JUDGMENT P.P. Gupta, J. - This is a Criminal Appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 1.6.78 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 274 of 1977 convicting the appellant Din Dayal under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life 2. The prosecution story, in nut-shell, is that the complainant Moti Lai had gone to weed his Kodo field situate in the Har of Village Tola Patar, P. S. Mahobknath, district Hamirpur at abut 8 A.M. on 4.9.77. While the deceased Mata Din was coming to the said field at about 1.P.M., he saw the accused grazing his cattle in his parti land lying in the south of the said Kodo Plot. Mata Din asked the accused to take away his cattle from the said field. The accused Din Dayal became annoyed and started assaulting Mata Din with his lathi. On the alarm being raised, the complainant P.W. I Moti Lal who is real brother of the deceased, P.W. 2 Bhagirath as well as Bihari and Jassi who were grazing their cattle nearby also rushed towards the scene of occurrence but the accused managed to run away.. All of them are said to have gone near Mata Din who was found dead. He was said to have received several injuries over his body. 3. The complainant P.W. 1 Moti Lal went to the P. S. Mahobkanth where an oral F.I.R. was lodged by him at 4.14. P.M. 4. The Investigating Officer P.W. 5 Chandra Bhan Singh reached the scene of occurrence at about 6 P.M. and Prepared Panchayatnama, Ex. Ka-4, of the dead body which was found lying in the pare land.. After preparing the necessary) documents and collecting the plain and blood stained earth, he completed all other necessary formalities and sent the dead body.for post mortem examination, P.W. 3 Dr. H. C. Pandey performed the autopsy on the dead body of Mata Din, aged. 35 years. He found 9 lacerated wounds including abrasions of different dimensions all over his body. The frontal parietal and occipital were found fractured in pieces. The membrane was lacerated. The brain was congested and badly lacerated. The frontal, middle and posterior, crenical, fossa were fractured in pieces. Stomach was empty. Faecal matter was present in both the intestines. In his opinion, Mata Din died due to Coma which was caused by the head injures. 5. The frontal parietal and occipital were found fractured in pieces. The membrane was lacerated. The brain was congested and badly lacerated. The frontal, middle and posterior, crenical, fossa were fractured in pieces. Stomach was empty. Faecal matter was present in both the intestines. In his opinion, Mata Din died due to Coma which was caused by the head injures. 5. The prosecution examined two eye- witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Moti Lal the informant and brother of deceased and P.W. 2 Bhagirath. Other formal witnesses were also examined. On an assessment of the entire prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the case fully proved against the appellant. He accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Government Advocate were heard who placed the entire record of the case including the impugned judgment. 7. It is a case of broad day light incident and the ocular account as given by the prosecution witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Both the prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Moti Lai and P.W. 2 Bhagirath claimed to have seen the occurrence. They have stated that when the deceased asked the appellant to take away the cattle from his Parti field, he got annoyed and started assaulting the deceased with his lathi. Injures were inflicted all over his body. This fact finds ample corroboration from the post mortem report, Ex. Ka-2. There are lacerated wounds and contusions on head, face, neck fore-arm, left hand, right hand, back and buttocks of the deceased. 8. The dead body of Mata Din was found by the I.O. lying in the Parti land where the panchayatnama was also prepared. The 1. O. also took samples of blood and blood stained earth from that spot. A suggestion was given to P. W. 1 Moti Lal that the place where the murder of Mata Din is said to have taken place is a place where several persons have been looted and murdered. A further suggestion has been given to him that in fact he had not seen the incident and somebody else had murdered Mata Din. It has, therefore, been indirectly stated that Mata Din was murdered at that very place where according to the prosecution witnesses the occurrence took place. A further suggestion has been given to him that in fact he had not seen the incident and somebody else had murdered Mata Din. It has, therefore, been indirectly stated that Mata Din was murdered at that very place where according to the prosecution witnesses the occurrence took place. Further the scene of occurrence has not been challenged by the appellant in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses. All these facts and circumstances clearly establish that Mata Din was murdered in the said Parti Land. 9. On behalf of the appellant, it was vehemently argued that P.W. I Moti Lal has stated that on the date of incident he had weeded his "Kodo" field. He claims to have shown that field along with Khurpi to the 1. 0. The 1. 0. P. W. 5 Chandra Bhan Singh has, however, denied it. From this, the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to prove that P.W. 1 Moti Lal is an unreliable witness. 10. In our opinion it is a trivial matter. Not much importance can be attached to it in view of the statement of the 1. 0., who has stated in his cross- examination that the entire kodo' field was not shown to him by the informant. It may be, that the 1.0. did not consider it to he an important matter so as to show it in the site plan. 11. It was further argued that because P.W. 1 Moti Lal has concealed the fact of the conviction of the deceased Mata Din in a criminal case, he is a liar whose statement cannot be believed. P.W. 1 Moti Lal denied that his deceased brother Mata Din was ever convicted for an offence of dacoity. He has further stated that the deceased was never prosecuted nor ever convicted. The reference was to the dacoity case and not to any other case. A copy of judgment dated 9.6.72. Ex. Kha-1, shows that Mata Din was convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and -sentenced to 9 months R. I. His appeal too was dismissed on 11.11.72 vide extract of Register, Ex. Kha-2. The witness Moti Lal was not specifically asked about it. Moreover, this prosecution of Mata Din took place in the year 1972 when the witness Moti Lal was a young lad of about 14 years. It is likely that he may not be having any knowledge of it. Kha-2. The witness Moti Lal was not specifically asked about it. Moreover, this prosecution of Mata Din took place in the year 1972 when the witness Moti Lal was a young lad of about 14 years. It is likely that he may not be having any knowledge of it. Under these circumstances, the statement of P.W. 1 Moti Lal cannot be discarded simply because he did not disclose the fact of conviction of Mata Din for an offence in the year 1972. It cannot, therefore, he held that the statement of Moti Lal should not be believed because he has concealed some facts about the conviction of the deceased Mata Din. 12. P. W. 2 Bhagirath is an independent witness. He owns fields about 80-90 paces away in the east of the place of occurrence. He was grazing his cattle and saw the occurrence with his own eyes. Our attention was drawn to the statement of these witnesses that there were no proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between Mohan Lal and Ram Pal on one side and Phool Singh and others on the other. It was admitted by him that Mohan Lal is his real brother. It was also admitted by him that Phool Singh is the brother of the appellant Din Dayal. Documents Ex. Kha-3 and Kha-4 were filed to show that proceedings under Sections 107/117 Cr.P.C. took place in the year 1969 between Mohan Lal, brother of this witness, on one side and Phool Singh, brother of the appellant Din Dayal, on the other. It was, therefore, urged on behalf of the appellant that this witness is inherently unreliable. The said proceeding took place in the year 1969, i.e., about 8 years prior to the present incident. Besides, the deceased Mata Din or for that matter the complainant were not parties to this litigation. Similarly, this witness Bhagirath was also not a party to it. Further, both the cases were compromised on 13.11.69. None of the parties was found down to maintain peace. In the circumstances, the failure on the part of P.W. 1 Moti Lal and P.W. 2 Bhagirath to admit this litigation under Sections 107/117 Cr.P.C. does not shake their credibility. There statement can neither be said to be false nor unreliable. 13. Further, both the cases were compromised on 13.11.69. None of the parties was found down to maintain peace. In the circumstances, the failure on the part of P.W. 1 Moti Lal and P.W. 2 Bhagirath to admit this litigation under Sections 107/117 Cr.P.C. does not shake their credibility. There statement can neither be said to be false nor unreliable. 13. A suggestion has been given to P.W. 1 Moti Lal that because the deceased was a criminal having been convicted earlier in a dacoity case, and was also a history sheeter he might have been murdered by some unknown assailant. However, there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the deceased Mata Din was involved in any dacoity or theft case. The appellant summoned the original register of History Sheeters. The registers were produced by the Head Constable Mewa Ram who was not examined. It was, therefore, not established from these registers that deceased Mata Din was a history sheeter. In the circumstances, the suggestion that because of the deceased Mata Din being a bad character and history sheeter the possibility of his having been murdered by some body else is ruled out. The prosecution has not alleged that there was any inimical terms between the accused and the deceased and for that matter with the complainant. Therefore, there does not seem to be any reason as to why the appellant would have been falsely implicated for the murder of Mata Din. 14. In this case we find that both P.W.1 Moti Lal and P.W. 2 Bhagirath have given their consistent statement about the said incident. They are the natural witnesses whose presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. There is no enmity between the complainant and the appellant. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses finds full corroboration from the medical evidence on record. As has been said above, there is no possibility of Mata Din having been murdered by somebody else. In these circumstances the charge of murder of Mata Din against the appellant Din Dayal stands proved to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt. He has, therefore, rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. This appeal must fail. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. It is not clear whether the appellant is on bail or not. In these circumstances the charge of murder of Mata Din against the appellant Din Dayal stands proved to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt. He has, therefore, rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. This appeal must fail. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. It is not clear whether the appellant is on bail or not. It is directed that if appellant Din Dayal is on bail, he will surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence awarded to him. If the appellant is in custody, he will serve out the remaining sentence.