Judgment DALELA, J. ( 1 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution P. W. 2 Phulji lodged a verbal report on 16-5-90 at 5 p. m. at Police Station, Sallopat that in the previous night at 9. 00 p. m. on the alarm raised by P. W. 5 Smt. Kamla (daughter of his brother Vella) he (P. W. 2) went to the house of his brother, where he found that his brother Vella had died and foul smell of wine was coming from his mouth. On this information the proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P. C. were taken place. Upon the post-mortem examination of the dead body it was revealed that the death of Vella was caused due to homicidal strangulation. Consequently a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was registered. After investigation the appellants Teja and Khatara and one Rama were tried for the offence of murder of Vella. In the trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The accused persons in their statements denied the prosecution evidence and claimed themselves to be innocent. They did not examine any witness in defence. After considering the evidence on record and arguments advanced, the trial Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Banswara vide its judgement and order dated 22-1-92 convicted Teja and Khatara for the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced Them to a imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. The accused Rama was acquitted for the offence under Section 302/109, I. P. C. Against this conviction and sentence appellants Teja and Khatara have preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) ANOTHER Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16-8-95 dismissed the appeal of Teja for non-prosecution and the appeal in respect of Khatara was ordered to be fixed for hearing. ( 3 ) WE have, therefore, heard the arguments in respect of the appeal of appellant Khatara only. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the conviction and sentence of appellant Khatara has been based solely on the testimony of P. W. 5 Kamla (daughter of the deceased), who claimed to be an eye-witness and in the submissions of the learned counsel she is not reliable, because she did not disclose the name of the assailants for two days and remained silent. The learned counsel further contended that P. W. 5 in the first instance stated that her father had died on account of consuming excess wine and on basis of this, the F. I. R. was lodged and police started the proceedings under Section. 174, Cr. P. C. and afterwards she stated that the appellant Khatara along with Teja killed her father. Thus, according to the learned counsel for appellant Khatara the prosecution has failed to prove its case and as such appellant Khatara is entitled to be acquitted. ( 5 ) WE have gone through the entire evidence on record and have also perused the judgement of the learned trial Court. ( 6 ) P. W. 5 Smt. Kamla is the daughter of the deceased. She would not implicate a false person for murdering her father and let the real culprit go scot-free. Her testimony with regard to the incident of murder of her father cannot therefore be false and untrue. To our mind her deposition is trustworthy and worth accepting. She has testified that the accused Teja and Khatara had scuffled with her father and thereafter Khatara made her father to lie down and he (Khatara) sat on his (deceased) chest and the accused Teja throttled the neck of the deceased by rope and killed him by strangulation. The testimony of P. W. 5 is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P. W. 11 Dr. Trivedi, who on post-mortem examination found the cause of death to be asphyxia due to homicidal strangulation. He also found ligature marks situated below thyroid cartilege and encircling the neck completely, which is indicative of throttling the neck by rope. The doctor has ruled out the suicidal strangulation by hanging. Thus from the evidence of P. W. 5 corroborated by the medical evidence of P. W. 11 it is fully established that the appellant Khatara and his companion Teja scuffled with the deceased and over powered him and then Khatara made him to lie down and he (Khatara) sat on his (deceased) chest and then Teja throttled the neck of the deceased by rope and killed him by homicidal strangulation. ( 7 ) THE learned trial Court has very minutely scrutinised the entire evidence on record including P. W. 5 and P. W. 11 and thereupon arrived at the conclusion that the appellant Khatara and his companion Teja with a common intention to kill the deceased over powered him and Khatara forced deceased to lie down and then the (appellant Khatara) sat on the chest of the deceased and Teja throttled the neck by rope and killed the deceased. The learned trial Court has given elaborate reasons in support of this conclusion. It held the appellant Khatara and his companion Teja guilty of murder of the deceased and convicted them for the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. We find ourselves broadly in agreement with the conclusion and the reasons given by the learned trial Court. In the case of Girija Nandani Devi v. Bijendra Narain, AIR 1967 SC 1124 and in case of State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417 : (1981 Cri LJ 1019) it has been laid down by the Apex Court that the appellate Court when it agrees with the views and conclusions of the trial Court need not to repeat the narration and the appraisal of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court and the expression of general agreement with the trial Court would suffice. Since we broadly agree with the conclusion and the reasons of the learned trial Court, we need not enter into the reappraisal of the evidence and reiterate the reasons given by the learned trial Court. ( 8 ) THE incident took place in the night at about 9 p. m. Teja threatened P. W. 5 Kamia not to raise alarm while the deceased was being killed. After the deceased had died one Rama a relative of Teja came to P. W. 5 and told her to say that the, deceased had committed suicide. He warned her not to tell to anybody that her father was killed. P. W. 5 has seen her father being killed. Naturally she was under shock and under fear of threat given by Teja and Rama. Therefore, out of the fear due to the threat she did not tell in the night that the deceased was killed by Khatara and Teja. P. W. 5 has seen her father being killed. Naturally she was under shock and under fear of threat given by Teja and Rama. Therefore, out of the fear due to the threat she did not tell in the night that the deceased was killed by Khatara and Teja. When P. W. 2 Phulji came to her in the night she did not tell the name of the assailants and that is why P. W. 2, who left for the Police Station in the same night, lodged the F. I. R. that Vella had died and foul smell of wine was coming from his mouth. It is in the next morning P. W. 5 gathered some courage and over powered the fear and then she disclosed to P. W. 3 Sawa that her father was killed by Khatara and. Teja by homicidal strangulation. P. W. 3 has. Confirmed this. This explanation offered by P. W. 5 for the delay in disclosing the names of the assailants seems to us quite satisfactory, genuine and natural. Her testimony is, therefore, quite natural, true and reliable. ( 9 ) THAT appellant Khatara and his companion Teja cams together, both of Them scuffled with the deceased, then Khatara forced the deceased to lie down and he (Khatara) sat on his (deceased) chest and. Thereafter Teja throttled the neck of the deceased by rope and Khatara continued to be on the deceased till he was done away with. After killing the deceased both of them went away together. All these go to clearly establish that both the assailants had common intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, the appellant Khatara has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. ( 10 ) NO other point has been pressed and argued before us. ( 11 ) IN the result, we do not find any force in the appeal of Khatara and therefore it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.