Honble PALSHIKAR, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd February 87, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, in Sessions Case No. 13/86, by which the accused Banney Singh has been convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default simple imprisonment for one month. The accused, in pursuance to this conviction, is in jail. (2). This appeal came up for hearing on 23rd March 95. On that day, the Lawyers had decided to abstain from work as a mark of protest in relation to a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, suspending the licence to practice of Shri V.Ce. Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India. As in our opinion, such abstaining from work is un-necessary, we took up consideration of this appeal on merits. We have perused the judgment passed by the Court below. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record and as will be seen from the discussion hereinafter, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. (3). PW/1 Kan Singh is a Panch witness, in whose presence spot- Panchanama and map was prepared. He is also a witness to the Panchnama of the dead body and seizure of the cloth from the dead body. He is not an eye-witness to the incident. (4). PW/2 Jamna, w/o Magga Ram is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She has deposed that her niece Tulsi came to her running and said that the grand father is being beaten up. By grand-father, she meant Sanwta Ram, the deceased. TulsHei also said that Banney Singh is Hitting the grand father. On hearing this, the witness went to the house of the deceased, along with Tulshi. When both of them reached the house of the deceased, they saw the accused hitting the deceased. She has stated, Sanwta Ram was injured in his face, neck, chest, ribs, shoulders and hands. The cross-examination of this witness does not bring out any contradictions which would require disbelieving of the witness. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve this eye-witness. (5). PW/3 is Dr. Subudhimal Mehta, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and he has deposed that the deceased died because of the injuries caused to his person. The cross-examination of this witness does not bring out any contradictions which would require disbelieving of the witness. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve this eye-witness. (5). PW/3 is Dr. Subudhimal Mehta, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and he has deposed that the deceased died because of the injuries caused to his person. He has deposed that six spindle shaped incised wounds are seen over the neck, shoulder, chest, abdomen and hands of the deceased. His statement thus fully corroborates the statement of PW/2 Jamna when she says that Sanwta, deceased, was injured in chest etc. by the accused. Her testimony is, thus, fully corroborated by the entire medical evidence given by PW/3 Dr. Mehta, whose cross-examination is completely fruitless. (6). PW/4 is Moola Ram who was working at the relevant time in the Office of Superintendent of Police. He received six sealed packets. PW/5 is Sava Ram, who saw the accused sitting with the deceased in the morning of the day on which the incident took place. He took some gift from Sanwta for the marriage of some girl in the evening and left. Thereafter he heard commotion from the house of Sanwta and he, therefore, came back to the house of Sanwta. When he saw Sanwta injured, some seven injuries were caused to him. He has also described the injuries caused. Though he is not an eye-witness, he immediately visited the spot and found that Jamna and Tulshi were there in the spot and seven injuries were caused on the person of the deceased. This witness, thus, corroborates the testimony of Jamna and Tulshi when they say that they were ocular witnesses to the assault on Sanwta by the accused. The injuries caused to the deceased, as are deposed by this witness also correspond with the injuries factually found on the person of the deceased by the Doctor PW/3. This witness is, thus, yet another piece of evidence, which incidently corroborates the testimony of the eye witnesses. (7). PW/6 Varda Ram gave his tractor for going to report the matter to the police. Nothing, therefore, turns on the testimony of this witness. This witness is, thus, yet another piece of evidence, which incidently corroborates the testimony of the eye witnesses. (7). PW/6 Varda Ram gave his tractor for going to report the matter to the police. Nothing, therefore, turns on the testimony of this witness. PW/7 is Chuni, another daughter-in-law of the deceased Sanwta, who prove the prsence of the accused at the time when the deceased was assaulted and states that she left the house and the accused along with the deceased, to bring milk to prepare tea for the accused. When she returned after bringing the milk she saw Tulshi Crying and she was told by her that Banney Singh hit Sanwta by axe. She has deposed that Jamna was standing beside Tulshi. She is, thus, yet another witnesses who corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses Jamna and Tulshi. (8). PW/8 is Tulshi, who has given a sufficiently clear testimony of the manner in which the accused assaulted the deceased. She has given the graphic description of the axe blows given by the accused to the deceased. They correspond with the injuries deposed to have been found on the body of the deceased by PW/3 and, there is, therefore, no reason whatever to disbelieve this witness. (9). PW/9 is Shailendra Kumar. PW/10 is the Station House Officer, Mangu Singh. PW/11 is the Constable. PW/12 is a Panch. PW/13 is also a Panch and this is the complete evidence, relying on which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (10). We have carefully scrutinized the evidence as aforesaid. The evidence of the eye-witnesses Jamna and Tulshi is duly corroborated by the other witnesses who appeared on the scene of offence immediately thereafter or within few minutes of the commission of the offence. They have corroborated the eye-witnesses on all material particulars. The testimony of these witnesses is further fortified by the injuries found to be existing on the person of the deceased by PW/3 Doctor. (11). On entire appreciation of this evidence, we are, therefore, convinced that the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the accused of the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We see no merit in this appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.