and assaulted him and that there ensued a scuffle between them for the spade and the deceased accidentally sustained injuries. 4. P.W.1 went to the house of his brother-in-law (deceased) to request him to pay the wage due to a female worker he had engaged in removing grass growth from the ginger cultivation he had done in a compound of the deceased. Wife of the deceased informed P.W.1 that the deceased had gone to the paddy field and he was supervising the work there. P.W.1 proceeded to the paddy held. He saw the accused assaulting the deceased with a spade. Deceased cried and implored the accused not to do so. Even after deceased fell down accused beat him twice or thrice. Accused threw the spade and ran towards the west. P.W.1 went near his brother-in-law and realised that he was dead. Immediately he proceeded to the Police Station and lodged Ext.P1 first information statement. 5. P.W.2 was ploughing the field of Govinda Warner, close to the place of incident. He saw the deceased deepening a channel. Accused threw the spade and ran towards the west. P.W.1 went near his brother-in-law and realised that he was dead. Immediately he proceeded to the Police Station and lodged Ext.P1 first information statement. 5. P.W.2 was ploughing the field of Govinda Warner, close to the place of incident. He saw the deceased deepening a channel. It is his evidence that the accused came there at about 10.30 A.M. and told something to the deceased, that accused went back and returned at 11.30 A.M. carrying a spade with him, that the accused planted two stumps on the both ends of the channel, that he heard some loud talk between the accused and the deceased and that he saw the accused striking on the head of the deceased with the spade. It is also stated by him that when Narayanan fell down the accused assaulted him with his spade twice or thrice. 6. P. W.3 is another eye witness. After performing pooja in a temple P. W.3 went to his field to supervise agricultural operations. He stated that he saw the accused with a spade, plastic wire and two stumps. The deceased was digging the channel in between the boundaries of his field and that of the accused. Accused fixed stumps and questioned the conduct of the deceased for having deepened the channel and hit with spade on his head. On seeing the deceased falling down P.W.3 ran to his house. P.W.2 ploughing a nearby paddy field is spoken to by P.W.3. 7. P.W.4 heard the cry of P.W.1 while she was working in the house of deceased and she along with Vellakka and Padmavathy (wife of the deceased) ran to the paddy field and saw the accused running away. She stated about the presence of P.W.1 at the scene and he going to the Police Station to report the incident. 8. The learned defence counsel contended that there is ample evidence in the case to show that the incident occurred in accused's property and that it is a tell-tale circumstance to hold that the deceased was the aggressor. Learned defence counsel also contended that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be relied as they have not given a true version before the Court. Learned defence counsel also contended that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be relied as they have not given a true version before the Court. It is further submitted that names of P.Ws.2 and 3 are not there in the first information statement and that also is a factor to be taken note of by the Court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident occurred close to the boundary of the properties of the accused and the deceased and therefore merely because the deceased fell down in the property of the accused and it cannot be said that the deceased was the aggressor. There is considerable force in the above contention. There is no evidence in the case even impliedly suggesting that the deceased was the aggressor. The evidence of the eye witnesses does not reveal any circumstance to hold that the deceased was the aggressor and the accused apprehending danger to his life was justified to act in self-defence. 9. The contention that names of P.Ws.2 and 3 are not therein in the first information statement and so their evidence is not worthy of credit is not tenable as in Ext.P1 it has been clearly stated that apart from the named witnesses others were also present at the place of occurrence. When there is indeprandent and reliable evidence that a witness not named in the first information statement was present during the occurrence, there is no reason to reject it on the sole ground that his name is conspicuously absent in the first information statement. In Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana 1977 Crl.L.J. 642 the Supreme Court held that nonmention of the name of a witness in the first information statement though of some relevance would not be sufficient by itself to entail rejection of his evidence. As the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is found reliable, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that their names do not find a place in the first information statement. The importance of the first information statement cannot be sidelined as it is first in point of time and as it is made when the memory of the informant is fresh and it is unlikely that he had opportunities of fabrication and embellishments. The importance of the first information statement cannot be sidelined as it is first in point of time and as it is made when the memory of the informant is fresh and it is unlikely that he had opportunities of fabrication and embellishments. But it will lead to undesirable results if the testimony of witnesses found reliable and trustworthy is discarded on the ground that their names are absent in the first information statement. 10. There is nothing to show that the eye witnesses were interested or partisan. It has not been established that there is any motive on their part to falsely implicate the accused. In Abdul Razaq v. Nanhey Abdul Razaq v. Nanhey 1984 Crl.L.J. 185 the Supreme Court held that where the witnesses are not interested and where there is no motive for false implication there must be strong grounds to disbelieve them. 11. Merely on the evidence of P.W.4 that she saw the dead body lying in accused's property Court cannot jump to the conclusion that the deceased was the aggressor. The law does not permit an accused person to require the Court to pick up factors from here and there and build a case of self-defence by adopting an imaginative approach. Though an accused is presumed to be innocent in law and can certainly highlight circumstances in support of his plea of private defence from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, he cannot build up a case on mere conjectures or on his ipse dixit. 12. It is next contended that there is no clear evidence as to the commencement of the incident and so the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Merely because the witnesses could not hear what accused and deceased were talking it cannot be safely held that it was the deceased who caused the provocation. In view of the evidence that the deceased was engaged in digging the channel which forms part of his boundary and that the accused suddenly came there armed with a spade and assaulted the deceased and that too continuously after he fell down, the defence contention that genesis of the incident was not proved by the prosecution and so accused is entitled to benefit of doubt cannot be accepted. As the evidence of the ocular witnesses with regard to the incident rules out total absence of any circumstance justifying the accused to act in private defence, the prosecution case has only to be accepted. 13. P.W.8 doctor who conducted autopsy stated that the death was due to bleeding and shock due to head injury. He stated that the injury No.1 itself was fatal. That injury was on the scalp. Though P.W.8 stated that sustaining of injury Nos.1 and 2 cannot be ruled out in a scuffle, he opined that it was only a remote possibility. The remote possibility stated by the doctor cannot erase the ocular testimony of the witnesses. In view of the evidence of the eye witnesses it is not possible to hold that the deceased sustained injuries during a scuffle. The medical evidence also is indicative of the fact that it cannot be caused during a scuffle. 14. On a consideration of the entire evidence we hold that the Sessions Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in the Criminal Appeal and hence the same is dismissed. B.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.