M. Karpagavinayagam, J.: The appellant, father of the two children, namely, Ilaiyaraja, aged about 7 years and Venkatesh, aged about 3 years, took both of them on 17.5.1997 at about 8.20 a.m. and threw one of the children by name Venkatesh on the road when the bus bound for Villupuram to Kalpattu was passing through, as a result of which, the rear tyre of the bus crushed the child causing injury and resulting in his death. This is the subject matter of the prosecution. On these allegations, the appellant was tried and convicted for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. Hence, this appeal. 2. The facts, leading to the conviction, in short are as follows: "(a) P.W. 2 Chandra is the wife of the accused. Out of their wedlock, two children, namely, Ilaiyaraja and Venkatesh were born. (b) On an early morning, i.e., on 17.5.1997, there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife, P.W. 2 Chandra. Since the accused got angry against P.W. 2, he wanted so show his anger by throwing both the children into the running bus, thereby causing their death. With that intention, the accused carried the younger child on his right shoulder and held the elder child by his left hand. When the bus, which was driven by P.W. 1 driver, was crossing through Kanai bus stand, the accused threw the younger child on the back tyre of the bus, as a result of which, the younger child died on the spot. The other child, who was under the grip of the accused, extricated himself from his clutches and escaped from the scene. Thereafter, the accused carried the dead body of the child and went towards the village. (c) This occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 1 driver, P.W. 2, the wife of the accused, P.W. 3 Murugan, the conductor of the bus and P.W. 4 Sampath. P.W. 1 after stopping the bus came to the spot and inquired the name of the deceased and the name of the accused with the witnesses present at the scene. Thereafter, he went to Villupuram Police Station and gave a complaint under Ex.P-1 at about 10.30 a.m. (d) A case was registered by P.W. 11 and he sent the F.I.R. to the Court and its copies to the Superior Officer. Thereafter, he went to Villupuram Police Station and gave a complaint under Ex.P-1 at about 10.30 a.m. (d) A case was registered by P.W. 11 and he sent the F.I.R. to the Court and its copies to the Superior Officer. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m. and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-13. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and examined the witnesses. Ex.P-14 is the inquest report. He sent a requisition to the Doctor to conduct post-mortem on the body of the deceased. Accordingly, P.W. 9 Doctor commenced post-mortem on 17.5.1997 and issued a certificate under Ex.P-7, giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and heamorrhage due to the injuries sustained and loss of blood. (e) Then, P.W. 11 Inspector of Police recovered M.O. 1 mat (Tamil matter) and M.O. 2 Saree under Ex.P-3 Mahazar. Thereafter, he arrested the accused at 6.00 p.m. He recovered M.O. 3 Shirt and M.O. 4 Lungi under Ex.P-4 Mahazar. On the next day, the accused was sent to judicial custody. (f) The bus was sent for inspection to P.W. 6 Motor Vehicle Inspector. He issued a certificate under Ex.P-5 giving opinion that the incident was not due to any vehicle defect or road defect. (g) After observing all formalities and examining the other witnesses, P.W. 12, another Inspector of Police, who conducted further investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused under Secs. 307 and 302, I.P.C." 3. During the course of trial, P.W. 1 to P.W. 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-14 were filed, and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked. On questioning under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., the accused pleaded innocence and stated that the incident was only a sheer accident. 4. The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and however, acquitted him in respect of the charge under Sec. 307, I.P.C. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed. 5. When the matter was taken up for final disposal on two or three occasions, Mr. Ravikuamr, counsel on record was not present. Ultimately, we deemed it fit to appoint Mr.S. Sivakumar as amicus curiae to appear on behalf of the accused and time was given to him. 5. When the matter was taken up for final disposal on two or three occasions, Mr. Ravikuamr, counsel on record was not present. Ultimately, we deemed it fit to appoint Mr.S. Sivakumar as amicus curiae to appear on behalf of the accused and time was given to him. After going through the papers, he made his submissions. 6. The contentions of the amicus curiae counsel assailing the judgment of conviction are as follows: "Though there are four eye witnesses, these witnesses could not have seen the occurrence. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who are the driver and conductor respectively, were actually in the front side of the bus, and therefore, they could not have seen the incident by which the accused threw the child on the rear wheel of the bus. P.W.2, the wife of the accused also could not have seen the occurrence, since P.W. 4 would state that she came to the scene only after the occurrence. P.W. 4 also could not have witnessed the occurrence, since he admits in the cross-examination that from his house, he could not see the bus stop. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 would state that they gave separate complaints to P.W. 11, Inspector of Police. But, only one complaint was produced before the Court and the other complaint has been suppressed. Though F.I.R. was registered at 10.30 a.m., the same had reached the Court only at 5.30 p.m., and as such, there is a delay of 7 hours, which has not been explained, even though the Court is situated 1-1/2 k.m. from the police station, and as such, the occurrence could not have taken place as alleged by the prosecution." 7. In reply to the above submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in justification of the finding rendered by the trial Court, would point out the materials and contend that the conviction is legal. 8. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the counsel on either side. 9. Though there is no clear details with reference to the motive for the occurrence, there is evidence of P.W. 4, who stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused came from his house towards bus stop along with two children with anger. 9. Though there is no clear details with reference to the motive for the occurrence, there is evidence of P.W. 4, who stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused came from his house towards bus stop along with two children with anger. Though it is stated by P.W. 11 Inspector of Police that there was misunderstanding between the accused and his wife due to his suspicion over the fidelity of his wife, the same was not established by producing the acceptable materials. As a matter of fact, P.W. 2, the wife of the accused also would not state about the motive. Under those circumstances, the motive aspect, in our view, has not been clearly established. 10. However, it is settled law that even in the absence of motive, if the account of eye witnesses relating to the occurrence is believed, then the conviction for the charge under Sec. 302, I.P.C. can be based provided there is no infirmity in the testimony of the eye witnesses. 11. It is vehemently contended by the amicus curiae counsel that P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 could not have seen the occurrence as they were in the front part of the bus. But, this submission, in our view, cannot be accepted for the reason that both P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 would state that after the bus was stopped at Kanai bus stop, they allowed some of the passengers to board into the bus and crossed the road for a distance of 50 feet and at that time, both of them happened to see the accused on the left side of the road carrying one child on his shoulder and holding another child in his hand. After the incident, the bus was stopped. If they had not seen the incident, they would not have stopped the bus. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 got down from the bus and saw the dead body of the deceased and enquired about the particulars of the deceased and the accused and came to know about the names of the persons concerned and their relationship. On the basis of these particulars, P.W. 1 Driver went to Villupuram and after getting permission from his bus owner, came to the police station at about 10.30 a.m. and gave the complaint. On the basis of these particulars, P.W. 1 Driver went to Villupuram and after getting permission from his bus owner, came to the police station at about 10.30 a.m. and gave the complaint. In the complaint, P.W. 1 specifically stated that the occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 1 driver, P.W. 3 conductor and P.W. 4 Sampath, whose house is situate just opposite to the place of the occurrence. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 could not have seen the occurrence. 12. A suggestion was put to P.W. 2 about the illicit intimacy between P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Curiously, this suggestion was not put either to P.W. 1 or to P.W. 3. According to the defence, when the accused was carrying the child on his shoulder, the child fell down accidentally and sustained injuries. If it was mere accident, there is no necessity for P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 to get down from the bus and that too, in a village to enquire about the incident with the villagers. If the incident was really an accident, these villagers would not have allowed P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 to leave the village. 13. Furthermore, in addition to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who are, in our view, are reliable witnesses, we have got the evidence of P.W. 4, whose house is situated very near to the place of accident. Fortunately, no suggestion was put to P.W. 4 that he was having illicit intimacy with P.W. 2. A perusal of the deposition of P.W. 4 would make it clear that he came out of the house at 8.00 a.m. for washing his hands and he happened to see the incident by which the accused threw one child on the rear wheel of the bus, however another child escaped from the clutches of the accused and escaped 14. When P.W. 11, Inspector police came to the scene, all the witnesses were examined. Furthermore, during the course of inquest, P.W. 11 noted the name of P.W. 4 as mentioned in the complaint itself. It is contended that P.W. 2 came too late to the scene of occurrence, and as such, she would not have seen the occurrence as per the evidence of P.W. 4. Furthermore, during the course of inquest, P.W. 11 noted the name of P.W. 4 as mentioned in the complaint itself. It is contended that P.W. 2 came too late to the scene of occurrence, and as such, she would not have seen the occurrence as per the evidence of P.W. 4. This submission, in our view, also does not merit acceptance for the reason that the house of P.W. 2 is also situated next to the house of P.W. 4. So, naturally, P.W. 2 could have seen the occurrence, especially, when the accused with anger carried the children with him towards the bus stop. There is no reason for P.W. 2, the wife of the accused to speak falsehood against the husband, that too in a murder case, where her child was done to death. 15. It is submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 came to the scene and then only, they collected information as to what happened, from the villagers, and as such, they are not eye-witnesses. The entire reading of the depositions of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 would make it clear that though they had witnessed the occurrence, they wanted to get the particulars about the identity of the persons concerned and their relationship, and therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 4, which is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1, in our view, is acceptable. Furthermore, the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 9 would clearly corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 4. 16. In such circumstance, we do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the Amicus Curiae counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the trial Court are confirmed. Thus, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 17. Before parting with this case, this Court records its full appreciation of the service rendered by Mr.S. Sivakumar as Amicus Curiae counsel, who argued the case with through preparation. Since we are of the opinion that the amicus curiae is entitled to some fees, we direct the State Legal Services Authority to pay Rs. 1,000 as fee to amicus curiae.