JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was charged for the murder of his brother Bhanji. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanswara by judgment dated 27.9.1995. has convicted him for offence under section 302 I.P.C.and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 20.12.1993 PW-3 Mst. Thavri, widow of deceased Bhanji lodged on oral first Information Report at Police Station Anandpuri stating inter alia that her husband Bhanji had taken a loan of Rs. 250/- from her younger brother in law,appellant Shamji. On the fateful day at about 4:00 PM, the appellant arrived with an iron rod and asked her husband to repay the loan. He also threatened to kill him in case of non-payment her deceased husband asked him to pay the amount on next day. On this appellant gave a blow on the head of Bhanji by iron rod, on account of which he fell down. Hearing her out cry, PW-1 Smt. Karma arrived. It is further stated that the appellant gave a second blow on the head of Bhanji. She went to her uncle in law PW-2 Pratap and narrated the incident. Both of them returned to the spot and found that deceased Bhanji was beaten to death. On this information, police registered a case for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. Police prepared the inquest report and arranged for autopsy of the dead body of deceased Bhanji. After usual investigation police laid charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 8 witnesses. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Analysing the evidence, the trial court recorded the finding of conviction against the appellant for offence under section 302 I.P.C.and sentenced him in the manner noticed above. 4. We have heard Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have carefully gone through the record. PW-4 Dr. Heeralal has stated that the he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Bhanji. He noticed following injuries:- 1. 4. We have heard Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have carefully gone through the record. PW-4 Dr. Heeralal has stated that the he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Bhanji. He noticed following injuries:- 1. Sharp (lacerated) 3"x4"x2 injury at front of head just above left eye. There are multiple injuries with fracture of bone that involve left eye. That injury come out through brain material that injury has multiple cuts of superficial skin. 2. Sharp 6"x 2"x 11/2" injury at left side above left eye to centimetre right side of upper occipital bone there are seen also skull bone fracture. 3. Sharp 3" x 1/2" x1" injury at right side tip of occipital bone just 8" above to right ear. He has the proved post Mortem Report Exhibit P-8 In his opinion the deceased Bhanji was died from shock due to excessive hemorrhagic of bleeding and shock. He also stated that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature of cause death. 5. The entire case rests on the testimony of the eye witness PW-3 Smt. Thavri. She has stated that on the fateful day at about 4:00 PM her husband was smoking tobacco and sitting at the gate of house and she was preparing food. At that time her younger brother in law appellant Shamji arrived and demanded the repayment of Rs. 250/-. Her husband promised him to repay on the next day. The appellant was armed with an iron rod. He dealt with the iron rod on the head of her husband. There was bleeding, after sometime he succumbed to injuries, She went to the house of her uncle in law PW-2 Pratap and narrated the incident. In the cross examination, she admitted that there was no enmity between her husband and the appellant Shamji except the verbal alteration which has taken place for repayment of loan. She also admitted that she was not aware of the second blow given by him. She denied the suggestion that the appellant Shamji did not inflict injuries to the deceased Bhanji. PW-1 Smt. Karma and PW-2 Pratap have not supported the prosecution case and as such they have been declared hostile. A blood stained iron rod was recovered vide Exhibit P-9 in pursuance of the information given vide Exhibit P-10. She denied the suggestion that the appellant Shamji did not inflict injuries to the deceased Bhanji. PW-1 Smt. Karma and PW-2 Pratap have not supported the prosecution case and as such they have been declared hostile. A blood stained iron rod was recovered vide Exhibit P-9 in pursuance of the information given vide Exhibit P-10. It was also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination but the F.S.L. report has not been placed on record. The other witnesses are motbirs of memo of recovery. In absence of F.S.L. Report it cannot be said that there was blood on the iron rod. Therefore, the recovery has to be excluded from the incriminating circumstances against the appellant. 6. The sole testimony of PW-3 Thavri corroborated by the medical evidence leads of the irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant and appellant alone who committed the murder of Bhanji. Therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 7. Consequently, we find no merit in this case and same is dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******