JUDGMENT 1. - The present two appellants have been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 90/92 vide judgment dated 27.6.1996 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo .3 months R.l. Being aggrieved by this conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants before this Court. 2. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of F.I.R. Ex.R 1 lodged by P.W. 1 Mamraj on 19.10.1991 at the Police Station, Ratangarh at 8 A.M. According to the F.I.R., the occurrence took place in the way to Gaurisar to Khamariya in the field of Roopa Ram Jat on the intervening night of 18.10.1991 and 19.10.1991 at about 12.30 A.M. It was said in the F.I.R. that at about 10 RM. his brother deceased Chuna Ram came from the Dhani to his house in village Gaurisar and informed that while he alongwith his brother , Uda Ram and Khinvra Ram was coming in the village, accused persons Birbal Ram and Bhagwana Ram met him. They gave a threatening that since he has killed his brother, therefore, they will not spare him and his family., Chuna Ram then told him that he is going to his Dhani and the witness should take care of himself. After informing Mamraj about this, Chuna Ram i proceeded, towards his Dhani. Thereafter at about 11 RM. the brother of first informant Mamraj, P.W. 3 Uda Ram and P.W. 2 Khinvraram came to him. He informed them that Chuna Ram alone had just gone to his Dhani and accused Bhagwana Ram and Birbal Ram had threatened to kill him and his family. Therefore, all the three decided to follow Chuna Ram and escort him to the Dhani and they proceeded towards Khamariya. While they were going to the Dhani of Chuna Ram on the way to Khamariya, when they reached near the filed of Roopa Ram, they heard the noise. On this they rushed towards that site there they saw that the accused Bhagwana Ram and Birbal were assaulting Chuna Ram by Kasia and lathi. Chuna Ram was shouting while he was lying on the ground. When they reached near, the accused told them that if they came near, they will also be dealt with accordingly. On this they rushed towards that site there they saw that the accused Bhagwana Ram and Birbal were assaulting Chuna Ram by Kasia and lathi. Chuna Ram was shouting while he was lying on the ground. When they reached near, the accused told them that if they came near, they will also be dealt with accordingly. They requested to spare Chuna Ram, then the accused chased them. Out of fear they concealed themselves in the standing crop. Thereafter, the accused ran away towards the village. Bhagwana Ram had a Kasia and Birbal Ram had a lathi, which they carried with them. When they reached near Chuna Ram they saw that he was lying dead, it was reported in the F.I.R. that since there was no source of conveyance available, therefore, he had come on foot to give information. 3. The information was recorded and the investigation started, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused and the accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.RC. 4. At the trial, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and has produced 31 documents and 12 articles. P.W. 1 Mamraj, P.W. 2 Khinvra Ram and P.W. 3 Uda Ram are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The eye-witness account of the occurrence is that on the date of incident Chuna Ram came to Mamraj at about 10 RM. Chuna Ram and his another brother Khinva Ram live in a Dhani in the field, whereas Mamraj and Uda Ram live in village Gaurisar. Earlier, one Sultan son of Kana Ram was murdered and in that case Faija Ram, Vinod and Chuna Ram were accused and, therefore, the accused had enmity towards Chuna Ram. At about 10 RM., Chuna Ram came to his house and informed that he has been threatened by Birbal and Bhagwan Ram that they will finish him and his family. He also informed him that since he has been threatened, therefore, he is going to his Dhani to take care of his children. He also cautioned this witness Mamraj to take care of himself. It was at about 11.30 RM. that Chuna Ram left the company of Mamraj. He was carrying a lathi with him. After Chuna Ram left for the Dhani. He also cautioned this witness Mamraj to take care of himself. It was at about 11.30 RM. that Chuna Ram left the company of Mamraj. He was carrying a lathi with him. After Chuna Ram left for the Dhani. his brother Uda Ram and Khinvra Ram came there and they informed that accused Bhagwana Ram and Birbal had abused Chuna Ram in their presence and have given a threat to kill them, Then Mamraj informed Khinva and Uda Ram that soon before they come, Chuna Ram had gone to the field. All the three decided to follow Chuna Ram because of the threat given by Bhagwana Ram and Birbal and apprehended that these people may not translate their threat. It was a moon-lit night. When they reached near the border of the field of Roopa Ram, they heard shouts of Chuna Ram. When they proceeded further they saw that Bhagwana Ram had a Kasia and Birbal had a lathi and they were assaulting Chuna Ram. Chuna Ram was shouting while lying on the ground. They pleaded for not causing hurt to Chuna Ram and said that he should be spared. Both the accused said, that they will not spare them too as well. On this, they conceal themselves behind the standing crop because the accused had chased them. They saw that the accused finished Chuna Ram. His head was fractured and brain material had come out and whole body of Chuna Ram was lying in a pool of blood. When the accused left the place of occurrence he had come on foot to the police station at 8 A.M. leaving Khinvra Ram and Uda Ram behind at the scene of occurrence. Since no vehicle was available, he had come on foot and as he was under threat, therefore, he had come concealing his position. He was cross-examined and it was suggested to him that it was a dark night they could not have seen as to who the assailants were. This was also suggested by the defence to the witness that it was not possible for the witness to see the incident. It was suggested to this witness that they had no knowledge as to who were the assailants. It is only due to enmity that the accused "have been fastened. 5. This was also suggested by the defence to the witness that it was not possible for the witness to see the incident. It was suggested to this witness that they had no knowledge as to who were the assailants. It is only due to enmity that the accused "have been fastened. 5. The other two eye-witnesses P.W. 2 Khinvra Ram and P.W. 3 Uda Ram have given their evidence in the same manner as was given by P.W. 1 Mamraj. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the testimony of the eye-witnesses and held that the eye-witnesses are reliable. There is nothing on the record by virtue of which it can be said that they are not reliable witnesses. The defence of the accused is a defence of total denial. Nothing has come in the testimony of the eye-witnesses by way of cross-examination on the basis of which it can be said that these witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that these witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and have supported the prosecution version. They have given a consistent and probable version of the prosecution story. There are no contradictions in their testimony from their earlier statements and their testimony does not get contradicted from the F.I.R. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that he does not find a single reason to disbelieve the eye-witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has further found corroboration from the recoveries made from the accused persons. The wearing clothes of the accused Birbal Ram have been found to be stained with human blood. The weapons of offence recovered at the instance of accused persons have also been found to be stained with human blood. Further, the broken pieces of the lathi of Birbal Ram have been recovered from the scene of occurrence. The lathi recovered at his instance of the accused on reconstruction showed that the recovered pieces tallied with it. Thus, the lathi recovered at the instance of accused' Bhagwana Ram has been found to be connected with the pieces found at the spot. Thus, from the weapon of offence and from the pent shirt of Birbal Ram the commission of the crime is connected with the -accused persons. Therefore, there is sufficient corroboration by the circumstantial evidence of the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 8. Thus, from the weapon of offence and from the pent shirt of Birbal Ram the commission of the crime is connected with the -accused persons. Therefore, there is sufficient corroboration by the circumstantial evidence of the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 8. Learned counsel for the accused has assailed the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by saying that the eye-witnesses are not giving the account which is consistent. They have not supported each other. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out to the court that the question of threat has been deposed by P.W. 1 but such threat has not been deposed by P.W. 2 and PW. 3. When this submission was factually checked from the record, it was found to be incorrect. The effort made by the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard was not found to be of any consequence as he has not been able to pin point the contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witnesses which could, in fact, demolish the basic fibre of their testimony. The critical examination made by the learned trial court appears to be reasonable. When we read the testimony of three eye-witnesses and heard the criticism made by the learned counsel for the appellants, we found the same to be unsustainable. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further stressed that murder was committed by unknown persons. It cannot be accepted that at that hour in the night any person would make a venture to go to follow deceased Chuna Ram. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is mere hyper technical proposition. The prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that at about 10 in the night Chuna Ram came to Mam Raj, he informed that he was threatened in the presence of P.W. 2 Khinvra Ram and P.W. 3 Uda Ram. This threat was deposed by deceased Chuna Ram to Mamraj and then Chuna Ram proceeded towards his Dhani. When Khinvra Ram and Uda Ram met Mamraj they also informed about the threat given to Chuna Ram by the accused and then all the three in their wisdom decided to follow Chuna Ram. There cannot be any improbability in their conduct because of the strained relations between Chuna Ram and the accused. Chuna Ram was facing charge of murder of a member of the family of the accused persons. There cannot be any improbability in their conduct because of the strained relations between Chuna Ram and the accused. Chuna Ram was facing charge of murder of a member of the family of the accused persons. They have recently been threatened and in this back-ground, the anxiety of the brothers cannot be said to be improbable. They followed their brother in the spririt of seeing his well being. Further, the weapons of offence, which have been recovered, at the instance of the accused, have been found to be stained with human blood and the wearing apparels of the accused Birbal Ram have also been found to be stained with human blood. There is sufficient corrobation to the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has further urged that the F.I.R. was lodged after considerable delay. The incident had occurred at 12.30 in the night. The Police Station is only 8 kms. away yet P.W. 1 had reached the police station at about 8 in the morning. 11. The learned trial court has considered this aspect of the matter and has observed that this witness had walked on foot from the field where the occurrence had taken place. He has given plausible explanation for getting late in reaching to the Police Station. In any event, 'when the incident occurs in the field at late night and the person has to walk on foot more particularly when the accused are at large, it is generally expected that the witness will try to see his safety also. Thus, the delay caused in filing the F.I.R. has not been found to be of any consequence by the learned trial court. We see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the learned trial court. 12. As discussed above, we don't find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in assailing the judgment of the learned trial court. The learned trial court has given cogent reasons in support of recording conviction. We quite agree with the conclusion arrived at and the appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial court. We are not prepared to take a different view from the one taken by the learned trial court.In the result, the appeal of the accused appellants fails and is dismissed. We quite agree with the conclusion arrived at and the appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial court. We are not prepared to take a different view from the one taken by the learned trial court.In the result, the appeal of the accused appellants fails and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court are maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******