Honble TIBREWAL, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 23, 1995 of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kota, convicting the appellant under Sec. 302 IPC for causing murder of Raghunath, under Sec. 302/34 IPC for causing murder of Ram Narain and also under Sec. 394 read with Sec. 397 IPC. For offences under Secs. 302 and 302/34 IPC he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Under Sec. 394 read with 397 IPC he was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The facts of the case are extensively set out in the impugned judgment of the trial court and they indicate that on December 4, 1990, the informant Vilas Babu and the deceased Ram Narayan Kachhi had gone to Itawa Mandi for selling `Soyabean. After selling the goods they returned to their village Sahnawada at about 9.00 p.m. immediately on reaching there, they were attacked by the miscreants which included the appellant Bheru Meena, co-accused Ghasi S/o Ram Pratap Kachhi of village Sahnawada and two other persons who were not known to the informant. The appellant and co-accused Ghasi assaulted the informant and snatched Rs. 1700/- from his pocket which he had received by selling `Soyabean in the market. His father Raghunath and Ram Narain Kachhi intervened to rescue him but they too were assaulted. According to the prosecution the appellant Bheru inflicted a `Dhariya blow on the head of the deceased Ram Narayan, while informants father Raghunath was assaulted by all the miscreants including co-accused Ghasi. The miscreants fled away when other villagers came at the scene of occurrence on hearing noise. A written report of the incident was made by Vilas-Babu immediately after the incident at 11.00 p.m. at the police station, Itawa, which is at a distance of 15 Kms. from the place of occurrence. (3). On the report of Vilas Babu crime No. 300/1990 under Secs. 302, 394, 307, 323 and 34 IPC was registered. The report is Ex.P/1 on the record. A formal First Information Report (FIR) Ex. P/2 was also prepared. from the place of occurrence. (3). On the report of Vilas Babu crime No. 300/1990 under Secs. 302, 394, 307, 323 and 34 IPC was registered. The report is Ex.P/1 on the record. A formal First Information Report (FIR) Ex. P/2 was also prepared. Investigation of the case was made by the A.S.I. Bhanwar Lal and the S.H.O. Shiv Bhagwan Godara. Inquest Re- ports of dead bodies of the deceased Raghunath and Ram Narayan (Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P/3) were prepared on 5th December, 1990. Site- plan Ex. P/8 of the scene of occurrence was also prepared on 5th and blood stained and control soil were seized vide memo Ex. P/9. (4). Injuries of Vilas Babu, were examined at 11.30 P.M. in the same night by PW 14 Dr. N.K. Gupta. The following injuries were noticed by the doctor on his person :– 1. Lacerated wound 1x1/2 x 1/4 on the occipital region of skull. 2. Bruise (2) - each 2 x 1/2 on Rt. scapular region. 3. Bruise (3) each 2 x 1/2 on Rt. side of back at Thorax lumber region. 4. Bruise (1) each 2 x 1/2 on Rt. side of back. All the injuries were by blunt weapon and simple in nature. Raghunath was alive when he was shifted to the hospital after the incident and his injuries were examined at 11.30 p.m. in the same night by Dr. N.K. Gupta. The following injuries were found on his person :– 1. Incised wound - 2 x 1/2 x bone deep transplaced on the fore-head 1 above to Rt. eye brow - dangerous to life- sharp. 2. Bruise - 1 x 1/2 on right upper lid. 3. Abrasion - 1/2 x 1/4 on Rt. Palm. Raghunath died in the night of 5.12.90 and autopsy on his dead body was conducted by P.W. 13 Dr. I. Haq. The doctor found a incised wound 2- 1/2 x 1/2 x bone deep oblique on Rt. temporal - frontal scalp with fracture of Rt. temporal and frontal bone 3 x 1/2 cavity deep with extra-dural haemotoma and laceration of the brain and membrane 1 x 1/4. Brain was congested. There was also a frac- ture of Petrous part of Rt. bone and fibrifossa plate of ant, cranial-fossa. The cause of death opined by the doctor was the head injury. temporal and frontal bone 3 x 1/2 cavity deep with extra-dural haemotoma and laceration of the brain and membrane 1 x 1/4. Brain was congested. There was also a frac- ture of Petrous part of Rt. bone and fibrifossa plate of ant, cranial-fossa. The cause of death opined by the doctor was the head injury. The post mortem examination of deceased Ram Narayan was conducted by P.W. 14, Dr. N.K. Gupta, medical officer, Itawa on 5th December, 1990 and following injuries were noted by him in the post mortem report Ex. P/15 :– 1. Incised wound - 5x 2 x bone deep vertically placed on Rt. temporal region. 2. Incised wound - 4 x 2 x bone deep transversely placed on occipital region of skull. 3. Incised wound - 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 on Rt. parietal region. 4. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 bone deep on occipital region of skull. 5. Lacerated wound - 1.5 x 1/2 x 1/2 on frontal region. 6. Bruise (4) 2-5 x 1/2 on Rt. Scapular region 2 each 3x2 on left scapular region. On opening the scalp, marked clots of blood lying underneath oblique fracture of panetal, toniposal and occipital bone of skull oblique incise wound of penetal, temporal and occipital lobe of brain measuring each 4x2 x 1/2. 3x2 x1-1/2 and 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 was found. The brain matter was coming out of brain. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. (5). On arrest of the appellant a Dhariya and currency notes of Rs. 300/- were recovered from his possession. After usual investigation, charge-sheets were filed against the accused persons on different dates but ultimately they were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota. The co-accused Ghasi, who was charge-sheeted alongwith the appellant has died during trial, as such, his name was removed from the array of accused. (6). Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed conviction of the appellant on the ground that it was a dark night and conviction was based on solitary testimony of PW 1 Vilas Babu. According to learned counsel the sole eye- witness Vilas Babu was not of sterling worth or trustworthy and no corroborative evidence was available on the record. According to learned counsel the sole eye- witness Vilas Babu was not of sterling worth or trustworthy and no corroborative evidence was available on the record. It was also contended that there was no motive of the crime, and in any case, the conviction of the appellant ought to have been under Sec. 396 IPC. (7). After giving our careful consideration to the above submissions we find no substance in any one of them. (8). PW 1 Vilas Babu was an injured eye-witness of the occurrence, as such, his presence at the time of incident cannot be disputed. He has supported prosecution version in its entirety. He knew the appellant Bheru as he resided in Mithod Village which is hardly at a distance of 3 Kms. from the village Shanawada, where the incident took place. The statement of Vilas Babu contains an account of the whole incident and his evidence is consistent and firm. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in his evidence or any abnormality in the behaviour of the witness. In our view the evidence of Vilas-Babu PW 1 is of sterling worth and the learned trial Court committed no error in placing reliance on his testimony. Then, his testimony stands corroborated by the FIR which was immedia- tely made after the incident in two hours at the police station which was at a distance of 15 Kms. In FIR, the name of the appellant as one of the miscreants finds place. It also contains full account of the part played by the appellant during the incident. The story of the incident given in FIR could not be fabricated or imaginary one. The informant had ample time and opportunity to recognize the appellant as he came in this close proximity while assaulting him, his father Raghunath and Ram Narayan. No motive or any animosity has been alleged or brought on record for falsely implicating the appellant in such a serious crime. The testimony of Vilas-Babu also stands corroborated by medical evidence. Thus in our view, the learned trial Court committed no error in holding the appellants guilty for causing murder of Raghunath and Ram Narayan. (9). The contention of Mr. Naqvi has also no merit that conviction of the appellant under Sec. 302 or 302/34 IPC was bad and it ought to have been under Sec. 396 IPC. Thus in our view, the learned trial Court committed no error in holding the appellants guilty for causing murder of Raghunath and Ram Narayan. (9). The contention of Mr. Naqvi has also no merit that conviction of the appellant under Sec. 302 or 302/34 IPC was bad and it ought to have been under Sec. 396 IPC. From the FIR and the evidence on the record it is clear that there were four miscreants and the findings of the trial court is not that they were five in number. Then, the death of Ram Narayan and Raghunath was caused when they intervened to rescue the witness Vilas Babu. We therefore, find no substance in this argument. (10). The trial court has convicted the appellant under Sec. 302 IPC for causing murder of Raghunath and under Sec. 302/34 for the death of Ram Narayan. He has been sentenced separately for the offences under Sec. 302 and 302/34 IPC. In our view, separate sentence under Sec. 302/34 IPC, as awarded to the appellant is not necessary after sentencing him under Sec. 302 IPC. We therefore, modify the order of sentence to that extent. With the above modification, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are maintained and the appeal stands disposed of.