JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide its judgment & order dated 4.11.92 whereby he has been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default further to undergo one month's R.I. 2. The prosecution case is that on 25.10.88, P.W. 1 Shivanand has given a written report to SHO police station Mangrol alleging therein that in between 9:50 to 10:20 a.m. while he has taking his food at his residence a student of Govt. Senior Higher Secondary School came to him and told that all the teachers are calling him, as Lalit Kumar brother-in-law (sister's husband) of Jai Prakash (deceased), has given knife blows to Jai Prakash a student of Class VI-B and Rameshwar & Pradeep of the same class have seen the incident. When he reached at school by that time Mohan Singh and Chetan Swaroop teachers of that school had already taken injured to the hospital. Then the informant also went to hospital, there he found that the boy Jai Prakash had expired. On that report FIR Ex.P-2 was registered. The inquest report Ex.P-3 of the dead body was prepared. Post mortem was got conducted. Post mortem report is Ex.P-11. During investigation the blood smeared soil and control soil was taken from the place of incident. The articles bushshirt, knicker, and Hawai Chappal of deceased were seized, sealed and sent to FSL. On examination in FSL Hawai Chappal, knife and soil were found stained with human blood. Accused was arrested on 18.6.90 vide arrest-memo Ex.P-13 and at his instance the knife was recovered, recovery memo is Ex.P-10. The statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of different witnesses including Shivanand, Pradeep, Rameshwar, Nathu Lal, Vimla and Savitri were recorded. Thereafter the challan has been filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Mobile) Baran. The case has been committed for trial, to trial court. The trial court has framed charges. Accused denied the charges and claimed for trial During trial as many as 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The statements of accused-appellant has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He also examined 9 witnesses in defence. He took the plea of alibi. The case has been committed for trial, to trial court. The trial court has framed charges. Accused denied the charges and claimed for trial During trial as many as 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The statements of accused-appellant has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He also examined 9 witnesses in defence. He took the plea of alibi. Considering the material on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed murder of Jai Prakash on 25.10.88, and sentenced him as aforesaid. 3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of trial court accused has preferred this appeal. This appeal was filed by Mr. R.P. Vijay, but subsequently he did not appear on behalf of appellant, therefore Mr. Jinesh Jain has been appointed Amicus Curiae. 4. Heard Amicus Curaie Mr. Jinesh Jain for the appellant, learned PP for the State and learned counsel for complainant. Shri Jain submitted that the only eyewitnesses are Pradeep (PW.l) and Rameshar (PW3) and they are child witnesses therefore no much reliance can be placed on their statements. Further there is no motive behind the incident, the accused has falsely been implicated, and P.W. 4 Nathu Lal, P.W. 9 Vimla & P.W. 10 Savitri are the interested witnesses and they are not reliable. On the contrary there is sufficient evidence that the accused was in Delhi at the time of incident, therefore, he has wrongly been convicted by the trial court. Learned PP Miss. Sumitra Goyal and Mr. R.P. Meena counsel for complainant have placed reliance on the judgment of trial court and submitted that the matter was reported just after the incident and the eye-witnesses are reliable witnesses. There is no justification to interfere in the judgment of trial court. It is also submitted that accused had been seen in Mangrol and he came to the house of deceased and threatened P.W. 4 Nathu Lail that he will face dire consequences, if he (P.W. 4) will send the wife of accused along with him. 5. The Ex.P-1 report has been given by P.W. 1 Shivanand to police at police station Mangrol (Kota) just after the incident. 5. The Ex.P-1 report has been given by P.W. 1 Shivanand to police at police station Mangrol (Kota) just after the incident. In that report it is alleged that accused-appellant has committed murder of Jai Prakash and the incident has been seen by P.W. 2 Rameshwar and P.W. 3 Pradeep who are also the students of the class of deceased. The blood smeared soil and control soil has been taken from the place of incident and the blood stained cloths and articles were sent to FSL, for test. On examination the human blood was found on the articles. Post-mortem was got conducted by Dr. Kishan Kumar. Post- mortem report is Ex.P-11. The following injuries are found on the person of deceased: "1. Stab wound on Rt. hemithorax on front side between 3rd & 4th rib, 1" away from Rt. border of sternum measuring-2"x l/2"x6". 2. Stab wound-on left hemithorax on front side between 4th & mth rib, 3" away from Lt. border of sternum measuring 2"x l/2"x6". 3. Incised wound-on lateral side of Lt. arm 4" above lt. elbow measuring 2"x l/2"x l/2 4. Stab wound on medial side of Lt. arm 3" above Lt. elbow measuring 2"x l/2"x2". 5. Stab wound on medial side of Rt. thigh 4" above Rt. knee measuring 2"x l/2"x5". 6. Stab wound on the front of Rt. knee just above Rt. Patella bone 2"x l/2"x2". 7. Stab wound on Rt. knee joint over Patella bone 2"x l/2"x l/2". 8. Stab wound on the back of Rt. thigh 3" above Rt. knee measuring 2"xl/2"x3". In the opinion of doctor the cause of death is due to Cardio aspiratory failure due to stab wounds. Considering the post-mortem report it is clear that is is a case of unnatural death. The pertinent question is whether deceased Jai Prakash has been murdered by accused appellant 6. The prosecution case is that on 25.10.88 in between 9:30 to 10:20 a.m. during the rest period deceased Jai Prakash was sitting along with P.W. 2 Rameshwar and P.W. 3 Pradeep, at that time accused Lalit Kumar came in the school and had taken him (deceased) towards school-toilet. At that time Rameshwar and Pradeep followed him, but Lalit Kumar had threatened them not to follow him, on threat instead of following they sat in a window and saw them. At that time Rameshwar and Pradeep followed him, but Lalit Kumar had threatened them not to follow him, on threat instead of following they sat in a window and saw them. Thereafter Lalit Kumar took Jai Prakash inside toilet and gave repeated stab-wounds, as a result of which Jai Prakash came out trembling and fell down out-side the school toilet, thereafter accused-appellant Lalit Kumar ran away. Rameshwar and Pradeep reported the matter to their teachers. Thereupon P.W. 1 Shivanand has reported the matter to the police station Mangrol immediately and in that report the allegation of murder is against accused- appellant. 7. P.W. 2 Rameshwar and P.W 3 Pradeep are eye-witnesses in this case. P.W. 2 Rameshwar has deposed that his house is near the house of deceased and deceased is his class-fellow. On 25.10.88 dining rest period he along with Pradeep and deceased was sitting in classroom at that time accused Lalit Kumar (brother-in-law of deceased) came and took away the deceased with him towards school toilet. When P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were following then Lalit told them to go back, they came back and sat in a window from where they could see the toilet of school, accused had taken deceased inside the toilet. In toilet accused had given 7- 8 knife blows to deceased and then run away. Deceased came out trembling and fell down outside the toilet. He reported the matter to school teachers then injured was taken to hospital, on the way to hospital he expired. He knew Lalit Kumar even earlier as he used to visit the house of deceased and there he saw accused Lalit Kumar before the incident. This witness is independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Rameshwar. 8. P.W. 3 Pradeep Kumar is other eye-witness and also class-fellow of deceased. He was sitting along with P.W. 2 Rameshwar and deceased at the time of incident. He is neighbour of deceased and knows the accused Lalit Kumar even before the incident. He had seen the accused 2-3 days before the incident in the house of deceased. He was quarrelling with P.W. 4 Nathu Lal. When P.W. 4 has refused to send his daughter along with accused. He is neighbour of deceased and knows the accused Lalit Kumar even before the incident. He had seen the accused 2-3 days before the incident in the house of deceased. He was quarrelling with P.W. 4 Nathu Lal. When P.W. 4 has refused to send his daughter along with accused. On the day of incident at about 9:50 a.m. he came in school and took away deceased Jai Prakash towards school toilet and there he gave knife-blows to deceased and ran away. They reported the matter to school teachers, then they took Jai Prakash to hospital. 9. P.W. 4 Nathu Lal, father of deceased, has deposed that on 19.10.88 at about 7:00 a.m. accused came to him to take Vimla. He refused to send Vimla along with him as Dai was not well and said that he will send Vimla after 'Dev Uthani Gyaras', on that accused said that either you send her or you return my ornaments. He also threatened that if the ornaments are not returned then he will have to face dire consequences. On 25.10.88 he stabbed his son Jai Prakash in the school. 10. P.W. 5 Chetan Swaroop Sharma is a teacher in the Govt. Higher Secondary School Mangrol, he deposed that on the day of incident P.W. 3 Pradeep came to him and informed that Lalit Kumar has committed murder of Jai Prakash and run away. P.W. 6 Jugal Kishore is neighbour of Nathu Lal, he deposed that about two years back Lalit Kumar came during Navratra period and was saying that he wants ornaments and not the daughter of Nathu Lal. P.W. 9 Vimla sister of deceased and wife of accused, deposed that about 6-7 years back she was married with accused. At the time of incident Lalit Kumar came to take her, her father refused to send and said that he will send after some time. On that accused started quarrelling with him and also threatened her that either she should go along with him or he will cut her with knife, then he went away. Then just before a day of Dashera again he came and threatened her father and on 25.10.88 he committed murder of her brother. 11. On that accused started quarrelling with him and also threatened her that either she should go along with him or he will cut her with knife, then he went away. Then just before a day of Dashera again he came and threatened her father and on 25.10.88 he committed murder of her brother. 11. P.W. 10 Savitri is mother-in-law of accused and mother of deceased, she also deposed that accused came to take Vimla (P.W. 9) and P.W. 4 Nathu Lal refused to send her along with accused, he abused him and threatened that he will teach them a lesson and on 25.10.88 he committed murder of her son. 12. P.W. 11 Mohd. Rafiq is recovery witness, in his presence the knife has been recovered at the instance of accused Lalit Kumar. The seizure memo was prepared in his presence and he has signed on the same. P.W. 12 Mr. K.K. Gupta has conducted post-mortem and found the injuries. In his opinion the cause of death of deceased is stab-wounds. 13. P.W. 14 Ravi Karan, SHO of police station Mangrol, has arrested the accused in case No. 109/88 and at the instance of accused the knife used in murder has been recovered. 14. In defence, accused produced D.W. 1 Moti Lal, D.W. 2 Bhanwar Lal, D.W. Badri Narain, D.W. 4 Jamna Lal, D.W. 5 Ram Gopal, D.W. 6 Pyara Chand, D.W. 7 Shanti Kumar Dhariwal, D.W. 8 Govind and D.W. 9 Devi Lal. D.W. 1 Moti Lal deposed that SHO was compelling Pradeep (PW. 3) to give evidence against accused. D.W. 7 Shanti Kumar Dhariwal deposed that he knows accused, near about Dashera accused along with Bhanwar Lal, Jamna Lal and Badri Narain came to him and asked that there should be a Govt. Hospital in building built up by a sant. Dhariwal in not sure about the date when they came to him. 15. It is evident from the statements of P.W. 2 Rameshwar and P.W. 3 Pradeep, who are the eye-witnesses of the incident and know accused even before the incident. They are also neighbours of deceased. In their presence Lalit Kumar took deceased towards school toilet and inside toilet accused gave 7-8 knife blows and ran away. 7-8 injuries are found on the person of deceased which is corroborated by medical evidence. They are also neighbours of deceased. In their presence Lalit Kumar took deceased towards school toilet and inside toilet accused gave 7-8 knife blows and ran away. 7-8 injuries are found on the person of deceased which is corroborated by medical evidence. P.W. 4 Nathu Lal is father-in-law of accused, P.W. 9 Vimla is wife of accused and P.W. 10 Savitri is mother-in-law of accused who have stated in court that accused came to take Vimla and while P.W. 4 refused to send Vimla at that time and said to send her after some time accused abused and quarrelled and also threatened that he will teach them a lesson. After 5-6 days he has committed the murder of Jai Prakash. The recovery of knife, which was used by the accused in committing murder of Jai Prakash, has been proved. The testimony of eye-witnesses is also corroborated by medical evidence. In post-mortem 7-8 injuries are found on the person of deceased. 16. The statements of Shanti Kumar Dhariwal (D.W. 7) and other witnesses in support of the plea of alibi are not reliable and cannot be believed against the testimony of eye-witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Not only that, the accused ran away and remained absconding for more than 11/2 years. He committed the murder on 25.10.88 and he was arrested on 18.6.90. Not only that, there is no sufficient material on record which supports the plea of alibi of accused, and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of independent eye-witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. On the contrary, there is sufficient material on record to support the case of prosecution, there the trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that accused has committed murder of Jai Prakash on 25.10.88. As such we find no justification to interfere in the conviction and sentence of the accused under section 302IPC.In the result the appeal is dismissed and we uphold the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant. *******