JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal against the conviction of the appellant arises out of the judgment dated 26.11.1988, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 220/87, convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Bhagwati Bai (since deceased) was the mother-in-law of the complainant Photku (PW 1) and she was living separately in the house of the complainant after being deserted by her husband. The appellant Nathuram and his wife suspected Bhagwati Bai to be a witch and he held a Panchayat in which she was imposed fine of Rs. 500/-. But Bhagwati Bai could not pay the fine and had left the village. But she again returned to the village after some time. The appellant and his father used to tease and abuse her for which she had lodged Rojnamcha Sanna at the police station against the appellant and his father on 11.6.1987. On 16.6.1987 at about 9 a.m. Bhagwati Bai had taken her grand daughters Sukhvantin Bai and Rajvantin Bai to Natka Pond of the village for their bath. While the deceased was returning from there alongwith her grand-daughters, the appellant arrived there armed with a sickle and inflicted a blow on the neck of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down after sustaining injuries. The appellant washed the sickle and his clothes in the pond and buried the sickle under tine sand of the Nalla and ran away from there. Sukhvantin Bai rushed to the house and narrated the incident to her mother Ghasim Bai who went to the field and informed her husband complainant Photku (PW 1). The complainant came to the place of incident and found his mother-in-law Bhagwati Bai lying dead in a pool of blood. Sukhvantin Bai went to the Police Station Abhanpur and lodged a report which was recorded by (PW 12) Ziwara Khan, on the basis of which merg intimation Ex. P17 was recorded. The police arrived in the village and prepared Pandinama Ex. P7 of the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination, Dr. P17 was recorded. The police arrived in the village and prepared Pandinama Ex. P7 of the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination, Dr. K.L. Gopawar (PW 8) held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on her person : (1) Incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm bone deep in front of neck and below the thyroid cartilage, cutting 4th cervical vertebra, Trachea, oesophagus, both carotid arteries, jugular veins and muscles of the neck. (2) Incised wound 5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm. on die face right side. In the opinion of Doctor injuries were caused to the deceased by sharp cutting object, and injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, on account of the injury inflicted on the neck as per post-mortem examination report Ex. P9. On the memorandum of the appellant Ex. P3, the sickle was recovered and seized vide Ex. P4, buried under the sand. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. After the cognizance and commitment, the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. 3. The defence was of innocence and false implication. 4. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned aforesaid. 5. Ku. Neena Khera, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that Sukhvantin Bai and Rajvantin Bai who are alleged eye-witnesses to the incident, have not been examined by the prosecution nor the prosecution has offered any explanation for their non-examination. The testimony of Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW 5) as eye-witnesses to the incident cannot form basis of conviction of the appellant. But these witnesses kept mum and did not inform anybody about the incident. Therefore the non-disclosure of the name of the assailants by these two witnesses is against the natural conduct, and the learned Trial Court erred in relying upon the testimony of Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW 5) in convicting the appellant. 6. On perusal of the evidence of complainant Photku (PW 1), it however, appears that Rajvantin Bai and Sukhvantin Bai were the minor daughters of Photku (PW 1) and he was informed about the incident by Sukhvantin Bai. 6. On perusal of the evidence of complainant Photku (PW 1), it however, appears that Rajvantin Bai and Sukhvantin Bai were the minor daughters of Photku (PW 1) and he was informed about the incident by Sukhvantin Bai. Photku lodged FIR Ex. P1. Occular evidence of Photku (PW 1) is corroborated by the evidence of Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW 5). The testimony of Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW 5) cannot be discarded simply because they kept mum and did not inform about the incident to the villagers. Their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Gopawar (PW 8). The testimony of Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW5) as eye-witnesses to the incident stands corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. K.L. Gopawar (PW 8), as also from the evidence of Investigating Officer as also from the report of the F.S.L., Sagar, Ex. P22. 7. Further it appears that on the memorandum of the appellant (Ex. P3) a sickle was recovered vide Ex. P4 by SI, J.R. Dharia (PW 13) which was buried under the sand, as also the bush-shirt and underwear of the appellant and Chudi and Sari of the deceased by (PW 13) J.R. Dharia and they were sent to the F.S.L., Sagar, for Chemical Examination vide Ex. P21. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. P22 indicated that the sickle and the articles seized from the appellant and the deceased were found stained with human blood. The evidence of Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW 5) are consistent with the medical evidence and the report of F.S.L., Sagar. 8. The testimony of Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW 5) as eye-witnesses to the incident cannot be discarded simply because they kept mum and did not inform the villagers. Sunarini Bai (PW 4) and Dasri Bai (PW 5), who are rustic villagers, are not supposed to react in the manner in which educated and intelligent people react. 9. It is common knowledge that different people react differently to a given situation according to their temperament, and behavioural pattern of all human beings is not always uniform. 10. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this appeal. 10. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.