Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. Appellant Prakash Singh, aged 21 years, has been convicted for the charge of murdering his stepbrother Mahendra Singh on 5.11.1989 at 3.30 p.m. at village Sobhepur, P.S. Nayagaon in the district of Saran and has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran by judgment dated 24th May, 1991. 2. The prosecution story from the evidence emerged during trial may be summarised as follows. The deceased was stabbed in front of his house by the appellant in presence of Rukmini Devi and his daughter Sabita Kumari. The deceased Mahendra Singh was taken to Dr. Ram Janam Singh, where he was declared dead. The dead body was taken back to village Sobhepur where fardbeyan of Ram Kumar Singh, brother of the deceased was recorded by S.I. Nawal Kishore PW 8. 3. The evidence of the incident which led to the trial and conviction of the appellant was furnished by three eyewitnesses, namely, Saveeta Kumari PW 4 daughter of "the deceased, Rukmini Devi PW 6 widow of the deceased and one Bisha Roy PW 5. Learned trial Judge found the testimonies of these eye-witnesses to be absolute reliable and trust worthy. 4. On the fateful day at about 3.30 p.m. the deceased was collecting manure in front of his house for his field. His widow, daughter and Bisha Roy were present at that time. His daughter Saveeta Kumari was taking prasad of Chhath. In the meantime, the appellant came and talked to the deceased as to why the deceased was not reprimanding his wife Rukmini Devi. The deceased asked the appellant as to what was the matter. Without any slightest provocation the appellant is said to have stabbed the deceased on the chest and middle of the back. The deceased Mahendra Singh fell down with profuse bleeding from the wounds. He was taken to Dr. Ram Janam Singh, who lived close to the village in question, where he was declared dead. 5. Three witnesses, namely, Rajendra Kumar Singh PW 1, Shatrughan Pd. Singh PW 2 and Ram Kumar Singh PW 3 the informant and brother of the deceased were declared hostile. According to Ram Kumar Singh, informant, he was at his field and on India came to his house and found his brother fallen. He could not see as to who had assaulted Mahendra Singh. 6. Singh PW 2 and Ram Kumar Singh PW 3 the informant and brother of the deceased were declared hostile. According to Ram Kumar Singh, informant, he was at his field and on India came to his house and found his brother fallen. He could not see as to who had assaulted Mahendra Singh. 6. There is evidence that the appellant came out of the house with a knife. The evidence of Saveeta Kumari is that the appellant inflicted 4-5 injuries on the deceased and then fled towards the bandh. Bisha Roy PW 5, who was also eye-witness, was going that way carrying load of grass. He saw altercation between the appellant and the deceased. He saw the appellant striking the deceased with knife from back and chest. Bisha Roy made an attempt to snatch the knife but he could not succeed. The hostile witness Rajendra Kumar Singh and Shatrughan Pd. Singh caught the appellant and took him away and knife was handed over to Rajendra Kumar Singh. Thereafter all the three mentioned above fled. The deceased was carried on a cot to the doctor where he was declared dead. Bisha Roy, however, stated that there was no body in the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence and people arrived on hulla. He was first to reach there. The evidence of Bisha Roy clearly ruled out the presence of Saveeta Kumari and Rukmini Devi, who claimed to be eye-witness. Bisha Roy was unable to say whether the joint family property had been partitioned among the brothers. There was no dispute of any kind between the deceased and the appellant, and all lived in the same house. The deceased had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Aditya Singh. 7. Rukmini Devi PW 6 the widow of the deceased has stated that her father-in-law Laxmi Singh had married thrice. Mahendra Singh the deceased was born from his first wife. The appellant, informant and one Bisheshwar Singh were born from second wife and Brish Mohan Singh was born from third wife. She was at her Darwaja and she saw the appellant striking her husband twice by his knife. She has narrated that at the time of occurrence, wife of the appellant, Ram Kumar Singh and his wife and Saveeta were present. Laxmi Singh father of the deceased and his wife were not present. Bisha Roy was also present. She was at her Darwaja and she saw the appellant striking her husband twice by his knife. She has narrated that at the time of occurrence, wife of the appellant, Ram Kumar Singh and his wife and Saveeta were present. Laxmi Singh father of the deceased and his wife were not present. Bisha Roy was also present. 8. According to the autopsy Surgeon Dr. Suresh Prasad PW 7, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased : (i) Incised penetrating wound 1 /4" x 4" x chest cavity deep over middle of stomach. (ii) Incised penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/8" x 1" over middle of back. (iii) Incised wound 4-1/2" x 2-1/2" x 3 1 /2" with cutting of muscles and vessels over upper and outer portion of left thigh. On dissection, the absconding aorta (big blood vessels of the heart) was cut size 1/4" x 1/8" x lumen deep with huge collection of blood in the chest cavity. This means that it was clearly a case of homicide. 9 Nawal Kishore PW 8 was Of-ficer-in-charge of Nayagaon Police Station on the material date. On 5.11.1989 at about 5.00 p.m. he was in village Sobhepur on patrolling duty. He came to know about the occurrence and reached the House of Laxmi Singh where he recorded fardbeyan of Ram Kumar Singh. He prepared inquest report and sent the dead-body for post-mortem. The place of occurrence, according to this witness, was bathan of the deceased. This place was adjacent to the house of the appellant. He found a large quantity of blood on the alleged place of occurrence. He found a printed polyester sari stained with blood as also green coloured plastic chinauti. 10. The appellant in his examination had simply denied the allegation and his defence was that he had been falsely implicated because of dispute of family properties. The deceased was in fact killed some where else and the names of the real assailants have been withheld by the prosecution. The deceased was of bad character and on the date of occurrence and on the date of occurrence at the P.O. a polyester sari was also recovered. 11. Sri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in his forceful argument, submitted that the prosecution witnesses are highly unsustainable and improbable and, therefore, the trial Court erred in placing implicit reliance on the so-called witnesses. 11. Sri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in his forceful argument, submitted that the prosecution witnesses are highly unsustainable and improbable and, therefore, the trial Court erred in placing implicit reliance on the so-called witnesses. He submitted that the chances and motive for the occurrence is shrouded in mystery. There is no admitted cause or motive for the appellant to have murdered his step brother. He next submitted that the Investigating Officer found a blood-stained sari from the place of occurrence but none of the witnesses have spoken about sari which creates serious doubts about the manner of occurrence. The evidence is that the deceased just before the occurrence was collecting cow dung. Learned Counsel submitted that the deceased must have been taking out manure with spade which was found by the Investigating Officer. If that was so, the deceased must have used to spade to prevent attack on him to save his life. 12. Learned trial Judge in well considered judgment has observed that the informant being own brother of the appellant turned hostile, although according to the widow and daughter of the deceased, he was present at the time of occurrence. Learned trial Judge on minutely considering the statement of the witnesses Saveeta, Rukmirii Devi and Bisha Roy, unhesitatingly came to the conclusion that the appellant had given chhura blow to Mahendra Singh at the alleged time and date of occurrence, as a result of which he died. The ocular evidence has been supported by the surgeon. Learned trial Judge has dealt each and every argument advanced on behalf of the appellant before the trial Judge. It is needless to say that non-explanation of presence of sari does not create any doubtful circumstance against the prosecution. It was observed that it was clearly a case of homicide and, therefore, the appellant was liable to be convicted under Section 302, IPC and not under Section 304, IPC. 13. In my considered opinion, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion on the basis of overwhelming evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant was responsible and liable for the murder of step brother in the facts and circumstances discussed above. The appellant gave two knife blows on the vital part without any provocation. In the circumstances of the case, he is not entitled to any benefit under Section 304, IPC. The appellant gave two knife blows on the vital part without any provocation. In the circumstances of the case, he is not entitled to any benefit under Section 304, IPC. True it is, that no clear motive has been established but the evidence of eye-witnesses is clear and unimpeachable evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded. The conviction of the appellant is, therefore, confirmed. 14. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is in custody. He shall serve the remaining part of the sentence.