Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Prabhawati Kumari aged about eight years. 2. The First Information Report was lodged by one Ramayan Raut at 23 hours on 17.8.88 alleging inter alia that while her daughter Prabhawati Kumari and other children were tending their goats on the side of the road of a School the appellant came there with a sword in his hand. He asked all the children to lay down and when Prabhawati Kumari laid down on the ground the appellant assaulted her with the sword causing injuries on her ear, neck and left hand. The girl died on the spot instantaneously and the other children being frightened fled away. On alarm raised by the informant, the father of the deceased, the villagers including the informant chased the appellant and apprehended him. Meanwhile, the appellant threw away his sword. 3. The motive alleged by the informant is that her daughter Prabhawati Kumari used to help the appellant in his cooking and as some quarrel ensued between them he killed the girl. 4. After investigation the chargesheet was submitted and the trial of the case proceeded. 5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the appellant has relied upon the evidence of nine prosecution witnesses. Out of which as many as six witnesses were the eye witnesses. The doctor has also corroborated the manner of injuries caused by the appellant. Though in such type of cases where there is overwhelming evidence regarding the actual murder motive for such murder becomes inconsequential but in the instant case motive has also been attributed for such murder. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that there is no eye witness in as much as there are some material contradictions in their evidence and their evidence could not have been relied upon by the trial court for conviction. In this regard the evidence of the eye witnesses may be scrutinised. 7. P.W.1 Manoj Ram is aged about 10 years. In this regard the evidence of the eye witnesses may be scrutinised. 7. P.W.1 Manoj Ram is aged about 10 years. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that when he alongwith the deceased and other children were grazing their goats appellant Krishna Das (the Sadhu) arrived there and asked all of them to lay down as he was playing the sword and then the appellant caught hold of the hair of Prabhawati and assaulted her twice with the sword on her neck as a result of which she died and the appellant fled away. One Malin raised the head of the girl by her hands and thereafter ran away. The appellant was arrested by the villagers. According to this witness the appellant had some illicit relation with said Malin as both of them slept together in a temple and the deceased had seen them in that compromise position. According to this witness, as the deceased had seen them in that position the appellant killed her. This witness was subjected to cross-examine but nothing favourable to the defence could be brought from his mouth. 8. The evidence of Manoj Ram (P.W.1) has been fully supported by the evidence of P.W.2 Brijesh Ram (aged about 8 years), P.W.3 Manorma (aged about 8 years) and P.W.4 Chiraia (aged about 12 years). All these children have stated categorically the manner of assault inflicted by the appellant and the motive behind the scene. So far so P.W.2 Brijesh Ram in cross-examination has specifically stated that he and Prabhawati Kumari, the deceased, had seen Malin and Baba (Sadhu, the appellant) several times in intimated position. 9. P.W.5 Bhuteli Raut is a co-villager. According to him he saw that Baba (the appellant) had cut the neck of the daughter of Ramayan Raut (the informant) with his sword by inflicting twice with the same. He also helped the other persons in apprehending the appellant by chasing. According to him, he had seen that Malin taking flowers to the Baba (the appellant) and once he saw this Baba (the appellant) and Malin together. 10. P.W.6 Kedar Raut is another co-villager, who was also grazing his buffaloes at the time of occurrence. He found the appellant coming and assaulting Prabhawati with his sword. He also participated in apprehending the appellant on chase. He deposed that the appellant threw his sword in the field. 10. P.W.6 Kedar Raut is another co-villager, who was also grazing his buffaloes at the time of occurrence. He found the appellant coming and assaulting Prabhawati with his sword. He also participated in apprehending the appellant on chase. He deposed that the appellant threw his sword in the field. He saw this occurrence from a distance of ten Laggi and on seeing the same he rushed to the spot. However, he deposed that when he rushed to the place of occurrence there was nobody there except the deadbody of deceased Prabhawati. All the children had already fled away. This statement, in our view, is not very material because as mentioned above, all the children were so frightened on seeing such a ghasty nature of crime by the appellant on deceased Prabhawati they fled away from the spot. This witness has stated that appellant Sadhu came to the village seven months ago and completed the incomplete Math which is situated in the land of one Chaubey but there was no dispute between Chaubey and Sadhu (the appellant). 11. P.W.7 is the informant, who is father of the deceased. He deposed that his daughter Prabhawati used to cook food for the Sadhu (the appellant) and once she told him to have seen Sadhu (the appellant) and said Malin in an objectionable position. This witness also had gone to the field for grazing his buffaloes and saw the appellant arriving there and assaulting his daughter twice on the neck with the sword and thereafter his daughter died on the spot. This witness has specifically stated that there was no complaint against the appellant being Sadhu and his conduct and character was never questioned by any villager. This witness has only contradicted his version made in the First Information Report when he deposed that his deceased daughter had given an information about some illicit relation between Sadhu (the appellant) and said Malin. In the First Information Report he has stated that there was some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased for which the murder was committed. In our view, this contradiction is not very material in as much as P.W.2 has already stated about the motive behind the said crime. 12. Mr. In the First Information Report he has stated that there was some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased for which the murder was committed. In our view, this contradiction is not very material in as much as P.W.2 has already stated about the motive behind the said crime. 12. Mr. Bijay Kumar Bhatt, the doctor is P.W.S, who held postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries; (i) Incised wound 6"x 2"x 2"- 1/2" on the left side of the cheek extending up to neck. (ii) Incised would 4" x 1" - 1/2" x 2" deep transfers on the upper part of the left side of neck. (iii) One incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep on the dorsum of left wrist. According to this witness the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury nos. 1 & 2, which were grievous in nature. He opined that those injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Apart from this, the Investigating Officer Girendra Mohan Kumar (P.W.9) has specifically deposed that on the statement of the appellant himself the sword was recovered. He saw the dead body lying on the road near the school though he had taken the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence but for the reason best known to him the same was not sent for chemical examination. 13 Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to convince the court by submitting that when the evidence has come that the said murder was committed on being instigated by Malin she should have been arrested and proceeded against. In our view, this submission is of no help to the appellant. 14. As noted above, all the eye witnesses are unanimous in their deposition that the appellant came to the spot and assaulted the deceased twice with the sword as a result of which she died on the spot. 15. From the discussions made above, it is clear that the arrival and staying of the Sadhu (the appellant) in village was never objected by anybody nor there was any animus against him from any corner. Moreover, there was no earthly reason to believe that the child witnesses of tender age had anything in their mind against this appellant. 16. 15. From the discussions made above, it is clear that the arrival and staying of the Sadhu (the appellant) in village was never objected by anybody nor there was any animus against him from any corner. Moreover, there was no earthly reason to believe that the child witnesses of tender age had anything in their mind against this appellant. 16. Under these circumstances, whether the occurrence took place on instigation of Malin or because the appellant was apprehending that his image as Sadhu will be tarnished if Prabhawati (the deceased) would reveaf the fact that he was having illicit connection with Malin and in order to wipe out that witness he killed Prabhawati, is immaterial. All the witnesses have categorically stated that it was the appellant who committed the ghastic crime and he was also apprehended by the villagers by chasing. 17. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and scrutinising the entire evidence, we are of the view that the finding of the trial court in convicting and sentencing of the appellant does not call for any interference by this court. 18. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, it is dismissed. Nagendra Rai, J. 19 I agree.