JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Session Judge. Banswara rendered on 6 II.90 whereby the accused Kidia has been held guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs 100/- and in default to under-go rigorous imprisonment for one week. 2. The accused having not been represented by any body, legal assistance was provided through Shri Suresh Kumbhat. amicus curiae, who has assisted the Court on his behalf. We have also heard Mrs Chandra Lakha, learned Public Prosecutor. appearing for the State. 3. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal. briefly stated are that one Shri Kadua Parmar, Adivasi, r/o Rath Dhanraj, lodged a report at Police Station Kalinjara District Banswara, on 11.7-87 at 7 15 p.m that when he got down from the bus, he was informed by his brother Vestha that Mst Gamni has been killed by Shri kidia, accused. with a sword. That fact has been seen by Kalu and Kalu has informed Heera, who in turn came and informed Vestha who had gone to Rohnia. Vestha immediately came and saw the dead body and thereafter came and informed his brother. His brother along with Sarpanch Shanji, went to report the matter to the Police, where FIR, Ex. P, I was lodged. Site was inspected, blood stained clothes were seized. Postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and after usual investigation, the case against the accused was challaned in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Kushalaagarh, from where it was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, who charged the accused for the offence under section 302 1PC. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial, whereupon the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case Out of them PW/2 Kalu, PW/3 Madhuri, PW/6 Kapuri and PW/7 Nar Singh have seen the occurrence. PVC'/4 Heeralal is the person who was informer; 4 Kalu that Gamni has been killed by India. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial, whereupon the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case Out of them PW/2 Kalu, PW/3 Madhuri, PW/6 Kapuri and PW/7 Nar Singh have seen the occurrence. PVC'/4 Heeralal is the person who was informer; 4 Kalu that Gamni has been killed by India. He informed PW/8 Vesta After recorded, their evidence and the evidence of other formal witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr PC He has denied everything and has stated that on account of old enmity about the land, this case has been falsely lodged. After hearing both the parties, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and, hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned amicus curiae has vehemently submitted that the conviction is based solely on the testimony of child witnesses. Much reliance cannot he placed on their testimony. In this case, the doctor has not been examined. Postmortem report has not been proved and. therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. He has, therefore, submitted that the accused deserves acquittal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, supported the judgment and has submitted that inspite of the fact that the doctor could not be examined, it does not in any way minimise the value of the testimony of the eye witnesses. whose statements are categorical and convincingly prove the fact that it was accused Kidia who had killed Mst. Gamni with a sword The testimony of the eye witnesses could not he shaken inspite of thorough cross-examination and, therefore, his conviction has to be sustained. The neck of Mst. Gamni has been chopped off and, therefore, there is no escape from the fact that the accused is guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC. 6. We have bestowed our most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar and have critically gone through the record of the case. 7. It may be stated at the very out set that the prosecution has failed to produce the doctor who had conducted the postmortem. Had the doctor been examined, it would have been an additional piece of evidence to hold the accused guilty of offence under section 302 IPC. 7. It may be stated at the very out set that the prosecution has failed to produce the doctor who had conducted the postmortem. Had the doctor been examined, it would have been an additional piece of evidence to hold the accused guilty of offence under section 302 IPC. But the lack of this evidence is not sufficient to discredit the prosecution story when the evidence of the eye witness is forth right, convincing and categoric. In this case, the first eye willness of the occurrence is PW/2 Kalu, who is Gamni's husband's elder brother's son. He has stated that he went with Mst. Gamni for grasing the cattle. Nar Singh, Kapuri and Mst. Mathuri etc. were with them. When they were coming back in the evening and reached near Kalia-Wala field, accused Kidia was standing there armed with a necked sword He told Mst. Gamni that she is a witch daken' who has eaten away his cattle as also his family members and, therefore, he will kill her. After saying this, he inflicted injuries with a sword on her body so much so that her neck was chopped off from the body. This fact stands fully corroborated by the testimony of PW/3 fist. Mathuri, PW/6 Kapuri and PW/7 Nar Singh. They have categorically stated that when they reached near the field of Krlia, Kidia accused was standing there with a necked sword and was calling Mst. Gamni daken' (witch). He inflicted sword blows on her body, chopped off her neck from the body and kited her, not a single question has been asked to all these witnesses to the effect that Kidia was not there, he did not kill Mst. Gamni and her head was not chopped off from the body. Although all these witnesses are child witnesses but after going through their evidence, we are convinced that they have truly stated the sequence of events as were seen by them and their testimony could not be shaken in spite of cross-examination. It would have been better, if the prosecution could have examined the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of Mst. Gamni but even if it has not been done, the evidence that has come on record is sufficient to hold that it was accused Kidia who had killed Mst. It would have been better, if the prosecution could have examined the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of Mst. Gamni but even if it has not been done, the evidence that has come on record is sufficient to hold that it was accused Kidia who had killed Mst. Gamni with the help of a sword by chopping off her neck from rest of her body and that injury being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death, the accused has been rightly held guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC and. therefore, the conviction and sentence that has been recorded against him by the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be sustained. 8. In the result, this appeal has no force, and it is hereby dismissed. The result of the appeal be conveyed to the jail authorities for compliance.Appeal dismissed. *******