JUDGMENT 1. The sole appellant Gordhan for intentionally causing death of Promod and causing injuries to PW2 Vinod and Panna Lal PW5, has since been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. He has also been held guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years, as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months Simple Imprisonment, under section 326 IPC sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, under section 324 IPC sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment, under Section 459 IPC sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further one month Simple Imprisonment. He was convicted and sentenced in the manner as mentioned above by order dated 22.6.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Jhalawar. 2. The occurrence leading to death of Promod and injuries to Vinod and Pannalal, as per prosecution version had taken place on 24.9.1999 at 9.30 PM. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Ganpat Lal PW1, father of deceased Promod on the same date at 10.00 RM. within half an hour from the time of occurrence. He made written report Ex. P1 on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P33 was recorded by Hardayal Swami, ASI PW15. 3. While unfolding the prosecution version Ganpat Lal stated that his son Promod and Chandu s/o Gordhan and other boys of the locality had gone to play cricket in the morning. His son Promod after playing cricket came to the house from Dinti Ji temple. In as much as, Chandu S/o Gordhan did not come. Gordhan in search of his son came to his house and enquired from his son Promod as to where was his son. His son Promod after playing cricket came to the house from Dinti Ji temple. In as much as, Chandu S/o Gordhan did not come. Gordhan in search of his son came to his house and enquired from his son Promod as to where was his son. His son replied that he might have gone alongwith his friend. On this Gordhan said that if his son would not come home then he would kill him. His son ran into the house. After half an hour at about 9.00 PM Gordhan came and opened the door by kicking. He entered in the house. Immediately on his coming they ail stood up. Gordhan by stating to his son that he will kill him, gave a knife blow on the left side Chest of Promod. His elder brother Vinod tried to rescue him upon which he gave 3-4 knife blows on the neck, stomach and hands. In the meanwhile, from the nearby house father in law of his son Panna Lal came and tried to rescue but Gordhan gave him a knife blow. At that time Om Prakash Gujar and Nawal belonging to the locality had also come there and had seen the occurrence. Gordhan after giving beatings ran towards the market. He alongwith people of locality brought his sons Promod and Vinod and also Pannalal to the Hospital. The doctor said that his son had died. Vinod & Pannalal, however, were admitted in the hospital for treatment. Gordhan after forcibly entering into his house had given beating to his son by knife, because of which his son Promod had died. 4. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellant, the prosecution examined Dr. Chandra Shekhar Vyas, who stated that he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Promod on 25.9.1999. The doctor had found following injuries on the dead body of Promod:- "I.W. 21/2" x 2" x deep to the cavity vertically placed left side of chest 2" below clavicle. The wound was explained that was I.W. 2" x 11/4" with cutting 4th rib in intestinal muscle which echymesis. On further explanation there was membare having a Rent (incised) 1" x 1/2" with a through 3/4cm. incised sent on left vertical of Hent. Heart was contacted. The wound was explained that was I.W. 2" x 11/4" with cutting 4th rib in intestinal muscle which echymesis. On further explanation there was membare having a Rent (incised) 1" x 1/2" with a through 3/4cm. incised sent on left vertical of Hent. Heart was contacted. There was also 3/4" x 1/2" incised wound on left lung upper pole." This very doctor medico legally examined Panna Lal and Vinod and found following injuries on their persons:- Injuries on the person of Panna Lal: 1. 11/2" x 1/2" x 4" deep to paritol cavity left side of upper ⅓ obliquely. 2.1/2" x 1/4" x superior, right leg upto⅓ posterior. Injuries on the person of Vinod: 1. 1" x 1/2" x deep to paritol cavity left side of chest wall anteriorly 3". 2. 1" x 1/2" x deep to paritol cavity left to mid line 3: below nipple ebigestre region of AW. 3.1" x 1/2" x skin deep, right arm lower. 4. 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep between nape of neck right side. 5. Ganpat Lal - the first informant examined as PW1, deposed in tune with an FIR lodged by him. Vinod PW2 fully supported the prosecution case. In so far as, however, Pannalal PW5 is concerned, he supported the prosecution version half way through. Nawal Kishore and Prakash - the other eye witnesses examined as PW 9 and PW10 respectively also supported the prosecution case. 6. In the statement made by the appellant under section 313 Cr.RC., he besides denying the incriminating material put to him further stated that he was innocent and falsely involved on account of political enmity that he had with the complainant. He however, led no evidence in defence. 7. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that positive evidence has come on record that the accused and the family of the complainant party had very cordial relations and, therefore, there was no motive nor any occasion for the appellant to have killed small boy and seriously injured others. He further contends that Pannalal is closely related to the deceased and his family but he has not supported the prosecution version. That being so, the statements made by the other witnesses should also be disbelieved. 8. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, we however, find no merit whatsoever in the two fold contentions of the learned counsel as noted above. That being so, the statements made by the other witnesses should also be disbelieved. 8. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, we however, find no merit whatsoever in the two fold contentions of the learned counsel as noted above. It may be recalled that the occurrence had taken place at 9.30 PM and the FIR was recorded just within half an hour which in itself would suggest that there was no consultation before lodging the FIR. The presence of Vinod PW2 who was himself seriously injured in the occurrence cannot possibly be doubted. Nothing at all has come on record that may even remotely suggest that the helpless father of the victim and Vinod PW2 who came to rescue his brother would involve the appellant in a false case and let the real culprit go scot free. The statements made by Vinod PW2 and Ganpat Lal PW1 are consistent and inspire confidence. The statements have been corroborated by the independent witnesses from the neighbourhood, Om Prakash and Nawal examined as PW9 and PW1G respectively. In so far as, the contention of the learned counsel that them were cordial relations between the parties and there was no motive to commit the crime, is concerned, the same needs to be rejected straightaway, as there was indeed an immediate motive for the appellant to commit crime, mention whereof has been made in the FIR itself. Infuriated due to non-availability of his son which he thought was because of Promod. This belief in his mind could well actuate him to commit the crime. In so far as, statement of Pannalal not supporting the prosecution version is concerned, suffice it to say that the conviction can well be based upon the testimony of Gopal Lal, Vinod, Om Prakash and Nawal. That apart, Pannalal has not denied the occurrence and rather supported the prosecution version even though to the limited extent. There is absolutely no merit in this appeal and the same is thus dismissed upholding the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No. 2, dated 22.6.2002.Appeal dismissed. *******