PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Satish against his conviction and sentence under Section 302, I. P. C. to imprisonment for life, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad on 8. 8. 1984 in S. T. No. 237 of 1983. ( 2 ) THE charge against the appellant was that an 22. 1. 1982 at about 2. 20 A. M. the appellant committed murder with Kulhari (axe) by intentionally causing the death of Lekhraj in village Mubarikpur Tecla falling within Police Station Kannauj, District Farrukhabad. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that Shyam Singh, informant, and Satish, appellant, are residents of Mohalla Kashipura Kannauj and the deceased, Lekhraj, was the father of Shyam. Singh, who had his house near the accuseds father Soney Lals house. About a week ago, from the date of occurrence, Soney Lal sold his house for Rs. 1,500. 00 to Narain and Balak. The sale deed had not been executed. However, the father of the appellant continued to live in the said house. The Parnala of Lekhraj used to flow towards Soney Lals house. On 21/1/1982 Soney Lal closed the parnala and stopped the flow of water. An altercation took place and due to this an animosity developed between Lekhraj and Soney Lal, as a result of which Soney Lal had threatened Lekhraj that he would see him in future, who (Lekhraj) in turn said that he was prepared to meet him (Soney Lal ). However, on 21/1/1982 the appellants father, Soney Lal, had vacated the house and went to Kanpur with his family. ( 4 ) FURTHER case of the prosecution is that at about 2. 30 A. M. (after mid-night) of 22/ 23/1/1982 Lekhraj was sleeping in the way side hut in Mohalla Mubarikpur Teela on a cot. The appellant came in the hut with an axe and gave 2/3 blows on the face Of the deceased, who died at the spot. Ram Bharosey, P. W. 3, and Ram Bux, P. W. 2 saw the appellant attacking with an axe with the help of torches in their possession, which they had flashed at that time, as well as in the electric light aminiting from the street light in front of the said hut. The appellant came out of the hut and ran away in the darkness. The Chadar. The appellant came out of the hut and ran away in the darkness. The Chadar. Kathri and cot had signs of cut by the axe and human blood. At this Ram Bux P. W. 2, rushed to the house of infonnant, Shyam Singh, P. W. 1, and narrated to him the entire incident. Shyam Singh lodged the F. I. R. at Police Station Kannauj on 23/1/1982 at 7. 00 A. M. incorporating therein the message about incident which came to him through the eye witnesses. S. I. Han Prakash Sharma, P. W. 9 was present at the Police Station when the F. I. R. was lodged and he took up investigation at once. He reached the spot, examined the witnesses, prepared a site plan, took the torch in possession and handed it over to the witnesses. Inquest report was prepared along with photo lash and challan lash and other memorandum and letters were also prepared at the spot. The blood stained Chadar and Kathri were also taken in possession. ( 5 ) FURTHER the case of prosecution is that the appellant, Satish, was arrested around 6. 00 P. M. on 23. 1. 1982 and was admitted in the Hawalat on the said date at 6. 45 p. m. , vide entry Ex. Ka-16. The appellant divulged that he would take the police party and get the axe recovered through which he had committed the murder. Consequently, the 1. 0. and two witnesses of the locality including P. W. 5, Mangali Prasad, were taken to the house of one Soberan and the axe was recovered from a room of Soberans house which was having cow-dung cake and woodstick inside it. The 1. 0. prepared a site plan about the place of recovery of the axe which was done at 9. 20 p. m. vide G. D. entry No. 40, Ex. Ka-19. The dead body was taken by constable for medical examination and the post-mortem examination was conducte on 24/1/1982 at 11. 00 A. M. by P. W. 6, Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey, who found the following injuries: 1 Incised wound 5 x 3/4. x bone deep on right side of face extending from right side of right angle of eye to lower jaw margine clear cut places panaral to midline underneath maxillary bone, and low jaw intered and clear cut. 2. 00 A. M. by P. W. 6, Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey, who found the following injuries: 1 Incised wound 5 x 3/4. x bone deep on right side of face extending from right side of right angle of eye to lower jaw margine clear cut places panaral to midline underneath maxillary bone, and low jaw intered and clear cut. 2. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 x Brain deep on right side outer aspect of forehead just above outer part of right eye-brow underneath/frontal bone entered clear cut. Brain matter coming out. Margine clear cut. 3. Incised wound 5-1/2 x 1" x bone to brain cavity deep 1 away and away and parallel to injury No. 2 underneath frontal (Part off) and temporal and temporal maxillary joint clear cut fractured brain matter coming out. In the opinion of the Doctor the ante-mortem injuries could have been caused by an axe and was sufficient in the ordinary course to have caused the death. The 1. 0. , after completing the investigation, filed a charge-sheet. This was followed by due committal proceedings where after the trial commenced and then conviction and sentence having been recorded, as stated above. The appellant has preferred this appeal from jail. ( 6 ) WHEN the appeal was listed on the last occasion, Sri B. N. Tewari, an Advocate of reputation having sufficient standing, was appointed amicus curiae, who has argued this appeal with ability. Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA has held the brief of the State and both the learned counsel have placed the entire record during the arguments. ( 7 ) THE appellant has denied his participation and claimed that he has been implicated falsely due to enmity. No evidence in defence has been produced. During the trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses of whom P. W. 1, Shyam Singh, is the informant while P. W. 2 Ram Bux and P. W. 3, Ram Bharosey are the eye witnesses of the occurrence, and P. W. 4, Babu Ram, is the immediate neighbour living next to the house of the hut where the deceased vas sleeping and had seen the appellant running away from the hut being chased by Ram Bux and Ram Bharoscy. P. W. 5, Mangali Prasad, is the witness of discovery of the axe at the pointing out of the appellant. P. W. 5, Mangali Prasad, is the witness of discovery of the axe at the pointing out of the appellant. The 9ther witnesses are formal in nature except that P. W. 9 Ran Prakash Sharma has also testified about the arrest of the appellant and thereafter witnessing the recovery of the axe at the pointing out of the appellant. Apart from this, the prosecution has filed and proved the various documents including the report of the chemical examiner which is to the effect that on the Chadar and Kathari and the axe recovered at the pointing out of the appellant human blood was found. It may be mentioned that the appellant did not challenge the said reports of the chemical examiner and had, in fact, admitted the same. The learned Trial Judge has placed implicit reliance on the testimony of the two eye witnesses and P. W. 4 Babu Ram, who had seen the appellant running away soon after the incident and has also believed the statement of Shyam Singh, informant. The discovery of the axe under Section 27 of the India Evidence Act has also been believed and relied upon by the learned Trial Judge, hence he proceeds to record the aforesaid conviction and sentence. ( 8 ) SRI Tewari has argued that the prosecution has failed to proved any motive for the crime. At the outset it may be stated that even in the F. I. R. the possible reason for the murder has been stated. Whether that much reason is or is not to be taken as a motive for the crime is an attempt only on a guess work. Neither there is any cross-examination nor has any evidence been produced on the basis of which it can be said that the theory of stoppage of dirty water by the informants father, Lekhraj, had not annoyed the appellant and his father. Similarly, no circumstances have been brought on record which may dispute the correctness of the prosecution allegation that in fact the appellant and his father had thought of migrating from that village to Kanpur. Moreover, it is a settled view that motive by itself may not be strictly proved in every case as it is difficult at times to gauge the working of the mind of the accused. Moreover, it is a settled view that motive by itself may not be strictly proved in every case as it is difficult at times to gauge the working of the mind of the accused. Consequently, there is no force in the argument that the prosecution case should be looked at from the suspicious angle for having failed to proved the motive. In this case there was ample motive for the appellant to commit the crime. ( 9 ) RAM Bux and Ram Bharosey (P. W. land P. W. 3 respectively) are eye witnesses living in the same locality. Ram Bharosey had gone to irrigate his field and was returning there from when he had seen the incident. So far Ram Bux is concerned, he was not keeping good digestion on the said day and, therefore, had gone to attend the call of the nature. Both of them were having their torches. Their presence at the place appears to be reasonably explained. Inspite of crossexamination, nothing has been elucidated so as to discredit the testimony of these two witnesses. It may further be noted that the electric light has been found mentioned by the 1. 0. in the site plan. Therefore, there was enough light in which witnesses could recognise the assailant. It may be remembered that the causing three injuries on the deceased must have taken sometime and should have created enough noise or hue and cry by the deceased, calling the attention of the said witnesses. Their testimony is fully in accordance with the post-mortem examination report. ( 10 ) THE evidence of P. W. 4, Babu Ram, is of immense value to the prosecution. He is an old man of about 80 years and was living next to the hut of the deceased. He had absolutely no reason to depose falsely against the appellant or to side with the prosecution witnesses. He has fairly conceded that in the night he could not himself recognise the assailant as he had come out of his hut after the shouts of the deceased and the witnesses saying pakar liya - pakar liya. When he came out, he saw the appellant running away with an axe in his hand and the witnesses giving him a chase. When he came out, he saw the appellant running away with an axe in his hand and the witnesses giving him a chase. Even if the part of recognising the appellant is described, his further statement that every one was shouting that Satish is the man, who has killed, will be admissible, under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, as regastae. ( 11 ) IN this case the discovery of the axe from the house of Soberan, at the pointing out of the appellant, has been proved beyond doubt Mangali Prasad, P. W. 5 is an independent witness who has supported the statement of the 1. 0. , Han Prakash Sharma, to the effect that it was at the pointing out of the appellant from inside the room of Soberan that the axe was discovered. There was another witness of the public, who has witnessed the said discovery. A memo was drawn up in accordance with law, which has been duly exhibited as Ex. Ka-3. There is no reason to discard the said discovery. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the axe, exhibited in the trial, could have been the weapon for causing the three injuries sustained by the deceased. It has been already noted above that the axe had human blood and the report of the chemical examiner to that effect has been admitted by the accused. ( 12 ) THE Court is thankful to Sri B. N. Tewari, learned amicus curiae, for the assistance rendered. He will be paid Rs. 200. 00. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant appears to be in jail. He will serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .