A. N. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has arisen out of conviction dated 17. 8. 1977 recorded by Sessions Judge, Allahabad, who sentenced Ram Dhan appellant to life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE occurrence is said to have taken place in the night between 24/25. 9. 1976 at about 0. 30 hours in the Abadi of village Dubawal, police station Sarai Inayat Khan, District Allahabad. The F. I. R. of the case was lodged by P. W. 1 Raj Mani on 25. 9. 1976 at 6. 05 A. M. The police station is situated at a distance of about 9 Kms. from the place of occurrence. It is said that appellant Ram Dhan had illicit relations with the wife of deceased Lal Mani, who was the brother of P. W. 1 Rajmani. 2-3 days prior to the occurrence, Lal Mani had rebuked the appellant due to which during the night of 24/25. 9. 1976 at about 12. 30 hours, the appellant armed with Gandasa committed murder of Lal Mani who was at that time sleeping in his Osara in front of which a lantern was giving light. P. W. 1 Lal Mani and his brother-in-law P. W. 6 Shiv Ram who were sleeping nearby got awakened on account of shrieks of Lal Mani deceased, which also attracted P. W. 4 Udai and P. W. 5 Chhotai, who came with their torches. They saw Ram Dhan appellant coming out of the Osara of Lal Mani who was armed with blood stained Gandasa. The appellant after threatening the witnesses ran away towards east. Lal Mani was found gasping with the injuries and was bleeding profusely. Lal Mani was immediately carried on a cot to Kotwa, Primary Health Centre, where P. W. 2 Dr. B. K. Srivastava at about 3. 40 A. M. declared him dead. He immediately sent a memo to S. I. Incharge of police Station Sarai Inayat about this fact. P. W. 1 Raj Mani wrote the F. I. R. at PHC and went to the police station, where it was lodged on 25. 9. 1976 at 6. 05 a. m. in the presence of P. W. 8 SI Malkhan Singh. Head Constable Shiv Kumar Singh, registered the case at 6. P. W. 1 Raj Mani wrote the F. I. R. at PHC and went to the police station, where it was lodged on 25. 9. 1976 at 6. 05 a. m. in the presence of P. W. 8 SI Malkhan Singh. Head Constable Shiv Kumar Singh, registered the case at 6. 10 a. m. Memo of D. r. B. K. Srivastava was also received at the police station, which was entered in the G. D. P. W. 8 SI Malkhan Singh immediately took up the investigation of the case and interrogated P. W. 1 Raj Mani at the police station. He alongwith other police men reached the PHC Kotwa, where inquest report etc. were prepared and Dr. B. K. Srivastava was also interrogated. He also recovered blood stained ANGAUCHHA from the cot on which the deceased was brought to PHC. He thereafter reached the village and interrogated the eye witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. He also inspected the torches of the witnesses. He collected samples of blood stains and simple earth from the spot and also collected the sample of blood stained BAN of the cot, on which Lal Mani was murdered. He also took into his possession blood stained Tahmad of the deceased. He also prepared Fard of Lantern, which was giving light in front of Osara at the time of occurrence. A site plan was prepared by him. The Chemical Examiner has reported human blood on the samples of BAN and blood stained earth. ( 3 ) P. W. 3 Dr. J. N. Bajpai had conducted the post mortem examination on 26. 9. 1976 at 9. 30 p. m. He found one ante mortem injury, which was an incised wound 7 1/2 x 1 x 2 1/2 on the left side of face horizontally situated extending from the left side of occipital bone passing under the lobule of left ear and reaching up to the left nostril. The occipital bone was cut on the left side and all the structures below the wound were cut. The mandible was cut. Teeth were cut and blood vessels were cut. The margins of the wound were clean cut and tapering at the end. In the opinion of Dr. The occipital bone was cut on the left side and all the structures below the wound were cut. The mandible was cut. Teeth were cut and blood vessels were cut. The margins of the wound were clean cut and tapering at the end. In the opinion of Dr. Bajpai, Lal Mani had died on account of the aforesaid injury which has been caused at the time alleged by the prosecution and it could be inflicted by GANDASA which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also stated that after sustaining such an injury the injured could die within 2 to 4 hours. ( 4 ) THE case of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated on account of the enmity. The defence appears to be that the appellant was in possession of the property of his maternal grand father and maternal grand mother in the village and P. W. 1 Raj Mani and others were desirous of property after turning him out from the village. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined four eye witnesses: P. W. 1 Raj Mani, the complainant; P. W. 4 Shiv ram, the wifes brother of Raj Mani; P. W. 5 Chhotai and P. W. 6 Udai. P. W. 2 Dr. V. K. Srivastava and P. W. 3 Dr. J. N. Bajpai who conducted post-mortem examination were also examined. P. W. 7 constable Shiv Bahadur Singh, who investigated the case and S. 0. P. W. 9 Shri Charan Singh sharma, who also had investigated the case in part were also examined. ( 6 ) THE presence of eye witnesses on the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. Although none of them actually saw the appellant inflicting the fatal blow on deceased Lal Mani, but they were attracted to the Osara of the deceased on hearing his shrieks and saw the appellant coming out of the Osara with blood stained Gandasa in his hand. They also found Lal Mani gasping and bleeding profusely. He was carried to PHC but died on the way and was declared dead on reaching there. P. W. 1 Raj Mani is the brother of the deceased and was sleeping nearby. P. W. 6 Shiv Ram is his wifes brother. They also found Lal Mani gasping and bleeding profusely. He was carried to PHC but died on the way and was declared dead on reaching there. P. W. 1 Raj Mani is the brother of the deceased and was sleeping nearby. P. W. 6 Shiv Ram is his wifes brother. Although he belongs to a nearby village but he is doing the business of milk in partnership with Raj Mani and used to stay with him at night frequently whenever he used to get late on account of business of milk. P. W. 4 Udai and P. W. 5 Chhotai are also neighbours. Thus, their presence cannot be doubted. It is also important to note in this connection that Lal Mani deceased was taken to PHC Kotwa while gasping immediately after the occurrence, but he died on the way. According to P. W. 2 Dr. V. K. Srivastava, the deceased was brought at the PHC at 3. 40 A. M. and the occurrence had taken place at 12. 30 a. m. There was no enmity of any of the eye witnesses with the appellant. Only a wild suggestion was thrown at P. W. 1 Raj Mani that the appellant got property from his maternal grand father and maternal grand mother in the village of occurrence and this witness and the deceased wanted to grab it after turning out of appellant from the village. This version of the appellant has no legs to stand as it was denied by Raj Mani and others. All the eye witnesses remained unshaken in the cross-examination. There is no inconsistency in their statements and no contradictions have appeared between the statements of the four eye witnesses. Their testimony is inconsonance with the postmortem report and the medical evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and the same need not be repeated. ( 7 ) SO far as the question of light is concerned it may be mentioned here that appellant and the eye witnesses belonged to the same village and were very well known to each other from before. A lantern was giving light at the time of the occurrence in front of Osara of the deceased, where his murder had taken place. The eye witnesses, namely P. W. 4 Udai and P. W. 5 Chhotai etc. A lantern was giving light at the time of the occurrence in front of Osara of the deceased, where his murder had taken place. The eye witnesses, namely P. W. 4 Udai and P. W. 5 Chhotai etc. had come on the spot with their torches and they saw the appellant coming out of the Osara of the deceased. The Investigating Officer had examined the torches of the witnesses and had also seen the lantern. There is no inconsistency in the eye witness account on this point. Thus, the source of light has been established and has been rightly believed by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 8 ) THE learned Amicus Curiae laid great emphasis on the fact that according to the F. I. R. the appellant ran away towards east after threatening the witnesses almost in the same direction from where the witnesses were coming and according to him it was a most unnatural conduct on the part of the appellant to run away in the direction from where there was a danger of his being caught red handed. A perusal of the site plan shows that the most convenient outlet for the appellant was the direction in which he ran away. He could not run towards west because in that direction there was house of the complainant and the deceased. Had he run away towards north he would have been in front of several houses. Towards south was the place where cattle of the deceased were being tied. In view of this the only direction in which the appellant could run away was towards east. In any case it is difficult to read mind of the criminal and a criminal immediately after the crime with blood stained weapon of offence in hand cannot plan his exit. One or two minor contradictions were also pointed out on behalf of the appellant but in the oral evidence such minor contradictions are natural and in any case they do not go to the root of the matter. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussions we find that there is no scope at all for interfering in the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and the sentence awarded by him. The result is that this appeal fails and is hearby dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded to him. Appeal dismissed. .