Judgment GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal Achla Ram has assailed the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta on 27-2-81 whereby he convicted Achla Ram under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a Fine of Rs. 500/ -. Achla Ram was also convicted under Sec. 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years R. I. and pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case relates to an occurrence which took place in "deval" (religious place) situate in the town of Merta in which Moda Ram sustained injury by a sharp edged weapon known as "jharbur". The prosecution case is that deceased Moda Ram lived in a room in the "deval" and accused Achla Ram also lived in another room there. In the F. I. R. Ex. P-6 lodged by P. W. 7 Ramkishore it was stated that for two days there was dispute between Achla Ram and Moda Ram on the disconnection of electricity and that on 29-6-80 at about 12 when he was talking to Moda Ram in the "deval" where Kimat Ram and Bhola Ram were also sitting, accused Achla Ram went there. There was exchange of hot words between deceased Moda Ram and accused Achla Ram. He intervened and sent accused Achla Ram outside but after some time Achla Ram, all of a sudden, came there having "jharbur" in his hand and inflicted blow on the head of Moda Ram and when he tried to inflict second blow he (Ram Kishore) pushed him aside and thus Moda Ram escaped major injury yet he sustained an injury on his left shoulder. On this report which was lodged at 3. 30 p. m. on the day of occurrence, a case under Section 452 and 307 IPC was registered. Moda Ram was shifted to the hospital where his injuries were examined by Dr. Bhom Singh, P. W. 1. He however advised shifting of Moda Ram to Ajmer hospital as his condition was serious. Moda Ram was admitted in Ajmer hospital on the same day but he succumbed to the injury on 1-7-80. Autopsy was held by Dr. B. K. Mathur, P. W. 2. The police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused on 5-7-80. He however advised shifting of Moda Ram to Ajmer hospital as his condition was serious. Moda Ram was admitted in Ajmer hospital on the same day but he succumbed to the injury on 1-7-80. Autopsy was held by Dr. B. K. Mathur, P. W. 2. The police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused on 5-7-80. On the information given by the accused "jharbur" was recovered from his house on 9-7-80. This "jharbur" was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where it was reported that "jharbur" was stained with blood but the origin of the blood could not be determined as blood stains were disintegrated. After the completion of the investigation a challan was filed. ( 3 ) ACCUSED was charged with offences under Sec. 452 and 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Out of them P. W. 7 Ram Kishore is the first informant. Though according to the facts narrated in the F. I. R. he was eye witness to the occurrence, but he turned hostile. P. W. 8 Kimat Ram alleged eye-witness has also resiled from his earlier statement. P. W. 5 Sugan Puri has deposed to have seen the occurrence. P. W. 6 Mst. Nathi mother of Sugan Puri has stated that her son had informed her when she was sitting at the house of Bishnoi that Achla Ram had inflicted blows by "jharbur" to Moda Ram. P. W. 1. Dr. Bhom Singh had examined injuries of Moda Ram on 29-6-80 and had prepared injury report Ex. P-1. P. W. 2 Dr. B. K. Mathur had prepared the post-mortem report Ex. P-2 on 1-7-80. P. W. 3 Bankelal had prepared the inquest memo at Ajmer. P. W. 4 Kanaram was associated as Motbir in the investigation. P. W. 9 Ram Kishan had conducted the investigation of the case. Accused in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. denied accusation. He did not examine any witness in defence. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge held that Moda Ram had met homicidal death. He further held that accused was the person who had inflicted injuries to Moda Ram on 29-6-80 in his room and as a result of those injuries Moda Ram died on 1-7-80. He therefore convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge held that Moda Ram had met homicidal death. He further held that accused was the person who had inflicted injuries to Moda Ram on 29-6-80 in his room and as a result of those injuries Moda Ram died on 1-7-80. He therefore convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and have perused the record of the case. Mr. Garg has not assailed the finding of the learned trial Court that Moda Ram had met homicidal death. We have also gone through the statements of Dr. Bhim Singh (PW 1) and Dr. B. K. Mathur (PW 2 ). The medical evidence clearly indicates that there was incised wound of the dimensions 10" 2" x 2" on the left side of the scalp and there was fracture underneath the injury. The medical officers have opined that this injury was dangerous for life and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is, thus, obvious that Moda had met homicidal death. ( 6 ) MR. Garg, contended that the trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the statement of Sugan Puri and Nathi whose names were not stated in the F. I. R. Drawing our attention that these witnesses were interrogated by the police five days after the occurrence he submitted that they have been introduced as eye witnesses at a very late stage of investigation. According to him Nathi had already been turned out of the house of Moda Ram, therefore, there was no occasion for them to be at Merta on the date of occurrence. He submitted that the recovery of "jharbur" was of no consequence as human blood was not found on that "jharbur". ( 7 ) AS against this, the contention of learned Public Prosecutor was that the trial Court has rightly believed the statements of Sugan Puri and Nathi as they were natural witnesses to be present at the place of occurrence. According to him the fact that accused kept the "jharbur" in concealed condition in his house is important circumstances against the accused. He further pointed out that accused has taken false defence that he was not present in Merta at the time of occurrence. According to him the fact that accused kept the "jharbur" in concealed condition in his house is important circumstances against the accused. He further pointed out that accused has taken false defence that he was not present in Merta at the time of occurrence. ( 8 ) WE have given the matter our thoughtful consideration. ( 9 ) SUGAN Puri. P. W. 5 has deposed that he and his mother Nathi used to live with Moda Ram in the "deval" and that at about 11 a. m. he saw accused Achla Ram inflicting "jharbur" blow to Moda Ram and at that time Ram Kishore, Kimat Ram and Bhola Ram were also present. He has further deposed that after inflicting blow on the head of Moda Ram the accused made second attempt but as Ram Kishore gave a push to Achla Ram the second blow touched the shoulder of Moda Ram. According to him the injury of Moda Ram had bled and he immediately informed about it to his mother who was sitting in the house of Mangla Baba and on his information his mother rushed to Moda Ram and thereafter Moda Ram was taken to the hospital by his mother. ( 10 ) MST. Nathi, P. W. 6 has deposed that for the last about 6 years she was living with Moda Ram as his wife and that when she was sitting in the house of Bishnoi her son Sugan informed her at about 11. 30 a. m. that Achla Ram had inflicted "jharbur" blow to Moda Ram and hearing this she went there and saw that there was head injury to Moda Ram and he was unconscious. She further deposed that Ram Kishore and Kimat Ram were present there and they were trying to give first aid to Moda Ram and thereafter she took away Moda Ram to the hospital. ( 11 ) THE criticism of the learned counsel for the appellant on the evidence of these two witnesses was that their names do not find place in the F. I. R. and that they were interrogated by the police some five days after the occurrence. In our opinion, on these two grounds the testimony of these two witnesses cannot be discarded. Nathi herself was nut witness to the occurrence. In our opinion, on these two grounds the testimony of these two witnesses cannot be discarded. Nathi herself was nut witness to the occurrence. Sugan Puri who was a child of less than ten years has deposed to have seen the occurrence while playing in the "deval" premises. It may be that Ram Kishore who lodged the F. I. R. had not seen Sugan Puri at that time and, therefore, he did not know that Sugan Puri had also seen the occurrence. It is also possible that Sugan Puri being a child, Ram Kishore might have thought that useful purpose would not be served by citing him as eye witness. Simply because his name was not mentioned in the F. I. R. the statement of Sugan Puri cannot be seen with suspicion. Nathi was not the eye-witness to the occurrence and, therefore, there was no occasion for the first informant to mention her name in the F. I. R. ( 12 ) THE occurrence took place on 29-6-80 and these witnesses were interrogated by the police on 3-7-80 i. e. on 5th day. Since the names of Sugan Puri and Nathi were not mentioned in the F. I. R. there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to have immediately interrogated them. It seems that when the investigation made headway, the I. O. came to know that Nathi and Sugan Puri used to live in that very "deval" and therefore he interrogated them and the interrogation revealed that Sugan Puri had also seen the occurrence, it is to be noticed that the condition of Moda Ram was very serious and therefore Nathi had gone along with him to the hospital. It may be that the Investigation Officer had gone to the hospital at Merta City but as Nathi was busy in attending Moda Ram she was not expected to have volunteered before the I. O. that she knew something about the occurrence. Sugan Puri, being a child, was not expected to approach the police of his own accord to say that he has seen the occurrence. The presence of Nathi and Sugan Puri, in our opinion, was natural at the place of occurrence as according to Nathi she was living with Moda Ram as his wife along with her son Sugan begotten by her from her previous husband. The presence of Nathi and Sugan Puri, in our opinion, was natural at the place of occurrence as according to Nathi she was living with Moda Ram as his wife along with her son Sugan begotten by her from her previous husband. ( 13 ) OUR attention was drawn to this part of the statement of Sugan, P. W. 5 that some months before the occurrence Nathi was turned out from the house of Moda Ram and, thereafter she was living in village Padu and it was argued that Sugan Puri and Nathi would not be there in Merta City at the time of occurrence. It is, of course, there in the statement of Sugan Puri that wife of Moda and his sister had turned out Nathi from the house of Moda Ram and thereafter he and Nathi started living in village Padu. However, the statement of Sugan Puri does not indicate that Nathi and Sugan Puri did not visit Moda Ram thereafter. It has come in the statement of Sugan Puri and Nathi both that Sugan was studying in Merta City. It is thus obvious that though Nathi and Sugan Puri had been turned out from the house of Moda Ram yet they contained to visit the house of Moda Ram. In any case it has clearly come in the statement of Sugan that they had arrived at Merta on the very day the occurrence had taken place. It is common knowledge that there are summer vacations in the month of June in schools and schools reopen in July. It seems that since schools were to be reopened Nathi and Sugan reached Merta City on 29-6-80 before the occurrence took place. It is significant to point out that it has not been suggested to Sugan Puri that they had reached Merta City after Moda Ram had sustained injury. In our opinion, the presence of Nathi and Sugan Puri in the circumstances of the case at the "deval" was natural and the trial Court has not erred in placing reliance on the statements of Sugan Puri and Nathi. ( 14 ) SUGAN Puri is a child witness and, therefore, as a rule of caution his statement deserves careful scrutiny. We have gone through his statement and in our opinion there is no indication in his statement that he was tutored by someone. ( 14 ) SUGAN Puri is a child witness and, therefore, as a rule of caution his statement deserves careful scrutiny. We have gone through his statement and in our opinion there is no indication in his statement that he was tutored by someone. The witness has stood well the test of cross-examination and has answered each and every question after understanding the same. The trial Court has not erred in relying on the testimony of Sugan Puri. By the evidence of Sugan Puri it is fully established that the accused had inflicted a "jharbur" blow on the head of Moda Ram and he attempted second injury but because of the intervention of Ram Kishore only a superficial injury was caused on the shoulder of Moda Ram. ( 15 ) IN the F. I. R. Ex. P-6 lodged by Ram Kishore it was stated that at the time of occurrence he (Ram Kishore) himself was present and Kimat Ram and Bhola Rant had also seen the occurrence. Ram Kishore, P. W. 7 has however denied the correctness of the version recorded in the F. I. R. Ex. P-6. Ram Kishore, P. W. 7 has deposed that he used to manage the affairs of "deval" and Moda Ram and Achla Ram were his tenant and that on Sunday when he was talking to Moda Ram, he (Moda Ram) told him that Achla Ram had some complaints against him (Moda Ram) but he did not know what should be done by him and when he asked Achla Ram about it he told that Moda Ram was keeping a lady, which was not proper. He has thus deposed that he told Achla Ram that it was personal matter of Moda Ram and he would make Moda Ram understand, and after this talk Achla Ram went away. According to the witness thereafter he went away to "dudasagar" pond to wash his clothes and when he returned after 15 minutes he found injury on the head of Moda Ram and thereafter he lodged the report Ex. P-6. Thus though Ram Kishore narrates what transpired between the accused and the deceased immediately before the occurrence but he denies to have seen the occurrence of causing injury, though in the F. I. R. he had stated that in his presence injury was caused to Moda Ram by Achla Ram. P-6. Thus though Ram Kishore narrates what transpired between the accused and the deceased immediately before the occurrence but he denies to have seen the occurrence of causing injury, though in the F. I. R. he had stated that in his presence injury was caused to Moda Ram by Achla Ram. It is obvious that Ram Kishore is hostile witness and he has suppressed the truth. His this part of the statement cannot be believed that he had taken different F. I. R. in the police station on which the S. H. O. told him that that was not enough and thereafter he wrote the F. I. R. Ex. P-6 at the instance of S. H. O. implicating Achla Ram. There could not be any reason for Ram Kishan, P. W. 9 to implicate Achla Ram in the case. Ram Kishan, P. W. 9 has emphatically denied the suggestion put to him in this regard. It has not been asked to Ram Kishan that he bore ill will against the accused, and he was interested in implicating the accused in the case. Ram Kishore has admitted that he did not inform any senior police officer about the fact that the S. H. O. obtained from him a false F. I. R. In his statement under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. also the witness had stated to have seen the accused causing "jharbur" injury to Moda Ram. It is thus obvious that Ram Kishore has deliberately given false statement in order to help the accused. F. I. R. Ex. P-6 bears the signatures of Ram Kishore. The fact that in the F. I. R. lodged immediately after the occurrence it was stated that the accused had caused injuries to Moda Ram by a "jharbar" ensures the truthfulness of the version given by Sugan Puri. ( 16 ) KIMAT Ram, P. W. 8 whose name also finds place in the F. I. R. as eye-witness has also supported this part of the version of the prosecution that there was exchange of hot words between Achla Ram and Moda Ram and that Achla Ram was turned out of the house by Ram Kishore. However, he adopted the line adopted by Ram Kishore when he deposes that thereafter he went away to the water pond from where he returned after 15 minutes and by that time Moda Ram had sustained injury. However, he adopted the line adopted by Ram Kishore when he deposes that thereafter he went away to the water pond from where he returned after 15 minutes and by that time Moda Ram had sustained injury. The witness has been declared hostile. This witness admits that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. He further admits that he had stated before the Magistrate that the accused had inflicted "jharbur" injury to Moda Ram. His this explanation that he gave this statement at the instance of police cannot be believed. It is thus obvious that the witness has suppressed the truth in order to help the accused. ( 17 ) SIMPLY because Ram Kishore and Kimat Ram have not supported the main part of the prosecution story the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The eye-witness account given by Sugan Puri is trust worthy. It is also obvious that Ram Kishore had given the F. I. R. stating the same facts and Kimat Ram P. W. 8 had also supported the prosecution version at the investigation stage. ( 18 ) IT was also argued that one of the witness Bhola Ram cited in the F. I. R. was not examined. In our opinion, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every witness who is conversant with the facts. When three eyewitnesses had already been examined no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution from withholding Bhola Ram. If the accused wanted to take any help from the statement of Bhola Ram he had enough opportunity to examine him. ( 19 ) APART from the direct evidence contained in the statement of Sugan Puri, P. W. 5 and the corroborative evidence in the statement of Nathi, P. W. 6 and the evidence of exchange of hot wards between the accused and deceased which has come through Ram Kishore and Kimat Ram, there is evidence of recovery of "jharbur" at the instance of the accused. This recovery has been proved by Ram Kishan, P. W. 9 and Kana Ram P. W. 4. Ram Kishan. P. W. 9 states that the accused gave information Ex. This recovery has been proved by Ram Kishan, P. W. 9 and Kana Ram P. W. 4. Ram Kishan. P. W. 9 states that the accused gave information Ex. P-16 that he had concealed a "jharbur" in the beddings in his house and, thereafter he took out the "jharbur" from beneath the beddings lying in his room which he recovered in the presence of Kana Ram, P. W. 4. Kana Ram, P. W. 4 fully supports this recovery when he deposes that accused Achla Ram had taken out the "jharbur" from his room which was lying under the beddings. Kana Ram who was Revenue Officer in the Municipality had no reason to give false evidence against the accused. Thus the recovery of "jharbur" from the house of accused at his instance is fully established on record. This "jharbur" was scaled at the spot and sent for chemical examination. The report Ex. P-20 indicates that blood was detected on "jharbur". Of course, the origin of the blood could not be determined as the blood stains were disintegrated but in our opinion the circumstances that accused kept the "jharbur" in concealed condition is important circumstance against him. ( 20 ) THE trial Judge has not erred in convicting the accused on the basis of the evidence produced in the case. Having considered the entire evidence and material on record we are of the view that the accused had caused injuries to Moda Ram obviously for the reason that he did not like living of Nathi with Moda to whom she was not married. The occurrence had taken place inside the "deval" and, therefore, the accused has rightly been convicted under Sec. 452 IPC. The injury No. 1 which was of the dimension of 10 cm. x 2 cm x 2 cm. on the scalp over left side with underline fracture of skull bone was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death by the Medical Officer. Therefore, the accused has rightly been convicted under Sec. 302 IPC. ( 21 ) IN our opinion, the conviction of the appellant is well merited. The sentence inflicted cannot be called excessive. ( 22 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appellant is on bail. Therefore, the accused has rightly been convicted under Sec. 302 IPC. ( 21 ) IN our opinion, the conviction of the appellant is well merited. The sentence inflicted cannot be called excessive. ( 22 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appellant is on bail. He shall surrender before the learned Session Judge within four weeks failing which the Sessions Judge shall take steps for his arrest to send him to prison for the execution of unexpired period of sentence. Appeal dismissed.