Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts : Baldev Singh accused was the husband of Asha Rani (deceased), whereas the two eye-witnesses, Lakhwinder Singh (P.W-3) and Sanjeev Kumar (P.W-4) are the sons born to the couple. Lakhwinder Singh was working in a hotel at Zira belonging to his maternal uncle, whereas the accused was plying a rickshaw in the same town. At about 5.00 A.M. on September 13, 1993, Lakhwinder Singh P.W had returned home to change his clothes and found Baldev Singh, his father, standing in the Court yard, whereas his mother was lying on a cot inside the room. Baldev Singh then asked Asha Rani to make some tea, but she replied that as she was un-well, she was unable to do so. Baldev Singh then asked Lakhwinder Singh to make some tea, on which he went inside the room. In the meanwhile, Baldev Singh picked up a Tamba (a piece of wood) and gave several blows on Asha Ranis head, killing her instantaneously and then ran away from the spot. As the crime was being committed, Lakhwinder Singh raised a Raula, on which his younger brother Sanjeev Kumar and one Mohinder Kumar also saw the occurrence. Lakhwinder Singh then informed his maternal uncle and grand-father and they alongwith several other persons reached the place of incident. Leaving some persons to guard the dead body, Lakhwinder Singh went to Police Station, Zira and lodged the report which was recorded by SI Gurmel Singh (P.W-8) at about 6.30 A.M. SI Gurmel Singh then visited the place of occurrence and made the necessary enquiries and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The accused was arrested on September 30, 1993 after he had surrendered in the Court of Shri Varinder Kumar (P.W-1), Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. 2. The prosecution in support of its case examined, inter alia, P.W-2 Dr. Rachhpal Singh, who had carried out the post-mortem examination on the dead body and had found six injuries on the head, several of them being fractures; the two eye witnesses PWs 3 and 4, Lakhwinder Singh and Sanjeev Kumar (aged 8 years), respectively, and P.W-8 SI Gurmel Singh, the Investigating Officer. Rachhpal Singh, who had carried out the post-mortem examination on the dead body and had found six injuries on the head, several of them being fractures; the two eye witnesses PWs 3 and 4, Lakhwinder Singh and Sanjeev Kumar (aged 8 years), respectively, and P.W-8 SI Gurmel Singh, the Investigating Officer. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and while admitting his relationship with the deceased as also the witnesses, he denied the allegations of murder. 4. The trial Court held that from the evidence of two eye-witnesses, the involvement of the accused stood proved beyond doubt. The Court also observed that the fact as to whether the special report had been delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate or not was of little consequence in the light of the eye- witness account given by the two witnesses. The trial Court accordingly convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction. Shri Ajai Lamba, learned counsel appearing for the accused as amicus curiae has, first and foremost, argued that as the special report had not been proved on record, there was no check to find out as to how the FIR had been recorded and as such the possibility that it was apparently a blind murder, could not be ruled out. It has also been urged that as the relations between the couple were strained on account of Asha Ranis infidelity and the two eye-witnesses being her sons had apparently been persuaded to become witnesses by pressure put on them by their material grandfather and uncle. 6. We have considered these arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the record carefully. 7. It has come on record that the police papers had reached the doctor at about 12.15 P.M. on September 13, 1993. Obviously, this would be possible if the inquest report and the other related matters had been disposed of at the sport. We have considered these arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the record carefully. 7. It has come on record that the police papers had reached the doctor at about 12.15 P.M. on September 13, 1993. Obviously, this would be possible if the inquest report and the other related matters had been disposed of at the sport. This fully supports the view that the incident had happened at about 5.00 A.M. and the FIR had been lodged at about 6.30 A.M. To our mind, merely because the delivery of the copy of the special report has not been proved on record would not, in any way, detract from the value of the prosecution story. 8. We also find that the eye-witness account of Lakhwinder Singh and Sanjeev Kumar P.Ws. is reliable. Both these witnesses have stated as to the manner and the reasons of the attack made by their father on their mother. We find absolutely no reason to doubt the evidence of these two witnesses. 9. It is true that P.W Sanjeev Kumar was about eight years of age on the date in question, but before being examined as a witness, several questions had been put to him by the trial Judge in order to ascertain as to whether he was capable of giving his evidence. The Court observed that he was capable of understanding what was being put to him. 10. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.