JUDGMENT 1. - The present jail appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh in Sessions Case No. 99/2001 dated 6.10.2001. 2. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of information given by Lakha Singh informant on 25.1.2000 at about 12.00 p.m. to Police Station Anoopgarh. In the information given to the police it was stated by the informant that neighbours of his daughter Chhindo,Dara Singh and Mohan Lal came to his house and informed that at the house of Chhindo, Sher Singh was lying dead. On receiving this information, the informant went to the house of his daughter where he saw that Sher Singh was lying dead and his daughter Chhindo was not at home. Chindo's husband died about 10 years before. Chhindo had developed intimacy with the accused since last 10 years, Lal Chand had visited last night to see Chhindo. It was alleged by the complainant that his son Sher Singh used to reprimand Chhindo and Lal Chand for their relationship and on this count Lal Chand had murdered his son Sher Singh at the house of Chhindo. When he arrived Chhindo and Lal Chand both were not available in the house and their whereabouts were not known. At the time of occurrence Chindo's daughter Mechi and Phohi were available. After receiving such information, F.I.R. No. 604/99 was recorded at police station Anoopgarh and investigation was started. 3. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant. Case in turn came for trial to the Trial Court. Charge under section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the accused. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined P.W. 3 Harbans Kaur as an eye-witness. She was the neighbour of Chhindo. She has stated in Court that she was at home at the time of incident. At about 6.00 p.m. when the sun has set, she heard noise from the house of Chhindo. She used the bricks lying in her house and scaled those bricks and saw the incident as occurred at the house of Chhindo. She saw that accused Lal Chand was inflicting lathi blows on the head of deceased Sher Singh. She was cross-examined. It was suggested that due to height of the separating wall, one can see from her house as to what is happening in the house of Chhindo. She saw that accused Lal Chand was inflicting lathi blows on the head of deceased Sher Singh. She was cross-examined. It was suggested that due to height of the separating wall, one can see from her house as to what is happening in the house of Chhindo. She admitted that this fact and asserted that she had seen the event by using bricks to raise height. She has admitted that the darkness has set, but there was sufficient light to see the assault. About the number of blows, she has asserted that 10-12 blows were inflicted whereas in her police statement she stated that 5-7 blows were inflicted. However, in statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. she has stated 10-12 blows. 4. Another eye witness produced by the prosecution to support the prosecution case is P.W. 4 Phohi. She is the daughter of Chhindo. She is about 10 years of age. She being a child witness was examined by the Court for competence. After judging the competency of the witness she was considered a competent witness. In her examination she stated that his father had died 10 years before. Her maternal uncle used to stop Lalia accused from coming to their house but Lalia used to come clandestinely to meet her mother. This was notwithstanding the fact that her maternal uncle used to objet the same. On the day of incident, Lalia came to meet her mother, her maternal uncle objected and Lalia gave lathi blows to the deceased. After the incident, she went to the house of Revant Ram Sarpanch and when she came back, she found that her maternal uncle died. She went to the house of Ranjeet Singh. In her cross examination she has admitted that Sher Singh consumed liquor. At the time of incident, he was drunk so was the accused. In her cross examination, she withstood the test of cross examination and has not deviated from basic story. 5. Apart from this, the prosecution has examined P.W. 9 Smt. Chhindo. The lady who is said to be having relations with the accused Lal Chand. Though initially she was treated as a suspect and was detained in police custody. Later on she was made a prosecution witness. She in her examination has also supported the prosecution case. 6. 5. Apart from this, the prosecution has examined P.W. 9 Smt. Chhindo. The lady who is said to be having relations with the accused Lal Chand. Though initially she was treated as a suspect and was detained in police custody. Later on she was made a prosecution witness. She in her examination has also supported the prosecution case. 6. Immediately after the occurrence P.W. 4 Phohi had visited the house of P.W. 2 Revant Singh who in his statement has sated that his wife is a Sarpanch of the 3ND Panchayat, but for her he has also addressed as Sarpanch. He further stated that on the day of occurrence P.W. 4 Phohi came to the house and stated that the quarrel was taken place between Lal Chand and Sher Singh. He told her that today it is dark and night has set therefore, action will be taken next morning. In all prosecution examined 18 witnesses. 7. The accused in his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case, however, he has stated that Chhindo is his wife and he has got a child from him. The Trial Court after considering the case of the prosecution and. defence came to the conclusion that on the basis testimony of eye witnesses P.W. 3 Harbans Kaur and P.W. 4 Phohi, the case of the prosecution is established. These two witnesses in their cross examination has not unable to shaken. Further, the Trial Court has taken note of the recovery of the lathi used in the crime and as also clothes of the deceased and the clothes of the accused. All these articles on chemical and serological examination were found to be stained with human blood of 'B' group. The Trial Court thus found the case established and convicted the accused -appellant under section 302. I.P.C., and has sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that it was not a case where it was possible for witnesses to see the occurrence because it was dark and without there being sufficient light it cannot be said that P.W. 3 llarbans Kaur was in a position to see the incident. 3,000/-. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that it was not a case where it was possible for witnesses to see the occurrence because it was dark and without there being sufficient light it cannot be said that P.W. 3 llarbans Kaur was in a position to see the incident. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that separating wall of the house was high enough to prevent this witness to see that what was happening in the house of Chhindo but then the prosecution case has gone to the extent of assailing that she has seen the incident in not a correct preposition according to the defence. Learned Counsel has further argued that eye witnesses are interested eye witnesses and therefore, they have got to be examined with caution and care. He had challenged that recoveries were not believable, as Motbirs have not supported the case of the prosecution. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused was a person who had illicit relations with Chhindo. On being objected by brother of Chhindo he made the assault. The daughter P.W. 4 Phohi is a natural witness. She had no reasons to depose against the accused. She is of 15 years of age and was competent enough to appear as a witness. She has deposed as a natural witness. Immediately after occurrence she had narrated the incident to P.W. 2 Revant Singh husband of Sarpanch of the village. A witness speaking immediately after the occurrence to another witness that witness corroborating the same, goes to prove the credibility of such witness. P.W. 9 Chhindo has also deposed against the accused so the other witnesses produced by the prosecution. Thus, the finding arrived by the Trial Court cannot be doubted. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. The prosecution case is based on eye-witness account. P.W. 4 Phohi is the daughter of the owner of the house i.e. of Chhindo. Presence of deceased Sher Singh there cannot be a doubted preposition because he was the real brother of Chhindo. The fact of illicit relationship of the Lal Chand and Chhindo has been admitted by accused in his statement. P.W. 4 Phohi is the daughter of the owner of the house i.e. of Chhindo. Presence of deceased Sher Singh there cannot be a doubted preposition because he was the real brother of Chhindo. The fact of illicit relationship of the Lal Chand and Chhindo has been admitted by accused in his statement. If Lal Chand claimed a relationship in between him and Chhindo and Chhindo herself has objected to the same then objection being raised by Sher Singh cannot be a preposition which can be said to be unnatural. In this case how Lal Chand has reacted has been narrated by P.W. 4 Phohi. She has been corroborated in material particulars by P.W. 3 Harbans Kaur neighbour. Though darkness is said to have set but both the persons accused and deceased were known previously to this witness. She had bricks available to her to reach the height of the wall and there was ample opportunities available with her to see the occurrence. Chhindo the owner of the house has also spoken in favour of the prosecution. 11. That being the position, the prosecution account as accepted by the Trial Court is not the one which is either unreasonable or improbable. The prosecution story further gain strength from the fact that blood found on the clothes of deceased is of group of human origin and of the same group. The weapon of offence as recovered also has the same stains which proved that the blood group of human original with 'B' group was there and thus implication of the accused stands corroborated from this circumstantial piece of evidence. 12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that finding arrived at by the Trial Court that accused alone was responsible for committing the murder of the deceased Sher Singh as a conclusion which cannot be disturbed in appeal. The eye witnesses account is corroborated by circumstantial piece of evidence in the nature of recoveries and blood examination by chemical analysis and serological examination. 13. Thus in the result, we are of the opinion that judgment under appeal requires no interference. There is no force in this jail appeal. The jail appeal is therefore, dismissed and conviction and sentence recorded are confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******