G. D. DUBE, J. ( 1 ) RAMPAL, Bahadur and Chhadammi were convicted and sentenced under section 302 read with section 34 of I. P. C. and directed to undergo imprisonment for life by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed. Out of these three. appellants Bahadur has died. A report has been received in this respect from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahjahanpur. The appeal of Bahadur therefore, abates. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that Manohar and Maiku residents of village Inderkhan P. S. Sidheuli district Shahjahanpur were brothers. Maiku had died about two years prior to the occurrence. Rampal appellant is the son of Maiku. Bahadur was Mausa, i. e. mothers sisters husband of Rampal. Chhadammi is the material uncle. Manohars wife had died before the occurrence. He was issueless. He had adopted Rajesh alias Rakesh Kumar son of Kalyan Ram resident of same village in 1975. A registered adoption deed was also written. Manohar had 22-23 Bigha of land. Ordinarily Rampal would have inherited this property after the death of Manohar. On account of adoption Ramesh had become legal heir. Rampal was not relishing this adoption. He had threatened that he will kill Rakesh. ( 3 ) THE prosecution has alleged that at about 3 p. m. on 3/2/1977 Rakesh was collecting fodder in a field toward north- west in his village Inderkhan. Shrikpshna P. W. 2 and Ram Swaroop P. W. 3 were also present at that place. Rampal, Bahadur and Chhadammi came there armed with spear. Rampal exhorted his companion to kill Rakesh. Thereupon all the three assaulted Rakesh with their weapons. On the alarm of these two witnesses Chandra Prakash and Beni Ratav also arrived. The assailants ran away. ( 4 ) IT has been stated in the First Information Report lodged by Kalyan Ram P. W. 1 at 9. 05 p. m. same day in P. S. Sidbauli that he had gone to his school. He is a school teacher. When he returned at 5 P. M. he came to know about the occurrence. It was also urged that Rakesh was brought by witnesses to his house. Rakesh had died as soon as he reached the house of Kalyan Ram. Kalyan Ram wrote a report went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. When he returned at 5 P. M. he came to know about the occurrence. It was also urged that Rakesh was brought by witnesses to his house. Rakesh had died as soon as he reached the house of Kalyan Ram. Kalyan Ram wrote a report went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. The investigation had been taken up by Onkar Singh P. W. 7. He conducted the usual investigation. He had prepared the inquest resort of the dead body of Rakesh and sent it to the mortuary for postmortem. Constable Deena Ram had brought the dead body to the mortuary and Dr. S. C. Yaish, P. W. 8 had conducted the post-mortem on 5/2/1977. He had found 16 stab wounds on the body of the deceased. He was 9 years old. He had found that brain, peritoneum and intestines had been cut underneath these injures. The stomach was perforated at three places. Semi digested food was oozing through perforation. The doctor opined that injuries were sufficient to cause the death. ( 5 ) THE prosecution had examined P. W. 1 Kalyan Ram, P. W. 2 Shri Kishan, P. W. 3 Ram Swaroop as witness of fact. P. W. 4 Ram Dayal is an attesting witness on the adoption deed Ext. Ka. 12, P. W. 6 Rajpal Singh is the head constable who had registered the case in the Police Station. P. W. 7 Omkar Singh and P. W. 8 Dr. S. C. Vaish are the investigating officer and doctor who had conducted the post mortem respectively. ( 6 ) THE accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. They had not placed any counter case in their defence. Chhadammi admitted that he is maternal uncle of Rampal. Bahadur also admitted that he is Mausa of Rampal. They stated that they were helping Rampal. They have been falsely implicated. The accused had not produced any witness in defence. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge had believed the prosecution witness. He had come to the conclusion that the appellants had intentionally caused death of Rakesh. ( 8 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Chandra Prakash who is said to be present at the spot is the uncle of the deceased. It look strange that the deceased was brought by Shri Kishan P. W. 2 and not by Chandra Prakash. ( 8 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Chandra Prakash who is said to be present at the spot is the uncle of the deceased. It look strange that the deceased was brought by Shri Kishan P. W. 2 and not by Chandra Prakash. It was also urged that P. W. 3 Ram Swaroop was only 8. 9 years on the date of his deposition. Hence it was not at all safe to rely on his statement. The circumstances that Shri Kishan is said to have brought Rakesh to his natural fathers house instead of Chandra Prakash the real uncle, itself indicate that this witness was not present at the spot and is stating a concocted version. It was also urged that there was sufficient reason for implicating the accused appellant. After some time to this occurrence Manohar was also murdered and Chandra Prakash was held guilty for this murder. It was urged that there was no reliable evidence in this case. ( 9 ) WE have heard the learned A. G. A. also. It was argued by him that Rampal had every reason to kill the deceased. The documentary evidence goes to prove that a registered adoption deed had been executed. Consequently Rampal had every frustration in his mind which had resulted in this case. ( 10 ) NO adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution simply on this fact that instead of Chandra Prakash Shri Kishan P. W. 2 had brought the deceased to the house of Rakesh. In the event of ghastly incident in which 16 stab wounds have been caused to the deceased, who was a boy of 9 years, anyone present On the spot could voluntarily on humanitarian ground took the injured in his lap to his house. It was not at all necessary that the job of carrying Rakesh would have been left only to the near relatives. We do not agree with this contention that since Chandra Prakash did not bring the deceased, so the witness was not present at the spot, and stating a concocted story. ( 11 ) SHRI kishan had stated his age 20 years on the date of his statement i. e. 6/10/1978. He was thus about 19 years old on the date of occurrence. ( 11 ) SHRI kishan had stated his age 20 years on the date of his statement i. e. 6/10/1978. He was thus about 19 years old on the date of occurrence. He had stated that Ram Swaroop and Rakesh were also with him and all of them were collecting fodder from the field. He had stated that three assailant had assaulted the deceased with their respective weapons. It was suggested to him that Rakesh Kumar was killed in the darkness and this case has been cooked. There is no force in this contention. Dr. Vaish has stated that the deceased had died about 2 days back. This doctor states that the deceased might have died about 3 p. m. on 3/2/1977. The doctor had stated in crossexamination that there could be difference of 8 hours on either side in the estimate of time of death. Considering these circumstances at the face the time of death could be at 5 a. m. In that event no digested food could be found in the stomach of the deceased. The presence of some semi digested food itself indicates that the deceased had taken meal before his death. The presence of semi digested food was possible only if the death taken place in the afternoon of 3rd February 1977. ( 12 ) P. W. 3 Ram Swaroop had no doubt stated his age as 9 years but the sessions Judge had noted that he looked to be 12 years old. Thus, this witness was of sufficient mature understanding. This witness has supported the prosecution story. He has been cross-examined at length but nothing material was decided on the basis of which it can be said that he is unreliable witness. His testimony is corroborated by the statement of P. W. 2 Sri Kishan. ( 13 ) IT was argued that Chandra Prakash has not been examined in this case. It was not necessary to examine him. He had been made accused in the murder of Manohar. He was convicted also later on. In these circumstances the prosecution might have thought it proper not to examine him. It is not necessary that all the witnesses should be examined in a Close. Even a solitory reliable witness who comes under the category of wholly reliable witness may be sufficient to prove the prosecution version. ( 14 ) INFORMANT had given the correct version. In these circumstances the prosecution might have thought it proper not to examine him. It is not necessary that all the witnesses should be examined in a Close. Even a solitory reliable witness who comes under the category of wholly reliable witness may be sufficient to prove the prosecution version. ( 14 ) INFORMANT had given the correct version. He had not made himself an eye witness. He had stated that he had received an information when he came to his village at about 5 P. M. The month of occurrence was February. On that day schools must have been open. There was no delay in the lodging of the report. The report could be lodged either by Chandra Prakash or the witnesses or the natural father or the adopted father. In the circumstances of the case the natural father has chosen to lodge the report. His conduct in this matter appears to be very natural and reasonable. ( 15 ) APPELLANT Rampal had strong motive to murder Rakesh. The other appellant being closed relative and who were helping him could have participated in the crime. The witnesses produced by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had actually killed Rakesh. There is no error in the order of the trial Court. ( 16 ) THE appeal is dismissed. Appellant Rampal and Chhadammi shall surrender in court forthwith to serve out their sentences. Appeal dismissed. .