M. C. JAIN, J. There are three appellants-Tula Ram Bahadur and Lala Ram, who are aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 13th January, 1981, passed by Sri M. G. Godbole, the then Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1980. All of them have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. There was a fourth accused Raja Babu who too was tried in the said trial but was acquitted. 2. The deceased of the incident was one Lalji Singh. The incident occurred on 15th April, 1980 at about 11 a. m. in village Dhamini, Police Station Churkhi, District Jalaun, the F. I. R. of which was lodged the same day at 2. 45 p. m. by Siroman Singh P. W. 1, father of the deceased. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was about 8 miles. The deceased had taken his she-buffaloes to the river to the west of the village for quenching thirst. After about half an hour, Siroman Singh also went there with two bullocks for the same purpose. He was followed by Chhote Lal PW 3 and Raghuraj Singh PW 4 with their respective animals. As soon as all of them reached the field of Bhagwan Singh, they saw that Lalji Singh was being assaulted by the present three appellants. Out of them, Tula Ram and Lala Ram were armed with axes whereas Ram Bahadur had a spear. On hearing the alarm, all these witnesses rushed up. Radhey Shyam and Jugraj Singh also came on hearing the alarm. All the three appellants escaped after crossing the river. Lalji was found to have died instantaneously. 3. The previous background was said to be that about 15-20 days before, Tula Ram had made a grievance that his wife had been teased by Lalji deceased and he had issued threat to him of dire consequences. On the lodging of the F. I. R. by Siroman Singh PW 1, a case was registered and investigation followed. The investigation revealed that Raja Babu (acquitted) had abetted the commission of this crime. Therefore, he also came to be roped in. 4. It may be stated before proceeding further that it was Dr. R. C. Singh PW 6 who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 16-4-1980 at 1. The investigation revealed that Raja Babu (acquitted) had abetted the commission of this crime. Therefore, he also came to be roped in. 4. It may be stated before proceeding further that it was Dr. R. C. Singh PW 6 who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 16-4-1980 at 1. 20 p. m. He was aged about 19 years and death had taken place a day before. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: (1) Incised wound 7 cm x 1. 5 cm x 2 cm over left cheek on zygomatic area of which bone was cut up to left temporal bone. (2) Incised wound 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep, vertical over the head, 9 cm above the left ear. (3) Incised wound 7 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep on occipital area on head vertical, the occipital bone was cut. Bone pieces embedded in brain matter. (4) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, horizontal at the left side base of neck. (5) Incised wound 6. 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, 3 cm above and behind injury No. 4 and parallel to it. (6) Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep over left shoulder, vertical. (7) Incised wound at the back of neck in middle 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, cutting the cervical vertebrae of neck horizontal. (8) Right little finger cut at the level of middle phalanx. (9) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep vertical at the outer surface left palm at ulna border. (10) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x at the outer side middle phalanx on middle finger left hand horizontal. 5. The internal examination disclosed that temporal, left parietal and occipital bones were cut. Membranes of the brain were congested. Cervical bone was cut. The small intestine contained digested meal while the large intestine contained faecal matters. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above-referred injuries. 6. The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity. It was also the defence case that Lalji met with his death which was not witnessed by anybody and on detection of his murder they were falsely roped in due to enmity after due deliberation and consultation. 7. 6. The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity. It was also the defence case that Lalji met with his death which was not witnessed by anybody and on detection of his murder they were falsely roped in due to enmity after due deliberation and consultation. 7. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses out of whom Siroman Singh PW 1, Chhote Lal PW 3 and Raghuraj Singh PW 4 were the witnesses of fact. Kedar Nath PW 2 was the scribe of the F. I. R. Brij Bahadur PW 5 was the witness of the abetment part of Raja Babu (acquitted ). Dr. R. C. Singh PW 6 had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Constable Ram Autar PW 8 had carried the dead body for P. M. and Raisul Haq PW 7 was the Investigating Officer. 8. We have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Sri Shekhar Yadav learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. in opposition of the appeal. 9. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the F. I. R. is ante-timed and that the presence of the eye-witnesses was most doubtful. It is submitted that the absence of punctured wound on the dead body of the deceased also renders the ocular testimony to be in conflict with the medical evidence because one of the appellants, namely, Ram Bahadur allegedly used a spear but no punctured wound was found on the person of the deceased. 10. Taking up the question of alleged ante-timing of the F. I. R. , the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that once the F. I. R. is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence, the entire prosecution case would collapse. He sought to support the ante timing of the F. I. R. by referring to the cross-examination of the informant Siroman Singh PW 1 (father of the deceased) that he reached the police station around the time of sunset and that he stayed there for about half an hour. It is reasoned that this being the statement of informant, the F. I. R. which purports to have been lodged at 2. 45 p. m. was obviously ante-timed. It is reasoned that this being the statement of informant, the F. I. R. which purports to have been lodged at 2. 45 p. m. was obviously ante-timed. It would be pertinent to state that regard is to be had that Siroman Singh PW 1 was an illiterate villager and undue emphasis cannot be laid on truncated portion of his statement. The whole reading of his statement in judicious way indicates that he happened to say so under the stress of cross-examination. He does not seem to have any time sense because he also stated that on witnessing the murder of his son, he became unconscious for about 2 hours. The statement of Chhote Lal PW 3 is that he was unconscious for about 5-10 minutes and it seems to be natural because he (Siroman Singh PW 1) was not himself injured of the incident. It is further to be noted that the witness also stated that after staying at the police station for about half an hour he returned home and it was after one hour of his returning home that the police had reached there by lighting time. Indeed, it could not be possible if he had reached the police station at about sunset time to lodge the F. I. R. Moreover, S. I. Raisul Haq PW 7, Investigating Officer deposed on oath that he started from the police station at 3. 15 p. m. and it took about two hours to cover the distance from the place of occurrence to the village. He prepared the inquest report between 6 and 7 p. m. the same day. His statement on these points was not controverted, though he (Investigating Officer) was thoroughly cross-examined. So, on proper and judicious appreciation it is manifest that the report had actually been lodged on 15-4-1980 at 2. 45 p. m. as is the case of the prosecution. The contention of the F. I. R. being ante-timed has no merit. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants then urged that the eye-witnesses had spoken on the basis of their imagination and it is clear from the fact that the deceased did not sustain any spear injury, though Ram Bahadur appellant used spear as per their statements. This factum is alleged to be an indicator of their absence and also renders their testimony to be in conflict with the medical evidence. This factum is alleged to be an indicator of their absence and also renders their testimony to be in conflict with the medical evidence. True, no punctured wound was found on the person of the deceased. But argument is insignificant for two reasons. First, Ram Bahadur who wielded spear has died and the appeal abates so far as he is concerned. Therefore, the benefit of the absence of spear injury could go to him who is no more alive. The entire testimony of the eye-witnesses could not be thrown over board for the absence of typical penetrating or punctured wound capable of being caused by spear. Moreover, Dr. R. C. Singh PW 6 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased also admitted that if the blade of spear comes into contact of the body it would cause incised wound. So, it is not always necessary that a spear would definitely cause punctured wound or penetrating wound. In this view of the matter, there is no inconsistency or discrepancy between the ocular version or medical evidence. This is the second reason for which the absence of penetrating or punctured wound on the dead body of the deceased cannot adversely affect the prosecution case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that all the three eye-witnesses were together and the admission of Chhote Lal PW 3 in his cross-examination is that the incident had been witnessed by him from a distance of 200-250 paces. It has also been pointed out that he admitted that because of the old age and paralysis his eyesight had become weak. He referred to Criminal Investigation by Dr. Hans Gross, Fifth Edition at page 159 regarding the distance from which a person can be recognised. It has been observed that presuming the eyesight to be normal and the light good, one is able in broad daylight to recognize: (a) persons whom one knows very well, at a distance of from 50 to 90 yards; when there are particular and very characteristic signs 110 yards; (b) persons one does not know very well and has not often seen from 28 to 33 yards, (c) people one has only seen once, 16 yards. 13. On careful consideration we are of the opinion that these observations of Dr. Hans Gross are not at all relevant in the present case. The reasons may be stated. 13. On careful consideration we are of the opinion that these observations of Dr. Hans Gross are not at all relevant in the present case. The reasons may be stated. We have also no doubt that the distance has been spoken by Chhote Lal PW 3 drawn from rustic fragment of rural society at random. It would be too rigid and artificial to stick thereto with arithmetical accuracy. There is a test on record which leaves not the slightest doubt in this behalf that in an unequal duel between a refined lawyer and rustic villager, the latter came to say so that the occurrence had been witnessed from a distance of 200-250 paces. The incident had been witnessed by the witnesses including this one from the field of Bhagwan Singh which is shown in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. The distance of the place of occurrence from the field of Bhagwan Singh is shown by the Investigating Officer as 50 paces only. It is based on his having physically visited the spot. Thus, it becomes clear that the distance from which the witnesses saw the occurrence was only 50 paces. It was a broad daylight murder. There was no obstacle between the field of Bhagwan Singh and the place of the incident. The assailants were known to the witnesses from before and there could be no possibility of misidentification. So far as the alleged weak eyesight of the witness Chhote Lal PW 3 is concerned, suffice it to say that his blanket statement without specification as to when he suffered paralysis, resulting in his weak eyesight, cannot be taken to mean that he could not recognize the known assailants from a distance of about 50 paces in broad daylight. Therefore, this argument is also lost. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to another fact spoken by Chhote Lal PW 3 that the assailants had cloth around their faces. Learned counsel for the appellants reasoned that it showed that they had taken precaution to conceal their identity and no grappling having taken place there was no question of their unmasking and having been recognised by the witnesses. The argument does not carry conviction. It has to be pointed out that this witness also stated that the assailants were clearly recognized. The argument does not carry conviction. It has to be pointed out that this witness also stated that the assailants were clearly recognized. It has to be kept in the mind that the incident took place in the month of April at about 11 a. m. when the sun was on its journey ascending high in the sky. The heat was to be at its zenith after about an hour. The assailants were laying in wait for the victim and might have had to wait for sometime before being successful in their mission. It is not unusual for the villagers to have a piece of cloth around their face to avoid scorching heat. The mere fact that the assailants had cloth around their faces does not mean that they had concealed or wanted to conceal their identity. Rather, at times the assailants want their victim to know that they were taking revenge. Imparting of such knowledge to the dying man is also a source of satisfaction and pleasure to them. Therefore, on proper appreciation, no benefit can accrue to the appellants on the above score. 15. We also wish to point out that there is nothing on record to show that the two witnesses, namely, Chhote Lal PW 3 and Raghuraj Singh PW 4 were either inimical to the appellants or were friendly with the deceased or his family. They were simply the neighbours of the informant Siroman Singh PW 1. The house of Siroman Singh PW 1 was only at a distance of 20 paces from the house of Chhote Lal PW 3. The house of Raghuraj Singh PW 4 was further 50 yards away from that of Chhote Lal. It was usual and natural and the three were taking their cattle together for quenching thirst. The names of Chhote Lal PW 3 and Raghuraj Singh PW 4 also find place in the F. I. R. which had been registered before any time gap for any concoction, fabrication or deliberation. 16. To come to close, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Ram Bahadur appellant having already died the appeal abates against him, whereas the conviction and sentence of the other two appellants, namely, Tula Ram and Lala Ram are perfectly sustainable. 17. 16. To come to close, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Ram Bahadur appellant having already died the appeal abates against him, whereas the conviction and sentence of the other two appellants, namely, Tula Ram and Lala Ram are perfectly sustainable. 17. Our final order is that the appeal abates so far as the appellant Ram Bahadur is concerned and is dismissed in respect of the other two appellants, namely, Tula Ram and Lala Ram. They are on bail. They shall be arrested and lodged in Jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them. 18. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun who shall cause the appellants to be arrested and lodged in jail under intimation to this Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order alongwith the record of the trial Court. Appeal dismissed. .