JUDGMENT Mr. Mudgal appeared as Amicus Cuarie on behalf of the appellant at the instance of the Court. 2. The sole appellant is the accused who is convicted under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the death of one Raj Kumar by inflicting injuries with a knife. The occurrence took place on 2-11-1978. One Savita (P.W. 11) aged about 12 years is the eyewitness on whose evidence both the courts below relied and convicted the appellant. 3. The prosecution case is as follows:- There had been bitter enmity between the accused and his brother Subhash (P.W. 20). The father of these two persons had been siding with the accused. There had been a number of civil as well as criminal litigations between the accused and his father on one side and Subhash on the other side. A case under S. 392, IPC had been registered against Subhash and Raj Kumar (deceased) by the accused. The accused also filed a complaint under Ss. 506 and 511 Indian Penal Code against his brother and the deceased Raj Kumar which was pending. While so on the date of occurrence P.W. 11, a student, who was residing with her family members in the house of one Saraswati as tenant witnessed the occurrence. She deposed that she had accompanied the deceased for going to the house of Subhash as she was to apply Teeka on Subhashs sons forehead being a Bhaiduj day. The deceased had taken out his bicycle and P.W. 11 sat on the front rod and at about 7-30 a.m. they had reached in front of the house in Gujrawalan Town. The accused came and stopped the cycle of the deceased and hurled abuses at the deceased. He took out a knife from his pocket and attacked the deceased. P.W. 11 became panicky and stood aside. She saw the accused inflicting injuries on the deceased. The deceased who was severely wounded was put on a bullock-cart for taking to the hospital but meanwhile P.W. 9 (A.S.I.) who came on a police patrol took the injured to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital but he died very soon at about 8.55 a.m. Within half-an-hour the statement of P. W. 11 was recorded in which she had given all the details. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found ten incised wounds mostly on the fore-arm and chest and one on the back of the abdomen and another on the right side. He opined that the injuries 8, 9 and 10 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was absconding and he was arrested later. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that on that day he was at Hoshiarpur and was treated as an out-patient in the hospital. DWs. 1 to 5 were examined, some of them are doctors. 5. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court found that P.W. 11 was a natural witness and there was no infirmity whatsoever worth mentioning which affects her veracity. Coming to the alibi evidence both the Courts have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of his alibi. DW-4 Dr. Yashvir, Senior Medical Officer-in-charge of Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, gave evidence to the effect that an out-patient ticket was always issued from the Out-Patient Department to an out patient. However, a chit has not been produced. Their evidence only go to show that two persons by name of Surinder were treated. This evidence is not at all conclusive. However, on 10-12-1978, the accused sent two telegrams to the Metropolitan Magistrate for adjournment of case on the ground of serious illness. That would show that he was seriously ill on 10-12-1978 but the accused did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the same and there was no evidence regarding the nature of illness. Both the courts having examined the stand taken by the accused and the evidence adduced in support of a alibi reached the conclusion that the alibi has not at all been established. Having gone through the record and P.W. 11s evidence which is natural, cogent and convincing both the courts having accepted the same, we see no merits in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. For Citation: 1993 Cri. L.J. 2618