S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment dated 20. 6. 1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Sessions case No. 26 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the said learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case is as follows :-the appellant is the nephew of husband of the first informant. The deceased was her husband. The first informant, the deceased and family were residing in the Corbyn's Cove Quarry village. The appellant was also a resident of Corbyn's Cove and his place of work was at Ross Island. Allegedly he used to demand money from the husband of PW. 1 (Sukmoni Toppo) very often. On 15. 1. 1995 at about 5 PM when their grandson Manoj had gone out for playing, the appellant came there and demanded money from the deceased. But he was refused and advised him to do work properly to maintain his livelihood. They began conversation in their matter and at about 7 P. M. the deceased sought for night meals from the first informant, which was served. While the deceased was taking his meal, conversations between him and the appellant were going on and in course thereof, the appellant threatened the victim to kill him, whereupon P. W. 1 tried to dissuade him. She tried to come near the accused and advanced towards him but the appellant quickly picked up the axe which was kept by the side of the bicycle inside the very room and hit the deceased on his head, as a result whereof deceased sustained bleeding injuries and fell down on the floor unconscious. The P. W. 1 again requested the appellant not to make any further assault but he kept on inflicting blows; whereupon she started crying and shouting. The appellant thereafter fled away with the axe. The first informant (PW. 1) also followed him shouting and crying that the appellant had killed her husband. On hearing her cries her son-in-law Kaleshwar Kujur PW. 2 came out of his 'jhopri' and the incident was narrated to him. In the meantime Arjun Sai, PW. 3, Bisweshwar and Parasnath Goyal (PW. The appellant thereafter fled away with the axe. The first informant (PW. 1) also followed him shouting and crying that the appellant had killed her husband. On hearing her cries her son-in-law Kaleshwar Kujur PW. 2 came out of his 'jhopri' and the incident was narrated to him. In the meantime Arjun Sai, PW. 3, Bisweshwar and Parasnath Goyal (PW. 6) also came to the jhopri of the victim and learnt about the incident from PW. 1. PW. 3 went out to bring a taxi. P. W. 6 Parashnath and Bisweshar also went out to apprehend the accused. Accused was apprehended by the P. W. 2 Kaleshwar Kujur from inside the thick bushes near the railing of the residence of Cycilia (P. W. 8 ). After about half an hour, PW. 2 Kaleshwar Kujur came and reported that the accused had been caught and was in the custody of PW. 6. P. W. 1 wrapped the head of the deceased with a towel. After sometime Arjun also came in a taxi, whereafter they all left for hospital. They also took the accused from the place where he was caught. The deceased was alive till then. Dr. Sudevan (P. W. 13) was on emergency duty in the hospital, He examined the victim and informed the duty officer at Aberdeen P. S. over telephone about the admission of the victim in the hospital which was recorded in the diary and an information was sent to Station House Officer, Tarshem Singh, the I. O (P. W. 21 ). The I. O proceeded to hospital and recorded the statement of P. W. 1. The said statement or furdbayan was treated as FIR (Ext. 7 ). ( 3 ) INITIALY the case was registered under section 307 IPC which was later on converted into one under section 302 IPC after the death of Tuna. After inquest, the dead body was consigned to morgue for post mortem examination. The autopsy was done on the following day. ( 4 ) AFTER completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. The learned Magistrate committed the court to Session. The Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Hence this appeal. The autopsy was done on the following day. ( 4 ) AFTER completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. The learned Magistrate committed the court to Session. The Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Hence this appeal. ( 5 ) IN cases of murder, at the outset, the first point to be enquired into is whether the victim is dead and whether his death was homicidal or natural? Apart from other PWs, P. W. 1 Sukmoni Tappo, the widow of Tuna xalxo, the deceased and P. W. 18 Dr. Wazid Ali have stated that Tuna is dead. P. W. 18 had performed autopsy on the dead body on 16. 1. 95. He found two incised injuries on his head (1) commencing from right eye brow upto right ear and (2) on the right occipital region. Internal explanation revealed that there were factures on right temporal scalp and right temporal region. The brain substance had also been damaged as a result of one of the injuries. The cause of death was intracranial haemohrrage caused by fracture and was homicidal in nature. This position has not been challenged by the defence. ( 6 ) THE next point to be considered is whether the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature? ( 7 ) DR. Wazid Ali has categorically stated that the injuries were on a vital part of the body and were "sufficient to cause death in normal course". According to this witness, such injuries could be caused by an axe (Mat Ext. VI ). This part of his statement has not been challenged in cross examination. ( 8 ) THEN comes the question whether the said injuries were inflicted by the accused? ( 9 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has considered the statement of PW. 1 in detail and found her to be witness of truth. Mr. D. R. Parekh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had taken us through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also the depositions of the witnesses. P. W. 1, an old woman belonging to Oraon tribes of Bihar, who had been cross-examined at great length, but she remained firm. Mr. D. R. Parekh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had taken us through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also the depositions of the witnesses. P. W. 1, an old woman belonging to Oraon tribes of Bihar, who had been cross-examined at great length, but she remained firm. She has categorically stated that the appellant had hit the deceased on his head twice or thrice. Her evidence has been corroborated by the Medical evidence as also, circumstantial evidence viz. the apprehension of the accused from a place near the P. O, where accused had been hiding himself behind the bushes in order to evade his arrest. The presence of AB group of blood on the clothes of accused (Mat Ext. I and II) has been confirmed by Chemical Examinor's report (Ext. 15 ). The clothes which the deceased was wearing while he was done to death, also were found stained with the blood of the same group. ( 10 ) THE place where the deceased was assaulted was his own house. Thus it is natural that P. W. 1 would be present there and naturally no independent witness was expected at that hour. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 in her statement categorically stated that in view of the fact that she gave food and shelter to the accused for a considerable period of time, the question of animosity did not arise. The evidence of PW. 1 was corroborated by PW 2, 3 and 6. Kaleshwar Kujur (PW. 2) is the son-in-law of PW. 1. He categorically stated that while he came near the hut upon hearing the cries of his mother-in-law, Sukmoni Toppo (PW. 1), he found his father-in-law lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He immediately went out to apprehend the accused/appellant. He went to the road side but did not trace out the appellant. While returning, he met Bisheswar Majhi and Parasnath Goel in the way. They also joined him and continued the search. In course of their search, they found the appellant keeping himself hidden behind the bushes by the side of the railing of Cycilia (PW. 8 ). Thereafter accused was apprehended. He further stated that in front of the hut (Jhopri) of the appellant, he met Prakash Tete, Gori Devi and Meena Sai. Cycialia is also an independent witness. In course of their search, they found the appellant keeping himself hidden behind the bushes by the side of the railing of Cycilia (PW. 8 ). Thereafter accused was apprehended. He further stated that in front of the hut (Jhopri) of the appellant, he met Prakash Tete, Gori Devi and Meena Sai. Cycialia is also an independent witness. She also corrborated the story narrated by the aforementioned witnesses. ( 12 ) MANOJ, who according to the defence, was the assailant, was examined as P. W. 4. He stated that on the fateful day he left his residence to play hockey. And while he returned at about 7. 30 PM he met Arjun near the Dispensary who reported to him that his grand-father has been assaulted by the appellant and fled away. He rushed to the residence of his grand-father and saw him in a pool of blood. He was also told what was happened, by his grand-mother. He was asked to call Parmeshwar from Garacharma school, Whereupon he went there by bus and on his return, the room was found locked. After some time the police came with his grand-mother and room was then unlocked and police took the photographs and made seizures. ( 13 ) SO far as the question of motive for commission of offence is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, has rightly relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1991 SC 1021 and 1973 SC 2622 for the propositions that presence of motive only satisfies the judicial mind that an offence must in all probability been committed for this purpose, but in absence of proof of motive, the prosecution story does not become suspicious. In murder cases, the prosecution is not bound to prove the motive in every case. In any event, when the commission of offence is proved, it cannot be thrown away only on the absence of a motive. However, in the instant case, the prosecution has also proved the motive, inasmuch as, it is a proved case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place because inspite of threat given by the accused to kill, the deceased had bluntly refused to acceed to the demand of appellant and had advised him to earn money by hard labour and not to live on charity of others. ( 14 ) IT may further worth-noticing that the weapon of assault was recovered at the instance of the appellant. The said evidence is admissible in terms of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The factum of the recovery of the said weapon has been proved by P. W. 21. We have no hesitation in confirming the finding that it was the appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries on the person of the deceased. ( 15 ) ALTHOUGH Mr. D. R. Parekh rightly did not invite our attention to the contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses, which had been done in the court below. The contradictions, in our opinion, were rightly found to be a trivial ones. It is well settled that when the eye witness furnished all details of assault some minor and inconsequential contradictions in their testimony are natural due to time lap and as such should be ignored. Reference in this connection may be made Asha v. State of Rajasthan in 1997 SC 2828. ( 16 ) FURTHERMORE, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly refused to give benefit of doubt to the accused keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances of this case. ( 17 ) THE principle of extending the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused cannot be readily accepted but should be carefully applied if certain circumstances exist and warrant the application of principle. It is also well settled that a doubt must be real and founded upon reasons. Reference may be made in the connection to Diwakar Neelkantha Hagde and Ors. v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1996 SC 1242. For the reasons aforementioned we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed. S. K. Tiwari, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.