JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 67/96 on 6.11.1996 convicting the accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of one Mai Singh who was his son-in-law. 2. The order of conviction is challenged through jail appeal filed by Amar Singh. With the assistance, of the learned counsel who appeared as Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have reappreciated the evidence on record and have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides at the bar. 3. The prosecution story stated briefly is that on 22.5.1996 at 3.00 p.m., the first information report was lodged at Police Station, Chhatragarh by Priti Kaur and Parmesh Singh verbally that because of enmical relation between the complainant and the accused Amar Singh over agricultural land, Amar Singh had threatened that he shall kill his son-in-law, if his daughter does not settle the property dispute. It is then stated in the first information report that in the night of 21.5.1996 at about 11.30 when the complainant and others in the family along with deceased Mai Singh were sleeping outside the house, the accused approached the people and straight away assaulted with an axe. On seeing the assault, the sons and daughters of deceased started shouting and the accused ran away. On the basis of this information report, the accused was arrested and the investigation was undertaken. After investigation, the trial proceed. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and accepting the testimony of eye-witnesses, the learned Judge recorded the order of conviction which is assailed before us basically on the following grounds; (a) that there is unnecessary delay in filing the first information report. The incident has occurred in the night at about 11.30 on 21.5.1996 whereas the report is lodged at about 3.00 p.m. on 22.5.1996. The prosecution has not explained the delay and therefore, the possibility of concoction cannot be over- ruled; (b) that no motive is proved for killing Mai Singh, even if it is accepted that accused had enmity towards his daughter over agricultural land, that could be no reason for killing her husband. The prosecution has not explained the delay and therefore, the possibility of concoction cannot be over- ruled; (b) that no motive is proved for killing Mai Singh, even if it is accepted that accused had enmity towards his daughter over agricultural land, that could be no reason for killing her husband. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the accused has unnecessarily been involved; (c) that there are several contradictions in the depositions of the eye-witnesses and therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has graved its claim and (d) that there is no recovery of blood stained soil. There is no blood found on the site and therefore, it is possible that the deceased person was killed somewhere else and was put on his bed around the house by the unknown assailants and the accused has been unnecessarily framed. 4. As aforesaid, we have reappreciated the evidence on record and we find none of the contentions raised on behalf of the accused acceptable. There are four eye- witness in this case who have deposed before the Court the manner in which the assault took place. PW. 1 Kalwant Singh is the son of the deceased and grand-son of the accused. He has given a clear description of what occurred on the date of event. He has very categorically admitted in his cross-examination that incident occurred in the night and it was a dark night. He admits that father the accused assaulted the deceased. The witness or his other brothers and sisters did not make any attempt to catch hold of the accused who was the assailant. 5. To the similar effect is the deposition of RW. 2 Shyam Kaur who is grand-daughter of the accused and daughter of the deceased. She also admits in her cross-examination that the night was dark and they did not make any attempt to catch hold of the accused. 6. P.W. 3 Smt. Gegi, who is also the grand-daughter of the accused and daughter of the deceased. Her testimony is very similar including cross-examination. She has further deposed to the recovery of the axe which was used for killing the deceased. 7. P.W. 4 Priti Kaur is the daughter of the accused and the deceased was her husband. 6. P.W. 3 Smt. Gegi, who is also the grand-daughter of the accused and daughter of the deceased. Her testimony is very similar including cross-examination. She has further deposed to the recovery of the axe which was used for killing the deceased. 7. P.W. 4 Priti Kaur is the daughter of the accused and the deceased was her husband. In the face of the testimony of these four witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased as also to the accused, it is impossible to believe that they would falsely implicate the accused for the murder of their father when the accused is their grand-father (mother's father). There is nothing to doubt the eye-witnesses account by these four persons. There is no error therefore, committed by the learned Judge in believing these witnesses and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We have scrutinised the judgment impugned before us and we affirm each of the findings given by the learned Judge for coming to the conclusion of guilt of the accused - We therefore, see no reason to give independently our own reasons apart from what has been stated above for affirming the order of conviction. We are convinced that the statement of eye-witnesses was enough for conviction as has been held by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no error of law committed by him in coming to the conclusion of guilt and convicting the f c-used to suffer imprisonment for life.In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******