M. C. JAIN, J. Appellant Arjun has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment by Sri S. N. Lal, the then I Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by the judgment dated 15-1-1981 passed in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1979. His father Algoo and one Munib (cousin of appellant Arjun) were also tried with him but they were acquitted. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the FIR and evidence adduced in the Court, was that deceased Jagarnath had illicit relations with Panna, sister of the appellant Arjun and it was allegedly the cause of the incident. The incident occurred on 22-3-1979 at about 7 a. m. in village Para Mobarakpur, P. S. Kopaganj, District Azamgarh. The report was lodged by Dhannu-father of the deceased the same day at 9. 15 a. m. Dhannu also happened to die after this incident. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was 3 miles. Algoo allegedly caught hold of the victim whereas Munib exhorted the real assailant appellant Arjun. Appellant Arjun pierced knife in the chest of the victim who dropped down dead instantaneously. The deceaseds father Dhannu, Gangadhar, Mannu and Banshraj with certain others allegedly witnessed the incident. 3. On the lodging of the FIR, a case was registered and the police investigated the case as usual. The Investigating Officer was PW 7 S. I. Vishwanath Singh. The post-mortem over the deadbody of the deceased Jagarnath was conducted by PW 8 Dr. R. R. Rai on 23-3-1979 at 12 oclock noon. The deceased was aged about 30 years and about 29 hours had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: (1) Punctured wound with clean cut margins 3 cm x 1 cm on left side chest, just outer to mid chest. 6 cm medial to left nipple at 7 oclock position. The wound was chest cavity deep. (2) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on front of right knee. (3) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on front of right leg lower part. 4. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 5. The defence was of denial and of false implication owing to enmity. 6. The prosecution examined as witnesses eight persons in all. Out of them PW 1 Gangadhar, PW 2 Banshraj and PW 3 Mannu were examined as eye-witnesses. 4. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 5. The defence was of denial and of false implication owing to enmity. 6. The prosecution examined as witnesses eight persons in all. Out of them PW 1 Gangadhar, PW 2 Banshraj and PW 3 Mannu were examined as eye-witnesses. However, P. W. 1 Gangadhar and PW 2 Banshraj denied to have witnessed the occurrence with their own eyes. The case largely depended upon the evidence of PW 3 Mannu. Dhannu, informant (who was also an eye-witness) could not be examined as he died after this incident. 7. The trial Court found the participation of Algoo and Munib in the incident and their presence at the scene of occurrence to be doubtful and acquitted them. However, the case was found to be clinchingly proved as against the present appellant who was the main assailant. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. Naturally, he is aggrieved thereby and has come up in appeal. 8. We have heard Sri U. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant at length and learned A. G. A. from the side of the State in opposition. The emphasis of learned Counsel of the appellants is as to the absence of motive; weapon of the offence having not been subjected to the scientific examination and dearth of evidence to prove the case to the hilt. According to him, the incident took-place some time in the night and the case was falsely planted against the appellant and two others who were acquitted by the Court below. It would be proper to advert to the factors which would weigh in the decision of the appeal, keeping in view the submissions made before us. 9. So far as the question of motive is concerned, it is of no significance in the present case. Simple reason is that there is direct eye-witness account to prove that it was accused-appellant Arjun who stabbed the victim to death. It is well embedded principle of criminal law that motive is immaterial in a case of direct evidence. Moreover, the prosecution can simply guess about motive on the basis of the previous background as has been done in the present case. The consistent case of the prosecution is that the deceased Jagarnath had illicit relations with the sister of the accused-appellant which was the cause of his murder by him. Moreover, the prosecution can simply guess about motive on the basis of the previous background as has been done in the present case. The consistent case of the prosecution is that the deceased Jagarnath had illicit relations with the sister of the accused-appellant which was the cause of his murder by him. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution failed to prove it by any evidence. Referring to the statement of PW 1 Gangadhar, it has been pointed out that he could not say whether the deceased was a person of lewd character having illicit relations with a number of girls. We have been taken to the testimony of PW 2 Banshraj also whose information was based on hearsay that the deceased had connection with the sister of accused-appellant Arjun. The submission is that hearsay evidence has no value in the eye of law. Much stress has also been laid on the statement of PW 3 Mannu that the deceased did not have illicit relations with Panna-sister of accused- appellant. We should point out that Dhannu informant (father of the deceased) happened to die after this incident and as such he could not be produced in the evidence. It has also to be kept in mind that illicit and amorous liaison of a young man with an unmarried girl is such a matter in respect of which direct evidence cannot be easily available. But in the present case we find that it was seemingly the case of the defence also that the deceased had illicit relations with Panna (sister of the accused-appellant), because a suggestion was made to PW 3 Mannu in his cross-examination that the deceased had illicit relations with the sister of accused-appellant Arjun. The witness, of course, denied the suggestion. Our emphasis is on this aspect of the matter that the defence itself suggested illicit relations between the deceased and sister of the accused-appellant. 10. When the deceased had illicit relations with the sister of accused-appellant, the latter had firm motive to commit his murder. On overall consideration, we reject the argument complaining the absence of motive on the part of accused-appellant. The absence of motive, as we said, is not material also in the present case of eye-witness account. 11. 10. When the deceased had illicit relations with the sister of accused-appellant, the latter had firm motive to commit his murder. On overall consideration, we reject the argument complaining the absence of motive on the part of accused-appellant. The absence of motive, as we said, is not material also in the present case of eye-witness account. 11. The second argument of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant regarding the knife (weapon of offence) having not been subjected to scientific examination would also not detain us for long as the same does not affect the merits of the case under the present facts and circumstances. Learned Counsel for the appellant has criticised the testimony of PW 3 Mannu who stated that while running from the spot, the accused-appellant had thrown away the knife in the sugarcane field of Bal Kishan Yadav. He himself had taken up the blood stained knife and kept it in his house. He neither took it to the police station nor handed it over to the Daroga. He produced it before the Court for the first time on 13-3- 1980. The explanation is to be found for his such conduct in his testimony delivered before the Court. He was a rustic illiterate villager, not aware of the ways of litigation. Being completely naive he kept the knife at his house out of sheer simplicity and produced the same for the first time in the Court of 13-3- 1980. The fact that the knife was not subjected to scientific examination is not at all of any consequence, because a bare look at the post-mortem report of the deceased proved by PW 8 Dr. R. R. Rai would show that the fatal punctured wound sustained by the deceased could be caused by a knife. It has clearly and specifically been stated by the said medical expert that the punctured wound (Injury No. 1) sustained by deceased was quite possible to be caused by a knife and that he might have died immediately or after two or four hours on receiving such injury. 12. Another argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the case hinges on the sole testimony of PW 3 Mannu which cannot be deemed to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of accused- appellant. We do not agree with this submission. 12. Another argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the case hinges on the sole testimony of PW 3 Mannu which cannot be deemed to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of accused- appellant. We do not agree with this submission. It is pertinent to state that it is the quality of evidence, and not quantity that matters. No particular number of witnesses is necessary to prove a fact. In the present case, PW 3 Mannu is a natural witness of the incident. His name is found mentioned as such in the promptly lodged FIR. The simple fact that he happens to be the uncle of the deceased would not detract from the authenticity of his version which has been tested by cross-examination. His presence at the spot cannot be at all be doubted. His own house is only at a distance about 100 yards from the place of occurrence. The spot was clearly visible from his door without there being any obstruction to block his view. The incident took place about 7 a. m. when he could be expected to be present at his door. His version is that at that time he was giving fodder to his cattle at the trough near his door. The stabbing of Jagarnath by accused-appellant Arjun was seen by him whereafter the accused ran away as per his version. 13. We also wish to point out that the place and time of the incident become undisputed when we examine the testimony of PW 1 Gangadhar and PW 2 Banshraj also. Though PW 1 Gangadhar turned hostile by saying that he did not see the incident with his own eyes, but he did say that on the day of incident at about 7 or 8 a. m. in the morning he came to know about this incident and further that blood stained and simple earth had been collected by Daroga from the spot in his presence and he was a witness of it. The house of PW 2 Banshraj is at the distance of 200 yards from the spot. As admitted by him, he was present at his door on the day of incident, a little after sun rise. The house of PW 2 Banshraj is at the distance of 200 yards from the spot. As admitted by him, he was present at his door on the day of incident, a little after sun rise. Of course, he stated that he had reached the spot on hearing shouts but what is important is that when he had reached the spot, he had been told by the persons present there (including PW 3 Mannu) that the accused-appellant Arjun had run away after stabbing Jagarnath. The names of PW 1 Gangadhar and PW 2 Banshraj are mentioned in the FIR as eye-witnesses. It is not necessary for the Court to speculate the reasons as to why these two witnesses took the stand of having not seen the stabbing with their own eyes. The point of matter is that on immediately reaching the spot, PW 2 Banshraj had gained knowledge through others including PW 3 Mannu that the knife blow had been given by the accused-appellant to Jagarnath deceased what he has stated in res gestae evidence and the same provides strength and corroboration to the testimony of PW 3 Mannu. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with res gastae evidence. This Section is based on the principle that a fact, though not in issue, may be necessary for deciding the facts in issue as forming part of the same transaction. Res gestae means the things done, including the words spoken in the course of a transaction. The only requirement is that such facts must form the part of the same transaction. For the application of Section 6, it is necessary that the fact must not be too remote but a part of the single transaction. In the instant, case it was immediately after the incident that PW 2 Banshraj came to the spot on hearing shouts and gained the knowledge through other persons present there (including PW 3 Mannu) that it was the accused-appellant Arjun who had stabbed the victim. This evidence is clearly admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is corroborative of the eye-witness account given by PW 3 Mannu. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the case solely rests on the single testimony of PW 3 Mannu. This evidence is clearly admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is corroborative of the eye-witness account given by PW 3 Mannu. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the case solely rests on the single testimony of PW 3 Mannu. Though PW 2 Banshraj chose not to stand by the prosecution case in full measure by saying that he did not witness the incident with his own eyes but he too admitted that it had been disclosed at the spot by other persons including PW 3 Mannu that it was the accused-appellant who stabbed the deceased. As mentioned a little earlier, the place of incident becomes completely beyond doubt by the testimony of PW 1 Gangadhar as well. We find that learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in holding the accused-appellant Arjun to be guilty of committing the offence in question. 14. We also do not locate any merit in the bald argument that the incident took place in the night. The submission is built on straw without any foundation at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to support this argument by the statement of PW 8 Dr. R. R. Rai that Jagarnath might have died at 4 a. m. in the morning on 22-3-1979 as well. The prosecution case is that the incident took place at about 7 a. m. on 22-3-1979. The post-mortem was conducted on 23-3-1979 at 12 oclock noon and the probable time of death was given as about 29 hours. There is always a margin of about 6 hours on either side. Mere possibility that the deceased could have died at about 4 a. m. cannot and does not belie the prosecution case that actually the incident had taken place at 7 a. m. when Jagarnath died instantaneously on being stabbed by the accused-appellant Arjun. 15. Learned trial Judge has rightly given the benefit of doubt to non-appellants Algoo and Munib who were not the main assailants. 16. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and we hereby dismiss the same. The appellant Arjun is on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed against him. 17. 16. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and we hereby dismiss the same. The appellant Arjun is on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed against him. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the case be immediately sent to Court below for needful action and necessary entries in the relevant register under intimation to this Court within one month. Appeal dismissed. .