JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st August, 1988 passed by Sessions Judge, Balotra by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The appellant Deva Ram was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Mangnath on 15th August, 1987 at 10.00 a.m. in village Tapada. The case of the prosecution is that Ran Nath alongwith his wife Smt. Soni, daughter Smt. Hazarki and his son-in-law Mangnath had returned on the fateful day after attending the marriage of his niece at about 9 a.m. Rannath and Mangnath were sitting under the `Neem' tree while Shankamath was preparing tea in the Zhumpa. Smt. Soni wife of Rannath and Hazarki wife of Mangnath were also in the Zhumpa. Smt. Hazarki was feeding her son. Sometime thereafter accused Deva come there and abused Mangnath and simultaneously inflicted sword injury on the head of Mangnath on the left frontal region near the eye, the same embedded in the body and could not come out and the endlock of the sword remained in the hand of the accused. The accused, thereafter, ran away.They raised the alarm which attracted several persons. Shankernath took out the embedded sword. PW 6 Narain Singh saw the accused coming and going at the place of occurrence. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses. The learned trial Court after trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 3. The nature of evidence produced by the prosecution consists of the evidence of four eye witnesses namely PW 2 Rannath, PW 3 Mst. Hazarki, PW 4 Mst. Soni and PW 5 Shankernath. This evidence is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 Dr. O.P. Vyas. PW 6 Narain Singh is the witness who has seen the accused coming armed with sword and entering inside the house of Rannath and some time thereafter returning from the house having the handle of the sword in his hand. PW 7 is the Motbir witness who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. O.P. Vyas. PW 6 Narain Singh is the witness who has seen the accused coming armed with sword and entering inside the house of Rannath and some time thereafter returning from the house having the handle of the sword in his hand. PW 7 is the Motbir witness who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. PW 11 is the Motbir witness for the recovery from the side of the prosecution. PW 8 Chunilal was the Head Constable who took the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW 9 Bhudha Ram was the constable posted at the Police Station, Balotra who took the 4 sealed packets from the Malkhana of the Police Station, Balotra on 8th September, 1987 from PW 10 Purshottam for FSL Examination and after obtaining forwarding letter deposited the same in the FSL Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 10 Purshottam was the Head Constable, Malkhana Incharge with whom PW 12 Banney Dan, the Investigating Officer deposited the sealed packets of incriminating articles and who handed over the same to PW 9 Budha Ram on 8th Sept., 1987 for FSL Examination. PW 12 Banney Dan was the SHO who investigated the matter. 4. The prosecution case rests upon the statements of 4 eye witnesses- PW 2 Ram Nath has stated that they returned to Tapada after attending the marriage, on the fateful day he alongwith Mangnath was sitting under the Neem tree while his son Shankerlal was sitting in the Zhumpa and was preparing tea and his wife and the daughter who was married with Mangnath was feeding her child. In the meanwhile Deva Bheel came there and inflicted injury to Mangnath. This witness could not identify the accused in the Court and therefore, the evidence of this witness is of no assistance to the prosecution. The next eye-witness of the occurrence is PW 3 Mst. Hazarki. Mst. Hazarki stated that Deva accused present in the Court murdered his husband by sword about 8 months before at about 8 a.m. At that time was feeding her child. The accused came and demanded Kunkada and started abusing. Mangnath asked him not to abuse him and requested him to take `Bidi', Devia Bheel entered the room and inflicted injury by sword on the left side of the eye. On receiving the injury, her husband fell down on the ground. The accused came and demanded Kunkada and started abusing. Mangnath asked him not to abuse him and requested him to take `Bidi', Devia Bheel entered the room and inflicted injury by sword on the left side of the eye. On receiving the injury, her husband fell down on the ground. The sword was embedded in the body and the handle of the sword was broken. The accused ran away keeping the handle in his hand and while running the accused also left his shoes. They raised hue and cry and all the family members were collected. Ran Nath and Shankernath followed the accused but they could not caught hold of the accused. Narain Singh met them in the way and informed that Deva accused has gone towards his father's house. Shankernath thereafter took out the sword from the body of the Mangnath. PW 4 Smt. Soni the mother-in-law of the deceased has stated that deceased Mangnath who was her son-in-law, used to live with them. Deva accused murdered him by inflicting injury by sword, at the time when the murder of Mangnath was committed by the accused, she alongwith Hazarki was sitting in the shadow of Zhumpa Hazarki was feeding her child and her husband and son-in-law were sitting under the tree. Shankernath was preparing the tea. Accused came there, he abused Mangnath. Mangnath said him to come inside and take `Bidi' Devia who was armed with sword, came inside the Court yard and inflicted injury by sword on the left side of the eye of Mangnath. On receiving the injury Mangnath fell down and they raised hue and cry and accused Deviya ran away. The motive given by this witness is that earlier Deviya had taken away two cocks, the ladies abused the accused and therefore, the accused has killed Mangnath. PW 5 Shanker Nath has stated that on the date of incident at about 10.00 a.m. he was preparing tea in the Zhumpa. His sister Hazarki, brother-in-law Mangnath, father Ran Nath and mother were also there in the house. Deviya came there and started abusing Mangnath and asked him to come out. He told that he will prepare the meat of cocks and who is there to prevent him to do so. His sister Hazarki, brother-in-law Mangnath, father Ran Nath and mother were also there in the house. Deviya came there and started abusing Mangnath and asked him to come out. He told that he will prepare the meat of cocks and who is there to prevent him to do so. Mangnath asked him not to abuse and come inside and take the `Bidi' Devia took out the sword and inflicted the injury on the left side of the eye of Mangnath which remained embedded in the body of Mangnath. Mangnath after receiving the injury fell down, the accused thereafter ran away leaving behind his shoes. The handle of the broken sword also remained with him. He and his father followed him but could not caught him. Narain Singh met them in the way who informed that he had seen the accused coming and going after inflicting the injury and that the accused has gone towards his father's house. 5. A lengthy cross-examination has been performed by the learned counsel for the appellant on all these three witnesses but the testimony of these three witnesses has remained unshaken even during the cross examination and nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination which could make the evidence of these witnesses unbelievable. The presence of these witnesses is most natural. They were the inmates of the house and it was morning time and nobody had gone out. Moreover the two the witnesses are ladies. The presence of these witnesses was, therefore, most natural and they have stated in the statements what they have actually seen. They have neither implicated any other accused nor exaggerated the case, their evidence therefore, inspires confidence. The evidence of the three eye-witnesses further stands corroborated from the recovery of the `Juti' of the accused which was left in the house by the accused and which was later-on recovered in the presence of the Motbirs. The recovery of the shoes also stands proved. Evidence of the witnesses further finds corroboration from the medical evidence of PW 1 Dr. O.P. Vyas. PW 1 Dr. O.P. Vyas has stated that there was one injury of incised wound 8 c.m. long lower at middle of nose left side 1.5 c.m. left nostrial margin extended upward 1 c.m. above the left eye brow outer end. Evidence of the witnesses further finds corroboration from the medical evidence of PW 1 Dr. O.P. Vyas. PW 1 Dr. O.P. Vyas has stated that there was one injury of incised wound 8 c.m. long lower at middle of nose left side 1.5 c.m. left nostrial margin extended upward 1 c.m. above the left eye brow outer end. Shri Vyas has also stated that the cause of death was profuse bleeding and injury to brain leading to shock respiratory failure which was the result of the injury caused by accused. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has considered the case of the appellant in the right perspective and the appreciation of the evidence made by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary or unjust and we agree with the view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of crime. The evidence of these three eye-witnesses inspire confidence and the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond the reasonable manner of doubt. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant does not require any interference. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******