JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted on a charge under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of his father-in-law and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 100 as fine. He has also been convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to his mother-in-law Smt. Mogi and his wife Bhuri and was sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100. 2. On 30.1.1989, a report was lodged at 4 p.m. at the police station by one Haliya S/o Nathu stating that at about 3-4 a.m. on that day he heard shouts from the house of his brother Bada on which he and his son and some persons from the village reached the spot and saw that the accused Rama had assaulted his father-in-law Bada with an axe and when the mother-in-law of the accused Moti and the wife of the accused Bhuri tried to intervene, they were also assaulted and injured. Bada was taken to the hospital along with injured Smt. Mogi and Smt. Bhuri. On this report, crime under Sections 452, 307, 324 and 323 IPC was registered. After investigation, prosecution was launched and the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR was lodged belatedly and there was no explanation for the 12 hrs. lapse of time between the incident and the lodging of the FIR. He further submitted that the statements of Smt. Mogi and Smt. Bhuri, the injured witnesses were so contradictory as to become unreliable. He further submitted that there was no motive for the accused to have assaulted and killed his father-in-law as they were on good terms even according to the prosecution witnesses. It was also contended that in any event the case would not fall under Section 302 IPC but, at best, could fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and the sentence. 4. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, we do not find any substance in the argument that there was no explanation for the delay. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and the sentence. 4. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, we do not find any substance in the argument that there was no explanation for the delay. Firstly, the police station was at a distance of 25 kms., secondly in the FIR it has been stated that the condition of deceased was serious and he was taken to the hospital first, Injured persons Smt. Mogi and Smt. Bhuri were also hospitalised and after getting them admitted in the hospital, brother of the deceased went to the police station to lodge the FIR. This is a plausible explanation for the alleged delay in the lodging of the FIR. 5. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Haliya, PW 2 Smt. Mogi and PW 3 Smt. Bhuri as the eye witnesses who had seen the occurrence. PW 1 Haliya stated in the Court that in his presence accused Rama had given an axe blow to the deceased. This was obviously as improvement on the FIR and the trial Court has rightly not believed him to be an eye witness. However, the other part of his testimony is in consonance with the FIR and is duly corroborated. Smt. Mogi the mother-in-law of the appellant stated that in the evening immediately preceding the incident appellant Rama had come to their place. They took meals happily and retired for sleep. Deceased Bada and appellant Rama slept outside and Mogi, Bhuri, Ratan, Lassi and Narayan slept inside the house. At about 4 O'Clock she was awakened by cries of Bada. Mogi, Bhuri and Ratan came out and she saw the appellant giving axe blows to deceased Bada. He had already delivered one blow before she tried to intervene. She was assaulted on her head by the blunt side of the axe. When Bhuri tried to intervene, she was also assaulted as she received Injury on her arm. Buri (PW 3) wife of the appellant also stated that at about 5 O'Clock in the morning she got awakened because of the quarrel. They came out and saw that the deceased Bada was lying down and the appellant had an axe in his hand. Appellant gave one axe blow from the sharp edged side of the axe to the deceased Bada on the backside of his head. He had already delivered two blows earlier. They came out and saw that the deceased Bada was lying down and the appellant had an axe in his hand. Appellant gave one axe blow from the sharp edged side of the axe to the deceased Bada on the backside of his head. He had already delivered two blows earlier. When she tried to intervene, she was assaulted and received injuries on the right arm. In her cross examination she stated that she was the first to come out of the house and was followed by her mother. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to make most of this statement as according to him it was a serious contradiction in the version given by these two injured eye witnesses. Smt. Mogi (PW 2) had stated that she had seen two axe blows given by the appellant to the deceased whereas Smt. Bhuri (PW 3) who claims to have come out first before Mogi came out, had only seen one axe blow being given by the appellant. Having read the statements of both the witnesses as a whole, we do not find that the contradiction is so material as to render the testimony of both these witnesses untrustworthy. After all, these two witnesses are simple tribal ladies not very proficient with the ways and language of the Courts. Even the comprehension of the entire incident and its retention in memory cannot be expected to be so perfect that two witnesses can give exactly the same version of an incident seen by both simultaneously. It is quite likely that in the dead of night when they were suddenly awakened from sleep due to a noise both the witnesses though present at that time at the place might not have seen the entire incident. The difference in the version is, therefore, not serious in nature and in our opinion does not render the testimony of the witnesses unreliable. After all, they were injured witnesses having no interest in implicating the appellant falsely. 6. As regards argument that the case could fall under Section 304 Part II, we have to keep in mind that three axe-blows were given on head which would clearly show the intention to cause death. Moreover, the ladies of the family who tried to intervene were also not spared. On the material available on record, it cannot but be a case of murder. 7. Moreover, the ladies of the family who tried to intervene were also not spared. On the material available on record, it cannot but be a case of murder. 7. No other point was argued. 8. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. *******