Judgment P. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-8-1991 passed by Shri S. N. Ojha, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 25/91 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under S. 320, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case lies in small compass. On 22-11-1990 Shahadi, Amir, Smt. Shammi, Abu Bakar and Ms. Shafiat went to their field in order to attend agriculture operations. At about 3. 30 p. m. Shahadi prepared tea and it was taken by Hadi and his brother Abu Bakra. Amir was taking his meal. Ms. Shafiat was pounding gwar ki phalis. After taking tea Abu Bakra lifted an axe and went towards Ms. Shafiat. All of a sudden they heard the cries of Ms. Shafiat. Thereupon all these persons went to the place where Ms. Shafiat was pounding the phalis. They found Ms. Shafiat in a dying condition. Mer neck had been severed from her body. At the same time Abu Bakra made good escape with the axe. It was, therefore, clear that Ms. Shafiat was done to death by the accused. Amir went to Khadin B. S. F. check post and reported the incident to Gumnam Singh (P. W. 1) who was inspector and in-charge of the post. Gumnam Singh, in turn, informed the police on telephone about the above matter. On receipt of this report, Ram Singh (P. W. 14), SHO P. S. , Gadra reached the place of occurrence. He saw the dead body of Ms. Shafiat. He recorded the statement of Amir (Ex. P-12) and on that basis registered case No. 64/90. He started investigation and inspected the site on 23-11-1990 and prepared Site Plan (Ex. P-7) and Site Memo (Ex. P-8 ). He also collected the blood stained and controlled soil and sealed the same. Inquest report (Ex. P-17) was prepared. The autopsy of Ms. Shafiat was conducted by Dr. Santosh Maheshwari (P. W. 14 ). According to the post-mortem report (Ex. P-3) Ms. Shafiat died on account of injuries caused to her vital parts. P-7) and Site Memo (Ex. P-8 ). He also collected the blood stained and controlled soil and sealed the same. Inquest report (Ex. P-17) was prepared. The autopsy of Ms. Shafiat was conducted by Dr. Santosh Maheshwari (P. W. 14 ). According to the post-mortem report (Ex. P-3) Ms. Shafiat died on account of injuries caused to her vital parts. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Barmer who committed the accused to the Court of Session under S. 209 for standing trial for the offence under S. 302, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the accused guilty prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under S. 313, Cr. P. C. The accused denied all the prosecution allegations. He did not head any defence evidence. ( 4 ) GUMNAM Singh (P. W. 1) proved the fact that at the B. S. F. Check Post Amir came and reported about the incident. He then informed the police. The eye-witnesses namely, Hadi Khan (P. W. 2) Shammi (P. W. 5), Kayam (P. W. 6), Hada Khan (P. W. 7) have all turned hostile. In this way the only eye-witness who has deposed in favour of the prosecution is the father of the deceased. It may be mentioned that the deceased Ms. Shafiat was the real sister of the accused. Before the learned Sessions Judge, it was not disputed that Ms. Shafiat died on account of injuries caused to her vital parts. Hence there was no dispute that Ms. Shafiats death was homicidal. The learned Sessions Judge critically examined the statement of the solitary eye-witness Amir and found it reliable. The motive for causing the murder of Ms. Shafiat baffled the learned Sessions Judge but otherwise he found the statement of Amir absolutely reliable for proving the offence under S. 302, I. P. C. against the accused. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused as above. ( 5 ) WE have heard Shri Sandeep Mehta for the accused/appellant and the learned P. P. Shri Sandeep Mehta has assailed the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant on the ground that in the instant case the important eye-witnesses namely, Sadhi Khan P. W. 2. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused as above. ( 5 ) WE have heard Shri Sandeep Mehta for the accused/appellant and the learned P. P. Shri Sandeep Mehta has assailed the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant on the ground that in the instant case the important eye-witnesses namely, Sadhi Khan P. W. 2. Shammi P. W. 5, Kayum P. W. 6 and Khadi Khan P. W. 7 have turned hostile. They have not at all supported the prosecution case. The prosecution case thus hinges solely on the statement of Hamir P. W. 8 who incidently is the father of the accused as well the deceased. He has referred to the statement of this witness and submitted that at the relevant time he was sitting at a distance from the place where deceased Miss Shafiat was pounding the Phalis. Hence it was not possible for him to have witnessed the accused assaulting or inflicting blows to Miss Shafiat. Hence if this witness claims to be an eye-witnesses having actually seen the accused inflicting blows on Miss Shafiat, he is only telling a lie. If he could not have been seen actual offence then his statement cannot be so incriminating as ot implicate the accused. His statement is only to the effect that he saw his son/accused running away. From this fact alone, the offence under S. 302, IPC cannot be proved. Mr. Mehta also wondered as to why the accused committed murder of his own sister Miss Shafiat. There is absolutely no evidence regarding motive. No sex was involved. Hence it is not clear why the accused committed the above murder and why Amir, who is father of the deceased as well as of the accused, is deposing against the accused. He also suggested that there evidence that this witness was not mentally sound and it may be the reason he is deposing against the accused. Mr. Mehta submitted that there is no other evidence against the accused/appellant. Statement of Amir P. W. 8 is not of such quality as to base conviction on his testimony alone. ( 6 ) THE learned P. P. has supported the judgment of the learned trial Judge. He has referred to the prosecution evidence and submitted that incidently in this case all the eye-witnesses consisted of a family of the accused as well as the deceased. ( 6 ) THE learned P. P. has supported the judgment of the learned trial Judge. He has referred to the prosecution evidence and submitted that incidently in this case all the eye-witnesses consisted of a family of the accused as well as the deceased. He concluded that from the record the motive to commit the murder of Miss Shafiat cannot be spelt out. But most henious offences have been committed and the evidence of motive may be not coming. It is a settled law that even in the absence of motive, conviction can be sustained. All other family members of the deceased as well of the accused have turned hostile but Amir P. W. 8 has, however, came forward and deposed against the accused. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in the statement of this witness. It may be noticed that this witness is deposing against his own son. His statement is clearly cogent and straightforward. ( 7 ) WE have considered the rival submissions and scanned evidence carefully. It may be stated at the outset that the whole prosecution case hinges on the testimony of Amir P. W. 8. All other important eye-witnesses have turned hostile who were admittedly members of the family of the accused and the deceased. Their attempt to save the deceased can be appreciated for not co-operating with the prosecution. However, it can be said without difficulty that there is no incriminating evidence deposed by any of the above witnesses. After the careful appraisal of statement of Amir P. W. 8 we are satisfied that his statement is entitled to be full credence and the learned Session Judge has not committed any error in basing his conviction on the statement of this witness. It is a settled law that the Court was perfectly justified in basing the conviction of the accused on the statement of Amir, if the Court found the same to be worthy of belief. Amir P. W. 8 falls in the above category. It is correct that at the time of offence he was sitting at a distance of some 60 feet away from the place where Miss Shafiat was pounding the Phalis. It has also come in evidence that Amir could not have seen Miss Shafiat from the place where he was sitting. It is also correct that he could have seen Shafiat while standing. It has also come in evidence that Amir could not have seen Miss Shafiat from the place where he was sitting. It is also correct that he could have seen Shafiat while standing. When he heard the cries of Miss Shafiat, he got up and saw the accused assaulting Miss Shafiat with an axe which the accused possessed. After inflicting the blows the accused ran away. The witness has stated that he did not chase the accused on account of fear. When he went to the place of occurrence, he saw that the neck of deceased has been completely severed from the torso. ( 8 ) THE statement of this witness cannot be doubted because at the time of occurrence he was present there and could see as to what happened before him. He saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence. These circumstances unerringly pointed out to the irrefutable conclusion that it was the accused who committed the murder of Miss Shafiat. It can be assumed that Amir saw the accused as soon as he stood up. He then rushed to the place of occurrence. From his statement two important facts emerge. He saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence and the dead body of Miss Shafiat was lying on the ground. Indirect corroboration is available from the statement of P. W. 7 who has stated that when he rushed to the place of occurrence immediately, the witnesses told him that Miss Shafiat had been murdered. This statement of Khadi Khan is relevant under Illustration (a) of S. 6 of the Evidence Act. The statement of witness is relevant who has seen actual crime and who uttered it simultaneously. Shami P. W. 9 has admitted that from the place where Amir P. W. 8 was taking his meals, the place where Miss Shafiat was done to death could be seen if one stood up. This supports the statement of Amir that he saw the actual crime when he got up. ( 9 ) IT is a very strange case where the accused and the deceased were brother and sister and the person responsible for indicting is none other then the father of the deceased and accused. It is a case where no motive for crime is available and there is no love and sex involved the case. ( 9 ) IT is a very strange case where the accused and the deceased were brother and sister and the person responsible for indicting is none other then the father of the deceased and accused. It is a case where no motive for crime is available and there is no love and sex involved the case. The question also arises as to why Amir stood up and deposed against the accused who is his own son. However, there is no dearth of such persons in the world who prefer truth to the interest of their kith and kin irrespective of the consequences flowing from his truthful version. We find the statement of Mr. Amir to be absolutely reliable and totally worthy of belief. ( 10 ) FOR the above reasons we hold that the learned Session Judge has not committed any error in convicting the accused/appellant. ( 11 ) THERE is no force in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.