M. C. JAIN, J. This is a jail appeal filed by the appellant Nasir against the judgment and order dated 14th May, 1997 passed by Sri Lekha Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1995. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment on conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of one Mohd. Murtza. Under order dated 7th August, 2002 Sri C. K. Parekh was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the appeal for him. 2. One Abid had also been convicted with the present appellant Nasir and sentenced to life imprisonment for the same offence by the same judgment. He did not prefer any appeal. He was summoned from jail before this Court on 7-8-2002 and was informed that he could also send his appeal from jail. However, despite that he did not send any appeal from jail. By our order dated 27-1-2003, in exercise of our suo motu powers we directed that the appeal shall be heard on behalf of accused Abid also so that his conviction and sentence may also be examined in this appeal, though he himself did not prefer any appeal. Sri C. K. Parekh amicus curiae argued the appeal for him as well. We also heard learned A. G. A. Sri Ratan Singh and we propose to decide the appeal in relation to both the convicted persons Nasir and Abid with the discussion that follows: 3. The incident took place on 8-10-1991 at about 7 p. m. in town Kulpahar, P. S. Kulpahar, District Mahoba near the house of Munnu Bahena and, as stated above, Mohd. Murtaza was murdered. The report was lodged by his son of Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 the same day at 8. 35 p. m. He himself was not an eye- witness. As per the FIR the appellant Nasir was inimical to the deceased from before the incident. On the fateful day, his father Mohd. Murtza had returned from Mahoba and from the bus station he was proceeding to his house. As soon as he reached near the house of Munnu Behana (father of Nasir appellant), Nasir armed with Pharsa and Abid armed with axe assaulted him. The incident was witnessed by Mohd. Wazir PW 2 and Sakatoo PW 3. He himself was present at his tobacco workshop and was informed by Mohd. Wazir PW 2. As soon as he reached near the house of Munnu Behana (father of Nasir appellant), Nasir armed with Pharsa and Abid armed with axe assaulted him. The incident was witnessed by Mohd. Wazir PW 2 and Sakatoo PW 3. He himself was present at his tobacco workshop and was informed by Mohd. Wazir PW 2. He hurried to the spot and found his father lying in a pool of blood. He was in precarious condition. He took him to the Primary Health Centre wherefrom he took him by jeep to Chhatarpur. His father succumbed to the injuries in Jaitpur. He came with the dead body of his father to the police station and lodged the FIR. A case was registered and investigation followed which was conducted by S. H. O. Ram Singh. Before the conclusion of trial he retired and died as stated by S. I. Raghuraj Singh PW 5 who proved the papers prepared by him during the course of investigation. 4. The post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 9-10-1991 at 11. 45 p. m. by Dr. A. K. Maurya PW 4. The deceased was aged about 54 years and about 3/4 day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: (1) A chopped wound of size 14 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm transversely placed, semilinear in shape on right side of face, lower edge of wound in undermined, margins and edges clean and deeper tissues evenly divided cutting right mastoid process, right of mandible zygamatic process and maxilla tailing present anteriorly. Right pinna of ear transversely cut middle in depth, blood vessels found cut. (2) A chopped wound of size 10 cm x 3 cm x 6 cm on left upper part of back transversely placed, wing of right scapula cut, margins and edges are clean and deeper, tissues are evenly divided, tailing present right laterally up to medical border of right scapula. 5. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries sustained by him. 6. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 and eye-witnesses Mohd. Wazir PW 2 and Sakatoo PW 3. 7. The defence was of denial. One Chhiddu son of Putta @ Khudabakhsh was examined as DW 1 to say that Wazir PW 2 used to work in tobacco workshop of the complainant. 8. 6. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 and eye-witnesses Mohd. Wazir PW 2 and Sakatoo PW 3. 7. The defence was of denial. One Chhiddu son of Putta @ Khudabakhsh was examined as DW 1 to say that Wazir PW 2 used to work in tobacco workshop of the complainant. 8. Believing the prosecution case and evidence, the learned trial Court recorded the impugned judgment. 9. It has first been argued by learned amicus curiae that motive has been assigned by the prosecution only against Nasir and not against Abid. Suffice it, to say in this regard that motive is not evidence in a case. Moreover, it becomes quite insignificant in a case of direct evidence as the present one. The prosecution one. The prosecution can only come out with the facts known to it. In the present case, Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 (son of the deceased) stated that 8-10 days before the incident the accused appellant Nasirs father had settled a deal to sell his house to the deceased. Nasir did not want to part with the house and he held out threat to his father that he would be killed if he dared to purchase the house. The deed of registration was to be executed two days later. So the background relating to Nasir has been disclosed by the prosecution. It could only be in the personal knowledge of the two appellants as to what were their bonds. Motive is the hidden spring of human action which cannot easily and always be known. Therefore, the prosecution case does not suffer any setback if the prosecution has not been able to assign any motive against the other appellant Abid. 10. Another argument of learned amicus curiae is that both incised wounds sustained by the deceased could be the result of one and the same weapon. He referred to the statement of Dr. A. K. Maurya PW 4 who made statement regarding this possibility. It is, however, to be noted that he side by side deposed that the two injuries could have been caused by two weapons. The simple possibility of the two injuries being of one weapon does not overrule the other possibility of the same being of two weapons. A. K. Maurya PW 4 who made statement regarding this possibility. It is, however, to be noted that he side by side deposed that the two injuries could have been caused by two weapons. The simple possibility of the two injuries being of one weapon does not overrule the other possibility of the same being of two weapons. In the present case, it is the definite case of the prosecution that the two accused-appellants wielded two weapons in striking blows on the deceased. Nasir wielded Pharsa and Abid axe. The two injuries could have been sustained by such weapons. 11. It has next been urged that there was no mention of light in the FIR and the same came to be introduced by the witnesses in their testimony before the Court that there was the light of a bulb on the pole nearby the place of incident. We should say that the first information report is not an encyclopedia of every minute details. The incident took place in a public lane and it sounds to be natural that a bulb was glowing on a nearby pole illuminating the scene of occurrence. The eye-witnesses knew the appellants, also from before. Therefore, there could be no possibility of misidentity. 12. The learned amicus curiae then challenged the veracity of the eye-witnesses Mohd. Wazir PW 2 and Sakatoo PW 3 saying that they were interested and chance witnesses. It should be pointed out that the names of both of them are found mentioned in the promptly lodged FIR made by Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 (son of the deceased) who himself was not an eye-witnesses but was informed by one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Mohd. Wazir PW 2. The tobacco workshop of this witness Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 was only 40-50 paces from the place of occurrence. When he had reached the spot on the information of eye-witnesses Mohd. Wazir PW 2 he had found Sakatoo PW 3 to be present there. The house of Mohd. Wazir PW 2 is situated in the eastern side of godown of this witness. Mohd. Wazir PW 2 gave a plausible explanation for his presence at the time of incident that he was going to the market with Sakatoo, which was about 100-125 paces from his house. The house of Mohd. Wazir PW 2 is situated in the eastern side of godown of this witness. Mohd. Wazir PW 2 gave a plausible explanation for his presence at the time of incident that he was going to the market with Sakatoo, which was about 100-125 paces from his house. It has specifically been stated by him that the place of incident from his house was at a distance of 60-70 paces. Sakatoo PW 3 had met him in the way and had joined him to go to the market. He was going to the market to make sundry house hold purchases. He emphatically denied that he ever worked in the tobacco workshop of the deceased and his son. Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 also stated that neither Wazir nor his brother Saghir ever worked in his workshop. There is nothing to show that either this witness or Sakatoo PW 3 had any enmity with the appellants which could have tempted them to depose falsely against them. There is nothing unusual if Sakatoo PW 3 also was going to the market at that hour of the day to purchase vegetables. The market was only at a distance of about 100-150 paces from his house. 13. Learned amicus curiae pointed out from the statement of Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 that about 10 years back, the land of father of Nasir appellant had been purchased by the deceased which he later on sold to Sakatoo PW 3. This fact has been admitted by Sakatoo PW 3 also, but we do not see that this transaction of land render this witness to be an interested witness or inimical against the appellant Nasir. 14. On thorough scrutiny, we find the two eye-witnesses Mohd. Wazir PW 2 and Sakatoo PW 3 to be perfectly believable, proving the two appellants to be assailants of the deceased. 15. The learned amicus curiae then pointed out that immediately on reaching the spot allegedly on the information of Mohd. Wazir PW 2, Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 did not straightaway go to lodge the FIR. The argument does not carry conviction at all. By the time Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 reached the spot, his father was alive. Naturally, his first anxiety was to save him, if possible. Therefore, he was first taken to the hospital. Wazir PW 2, Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 did not straightaway go to lodge the FIR. The argument does not carry conviction at all. By the time Mohd. Iqbal PW 1 reached the spot, his father was alive. Naturally, his first anxiety was to save him, if possible. Therefore, he was first taken to the hospital. After first aid he was being taken to Chhatarpur but died in the way near Jaitpur. Thereafter, he brought the dead body to the police station, wrote down the FIR outside the police station and made it over there resulting in the registering of the case. 16. We have carefully considered all the arguments advanced by learned amicus curiae Sri C. K. Parekh in the preceding discussion. We place on record our appreciation for his having taken pains to thoroughly prepare the appeal and to have ably argued it to the best of his capability, but the evidence on record is so clinching and conclusive that there cannot be the slightest doubt about the appellants being the authors of this crime. The appeal being devoid of merit has to be dismissed. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 2863 of 1999 filed by Nasir is dismissed. We also dismiss the appeal of other accused Abid which we have considered in exercise of our suo motu powers. The appellants are in jail. They shall serve out the sentences awarded to them by the Court below. The office shall send a copy of this judgment along with record to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months. Appeal dismissed. .