Judgment V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 1987 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 64/86. By this impugned judgment, the learned Judge convicted the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that on 14th May, 1986 at about 9. 30 p. m. , one Mangal Nath resident of Jogiya Basti in Loonkaranser village, District Bikaner lodged the complaint in Police Station, Loonkaranser that at about 9 p. m. when he got down from the train at Loonkaranser Station and was going home was required to pass through Kheta Ram Naee-Ka-Bara and unhabituated hamlet, he was accompanied by Balnath who is also resident of the same village. ( 3 ) WHEN they reached the market lane, they saw the accused assaulting one Muninath with an axe (Gandasi ). According to the report, the accused was giving severe axe-blows on the head of deceased. When the accused was accosted by the witness, he ran away. The witness then went near the body and saw that Muninath is dead and the brain matter had come out. He, therefore, lodged the first information report as aforesaid. After recording the first information report, the Station House In-charge accompanied the information to the scene of offence along with some constables, stayed the draw, posted constable to guilty dead body and went back to the Police Station. Investigations continued next morning on the information given the accused was arrested and on completion of the investigations, the present session trial was started. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined 9 witnesses to establish its case and the accused has given evidence of 3 witnesses to substantiate his innocence. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that accused has committed murder of the deceased and he, therefore, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal. ( 5 ) OF the 9 prosecution witnesses P. W. 1 Mangal Nath, P. W. 3 Bal Nath and P. W. 4 Chunnilal are eye witnesses. P. W. 8 Dr. R. P. odi conducted the post mortem on the dead body and has opined that death was homicidal and caused due to multiple injuries of the head. Hence, this appeal. ( 5 ) OF the 9 prosecution witnesses P. W. 1 Mangal Nath, P. W. 3 Bal Nath and P. W. 4 Chunnilal are eye witnesses. P. W. 8 Dr. R. P. odi conducted the post mortem on the dead body and has opined that death was homicidal and caused due to multiple injuries of the head. P. W. 2 Rewantnath is the panch witness:p. W. 5, P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 are the constables. The case is thus, one of direct evidence, the incident having been witnessed by three independent witnesses. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 Mangal Nath has stated that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased at 9 in the night, he saw the accused giving severe blows of axe on the head of the deceased. He has stated that he was returning to Loonkaranser from Bikaner by railway, when he got down the station, he met P. W. 3 Bal Nath and both of them were going towards Jogiyon-ki-Basti, where they reside. When they were passing the hem let Kheta Ram Naee-ka-Bara, they saw accused assaulting the deceased. He has deposed that he saw the injuries on the head of the Muni Nath; the deceased, he saw that the brain matter had come out and Munni Nath was dead. He then states that he left Bal Nath and Chunni Lal near the dead body and went to lodge the first information report. The witness has been thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the accused but the testimony of the witness given in examination in chief successfully with stood the grueling the cross-examination, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination appreciation of which will require a legal conclusion that. the witness is untrustworthy and unreliable. We have no hesitation in accepting the testimony of this witness as has been duly corroborated on all material particulars by the other eye-witness. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 is the second-eye-witness Bal Nath Sb Gorakh Nath. He said that he had gone to the market of Loonkaranser to purchase vegetables and while returning, he saw P. W. 1, they together started going towards Jogiyon-ki-Basti near Kheta Ram Naee-ka-Bara, they heard sounds of beating and after going ahead some steps, saw the accused Puran Nath assaulting Munni Nath with Gandasi. The witness then states that when they were witnessing the assault, Chunnilul Soni also arrived. The witness then states that when they were witnessing the assault, Chunnilul Soni also arrived. According to the witness, within their sight, the accused gave at least heavy blows to the deceased and when the accused was challenged by the witnesses, the accused ran away. When the witness went near the injured, he saw the injuries caused the brain matter had come out and the victim was profusely bleeding. He then states that leaving them with the dead body, P. W. 1 Mangal Nath went to the Police Station to lodge the first information report. The Police arrived after one hour of incident and started the investigations. This witness was also duly cross-examined and the prosecution has not in any manner shaken the testimony of this witness. He has corroborated P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 on all material particulars and his deposition is duly corroborated by those two witnesses. In our opinion, the deposition of these three witnesses which is duly corroborated by each of them in itself is sufficient to confirm the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. In our opinion, he has not committed any error either of fact or of law, he has not committed any error in the appreciation of the evidence and the judgment cannot, therefore, be attacked on any of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 is Chunnilal is also the third eyewitness. Separate discussion of the evidence of this witness is not necessary in view of the observations made in relation to the other eye-witnesses herein before. ( 9 ) EXCEPTION was taken by the learned counsel on the following grounds: (A) That the first information report lodged at 9. 30 p. m. on 14th May, 1986 is not acceptable in law as the same was fabricated document. In any event it was urged that it cannot be considered. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard a careful appreciation or the Supreme Court discloses that it has no application to the facts of the present case. P. W. 1 who has first information report has been duly corroborated on each particular given by him and found in the first information report. We see no merit in this submission. P. W. 1 who has first information report has been duly corroborated on each particular given by him and found in the first information report. We see no merit in this submission. (B) The witnesses are interested witness inasmuch as P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 belong to Nath Community to which the deceased belong and are, therefore interested witnesses. This submission is also baseless for the reasons that there is no close relationship between the witnesses and deceased. No reason is disclosed on the cross-examination and in both the evidence for which they should be branded as natural witness. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 Sc: 14631. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that where the single eye-witness who is a close relative of the deceased has deliberately suppressed the relationship is liable to be disbelieved as his testimony is unnatural and, therefore, doubtful. In the present case, none of the P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 are close relative of the deceased, they have not suppressed the distant relationship and consequently, there is no reason why following the Supreme Court cited above, they be disbelieved. Reliance was also placed on 1994 Cr. L. R 455 for the proposition that the first information report has lose its value as it was ante-timed. The offence tonk place at about 9 p. m. and first information report was lodged at 9. 30 p. m. Reading the evidence as recorded in the sessions trial and the averments recorded in the first information report, we are firmly of the view that the report was not antedated or ante-timed; it is a faithful report which was duly, reduced to write and cannot, therefore, be Ignored. This judgment is of no assistance to the accused in the views we have taken, therefore, we confirm the finding of the guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and maintain the sentence imposed by him. ( 10 ) THE appeal devoid of any substance and same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.