Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-11-1990 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in the Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1989, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him for life imprisonment and further convicting under Section 307 I.P.C., and sentencing him there under for seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default of payment of which further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case against the appellant is that the appellant was posted as Jail warden in Sampurnanand Camp Jail, Sitarganj, and Rajendra Singh (deceased) and Amar Singh (injured) were also posted as tractor operator and tractor driver respectively, in said camp Jail. They all were residing in the quarters meant for jail employees in closed vicinity. On 1st of February, 1989 at about 7:00 p.m. there was some altercation and quarrel between the deceased and the appellant but with intervention of Shri Kalu Ram (P.W.2) and Shri Surendra Singh and others, the matter got subsided for the time being. However, on the same day at about 8:30 p.m., appellant armed with an axe went towards the quarter of the deceased (Shri Rajendra Singh) who was not present there. At that point of time only his minor children, including daughter Km. Poonam Devi (P.W.4) were there. On this, appellant while asking where abouts of Rajendra Singh (deceased) threatened that he would kill him. After searching the deceased under the cot, Inside his quarter and not finding there, wielding the axe appellant went towards the near by temple. Ms. Poonam (P.W.4) and her brothers got scared and cried. Thereafter the appellant attacked Rajendra Singh (deceased) with an axe (Exh. 1) causing him head injury and also attacked Amar Singh (P.W.3) who came to save Rajendra Singh. However, Rajendra Singh could snatch the axe from the appellant. At the time of the incident, there was light of electric rod and bulb in the temple. Shri Kalu Ram (P.W.2) also witnessed the entire occurrence as he was following the appellant (Har Pal Singh) when he saw him going towards the temple wielding the axe. The appellant ran away from the scene soon after the aforesaid occurrence. At the time of the incident, there was light of electric rod and bulb in the temple. Shri Kalu Ram (P.W.2) also witnessed the entire occurrence as he was following the appellant (Har Pal Singh) when he saw him going towards the temple wielding the axe. The appellant ran away from the scene soon after the aforesaid occurrence. The injured Amar Singh and Rajendra Singh (deceased) were taken in the ambulance of Jail to Police Station, Sitarganj by Kalu Ram (P.W.2) and others. Kalu Ram (P.W.2) got First Information Report (Exh. A-3), scribed by one Shri Surendra Singh and lodged an F.I.R. with aforesaid Police Station on the same day i.e. 01-02-1989 at about 9:25 p.m. Head Constabie Shri Shishupal Singh (P.W.8) prepared the check report (Exh. A-9) on the basis of written report (Exh.A-3) and made an entry of the case at serial no. 34 of the General Diary (extract Exh. A-l0). From the Police Station, Shri Rajendra Singh (deceased) and Shri Amar Singh (injured) were taken to Sitarganj Primary Health Centre for treatment. 3. In the Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj, Dr. P.C. Pande (P.W.l), Medical Health Officer on the same day i.e. 01-02-1989 at about 10:20 p.m. and 10:40 p.m. examined the injuries of Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri Amar Singh respectively. Following injuries were found at the time of medical examination on the person of Shri Rajendra Singh :- 1. 5cm x 5cm x lcm bone deep incised wound in A.P. direction over left side of head about 5cm antero-superior to upper border of left external ear. One piece of scalp was seen in between the wound margin. Fresh bleeding was seen from the wound. The wound was spindle shaped and with clean cut margin. 2. 7cm x 1.5cm x 0.5.Scm spindle shaped incised wound with clean cut margin over the dorsal surface of left hand between the metacarpal bones of left hand thumb and index finger. Fresh bleeding from the wound. 4. In the opinion of the Medical Officer both the injuries were caused by sharp cutting object. Injury no. 1 was kept under observation for which X-ray and surgeon opinion was advised. Injury no. 2 was simple. The Medical Officer referred the patient to upgraded Primary Health Centre, Khatima. The aforesaid medical examination report was proved by the Medical Officer, a copy of which is Exh. A-1 of the record. Injury no. 1 was kept under observation for which X-ray and surgeon opinion was advised. Injury no. 2 was simple. The Medical Officer referred the patient to upgraded Primary Health Centre, Khatima. The aforesaid medical examination report was proved by the Medical Officer, a copy of which is Exh. A-1 of the record. On the person of Shri Amar Singh, following injuries were found at the time of medical examination : - 1. 7cm x 1.5cm x 1cm spindle shaped, clean cut margin incised wound over left side of chest In the axillary line. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. 5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm spindle shaped clean cut margin, incised wound over the top of head-. Fresh bleeding was present. As to these injuries also, the Medical .Officer was .of the opinion that the injuries was caused by sharp cutting object. They were fresh in nature. Injury no. 1 was kept under observation for which surgery in civil hospital, Haldwanl was advised. Injury no. 2 was proved as Exh. A-2 before the trial court. 5. Shri Rajendra Singh later succumbed to the injuries and died in Lucknow. Medical College Hospital. 6. The crime was Investigated by Shri Kushalpal Singh (P.W.7) since retired, Senior Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Sitarganj in 1989. The crime which was initially registered under Section 307 I.P.C. and was converted into 302 I.P.C. after the death of Shri Rajendra Singh. During Investigations, on 04-021989, the Investigating Officer took Into his possession the axe (Exh.-I), used in the crime, which was handed over by Shri Bas Karim (P.W.5) who reached at the spot on hearing the noise. The axe (Exh.I) was kept by Bas Karim (P.W.5) for being handed over to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer apart from recording the statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prepared a site plan (Exh. A-6) after the spot inspection. He also prepared recovery memo (Exh A-4) relating to recovery of axe (Exh.I). He also took into possession blood stained clothes (Exh. II to V) on 11-04-1989. On the death of Shri Rajendra Singh who succumbed to the Injuries received' in the incident, on 14-02-1989 at 4:30 a.m., Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra (P.W.9)' performed autopsy on the dead body and prepared a post mortem report (Exh.A-19). The said report indicates that the dead body was brought in a sealed cover by. II to V) on 11-04-1989. On the death of Shri Rajendra Singh who succumbed to the Injuries received' in the incident, on 14-02-1989 at 4:30 a.m., Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra (P.W.9)' performed autopsy on the dead body and prepared a post mortem report (Exh.A-19). The said report indicates that the dead body was brought in a sealed cover by. Constable, Shri Om Prakash (P.W.6) along with the six papers including Inquest Report (Exh. All), Photo lash (Exh. A-12), Police form no. 13 (Exh. A-13) and letter to Medical Officer for post mortem (Exh. A-14). The post mortem was. performed on 14-021989 at 3:00 p.m. in T.B. Hospital, Thakurgang, Lucknow (as the death took place in K.G. Medical College, Lucknow). And the Medical Officer namely, Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra (P.W.9) in the post mortem report observed that the deceased was of average built. Rigor mortis was present all over the body Dr. Mishra (P.W.9) found the following ante-mortem Injuries on the person of the deceased :- 1. Stiched wound (14 in numbers) 10 cms. 1(1 length on left side of fore-head and scalp extending 1 cm above lateral end of left eye brow but 1.cm-above left ear. 2. Healed scar 5cms x 0.5 cm present on the back of left hand 1cm below left wrist. On opening injury no.1, Dr. Mishra (P.W.9) found missing apiece of skull bone 5cm x 4cm involving left fronto temporal bone (Burr hole), membrane exposed and repaired. Subdural haematoma was present on the antero inferior aspect of cerebral hemisphere. Brain, meninges were congested and weight 1260 Gram. On Internal examination, Dr. Mishra (P.W.9) further found the left chamber of the heart empty and right chamber full. In the opinion of Dr. Mishra, death of the deceased was due to coma as a result of head injury. 7. After the completion of the i1ivestigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against appellant-Harpal Singh to the concerned Magistrate who after giving necessary copies to the accused/appellant, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. Learned Sessions Judge, Nalnital charged the accused/appellant (Harpal Singh) for offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 307 I.P.C. on 20-07-1989. The accused/appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty on which as many as nine prosecution witnesses were examined apart from the production of 19 documentary exhibits and 5 material exhibits. Learned Sessions Judge, Nalnital charged the accused/appellant (Harpal Singh) for offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 307 I.P.C. on 20-07-1989. The accused/appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty on which as many as nine prosecution witnesses were examined apart from the production of 19 documentary exhibits and 5 material exhibits. There after learned Sessions Judge examined the accused/appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, putting to him the evidence adduced against him by the prosecution. The accused/appellant adduced no defence. After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused (appellant) Shri Harpal Singh as he found him guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. on 27-11-1990, on which the convict was heard on sentence where after he was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. to 6 years rigorous imprisonment and also to fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment for which further 1 year rigorous imprisonment, on the same day. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, this appeal is preferred by the convict, Harpal Singh. 8. We heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire evidence on record. 9. Challenging the impugned judgment and order, convicting the appellant, learned Counsel for the appellant first of all submitted that there is complete absence of motive for commission of crime as such the learned Sessions Judge had erred In law In believing the prosecution story. We examined the evidence on that question and found that the Incident which has taken place at 8: 30 p.m. on 01-02-1989, was in consequence of the quarrel which took place between the deceased and the appellant at 7:00 p.m. on the same day. This fact is established not only from the statement of the P.W.2 - Kalu Ram (informant) but also from the statement of P.W.4 - Ms. Poonam (daughter of the deceased). From the statement of both these witnesses, it Is proved that enraged by the quarrel which took place between the two i.e. appellant and the deceased at 7:00 p.m., the appellant (Harpal Singh) armed with his axe, came out from his house to kill Rajendra Singh (deceased). Poonam (daughter of the deceased). From the statement of both these witnesses, it Is proved that enraged by the quarrel which took place between the two i.e. appellant and the deceased at 7:00 p.m., the appellant (Harpal Singh) armed with his axe, came out from his house to kill Rajendra Singh (deceased). In the criminal jurisprudence what Is material is the 'intention' to commit the crime and once the intention of commission of crime is established beyond all reasonable doubts, the factum of motive loses its importance. As such, we are of the opinion that in the present case intention to kill is so clear from the Injuries received by Shri Rajendra Singh (deceased) and Shri Amar Singh (injuredP.W.3) by the axe (Exh.1) used by the accused/appellant that there remains no need to look into the actual motive behind the crime. 10. The another point which was raised on behalf of the appellant is that since the date and time of the incident is 01-02-1989 at 8:30 p.m., as such the witness had no opportunity to see the appellant committing the crime. In this connection he further submitted generally winter nights are foggy. However, we fail to find anything on record suggesting that the fateful night was a foggy night rather from the statement of P.W.2 - Kalu Ram and even from the statement of P.W.3 - Amar Singh (injured), it is clear that there was electric light in the temple outside which the incident took place. The site plan (Exh. A-6) shows that there was light of an electric rod and that of a bulb in the temple at the time of the incident. Moreover, what is important in the present case is this that since accused/appellant is a neighbour of the witness who know him personally as such in such circumstances even in less visibility, there is no difficulty in recognizing the person from even his voice. In the present case. P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) and P. WA (Ms. Poonam) has categorically stated that armed with an axe, appellant proceeded towards the temple in search of Rajendra Singh (deceased) and it has also been proved on the record that P.W.2 - Kalu Ram followed the accused/appellant. As such even if the visibility is not sufficient, there was nothing to doubt in the prosecution evidence in identifying the accused/appellant by the witnesses. P.WA (Ms. As such even if the visibility is not sufficient, there was nothing to doubt in the prosecution evidence in identifying the accused/appellant by the witnesses. P.WA (Ms. Poonam Devi), the young daughter of the deceased has stated in her cross examination that at the time when armed with an axe, accused/appellant after searching Rajendra Singh inside his house went out, witness Kalu Ram (P.W.2) followed him. 11. Shri Vinod Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant raising the third point, submitted that out of the two informants, namely Kalu Ram (P.W.2) and Surendra Singh, only one was examined. In this connection, he drew my attention to the principle of law laid down in State of U.P. Vs. Jaggo alias Jagdish and others AIR 1971 SC page 1586 and argued that witness whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of the narrative must be called as absence seriously affects the truthfulness of the prosecution story. In the present case, P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) has not only' proved the F.I.R. (Exh. A-3) but also given ocular version of the prosecution story. It is not the case of the prosecution, that the Surendra Singh had himself witnessed the crime. He could have been at the most called for proving the FIR which P.W.2 (Kalu Ram who is co-signatory of the FIR) had already proved, as such, in our opinion, non-examination of Shri Surendra Singh does not create any suspicion regarding truthfulness of the prosecution story. In the aforesaid referred case itself it is held that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called and it is only the witness whose evidence is essential to unfold the narrative as required to be produced for examination by the prosecution, must be examined. 12. Our attention was also drawn on behalf of the appellant to the statement of P.W.3 Amar Singh (injured) who in his examination told the Court that he could not identify the assailant and it is contended that in the light of his statement, the statement of P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) should not be believed. 12. Our attention was also drawn on behalf of the appellant to the statement of P.W.3 Amar Singh (injured) who in his examination told the Court that he could not identify the assailant and it is contended that in the light of his statement, the statement of P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) should not be believed. We are unable to accept the contention on the ground that P.W.3 (Amar Singh) has corroborated the prosecution story to the extent that on 01-02-1989 at about 8:30 p.m. when he was passing near the temple he heard shrieks of Rajendra Singh 'MAAR DAALA' and as soon as he bent to hold him he also got a blow of axe from the assailant. He further says he snatched the axe and fell down. However, he did not support the prosecution on the point if he could identify the assailant on the spot. The said witness was got declared hostile by the prosecution and it appears that since he was also neighbour of the deceased as well as that of the appellant it cannot be ruled out that he was won over by the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that it is not believable as stated by P.W. 2 (Kalu Ram) he was at his door in his house when he heard children of the deceased crying, and he further saw Harpal Singh (appellant) coming out of the house of the Rajendra Singh (deceased) and followed him. In this connection, he referred to the site plan (Exh. A-6) and submitted that house of Kalu Ram (P.W.2) is not shown in the map. We scrutinized the site plan in the light of the statement of P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) and FIR (Exh. A-3) and found that name of Kalu Ram is Kalu Ram Civilian and the house of Babu Ram Civilian is shown in the site plan and which is In front of the quarter of Rajendra Singh (deceased) after an open field. It is specifically mentioned that from point B (which is not far from said house), Kalu Ram Civilian saw the incident, which took place at point A which is Just in front of the temple on the road. Reading all these documents together with the statement of P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) we see no reason to doubt the prosecution story on this ground. 13. Reading all these documents together with the statement of P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) we see no reason to doubt the prosecution story on this ground. 13. It is also argued that P.W. 4 (Poonam Devi) is not a witness of the Incident and she is an interested witness being daughter of the deceased. On perusal of the statement of P.W.4 (Poonam Devi) who is a minor daughter of the deceased we are of the view that she has given the most natural eye account of the incident and she has no reason to implicate the appellant falsely, and to save the real culprit. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that on the basis of the sole testimony of P.W.2 (Kalu Ram), it cannot be said if the charge against the appellant is proved, as his statement that he followed appellant appears to be doubtful. We are unable to agree with the submission for the reason that the presence of P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) is corroborated by the statement of P.W.4 (Poonam Devi) who has in her cross examination stated" Hindi Typing The statement of the P.W.2 (Kalu Ram) and P.W.4 (Poonam Devi) also got corroborated by the recovery of the axe (Exh. 1) which was snatched by P.W.3 - Amar Singh (injured) who left it with P.W.S - Bas Karim (as the injured has to be rushed to the hospital) and P.W.5 - Bas Karim handed over the weapon to the Police which is produced in the Court. We cannot ignore the fact the crime has been committed inside the open Jail premises and everyone cannot enter inside the premises. The evidence on record will have to be examined In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Lastly, it is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the statement of injured was recorded by the Investigating Officer after a delay of about 18 days and should not be believed. We are not Inclined to accept the contention for the simple reason that we cannot forget that the injured after being taken to Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj was referred to Khatlma for further treatment and even if there is delay on the part of the Investigating Officer, mere that fact is not sufficient to create a reasonable doubt to disbelieve the prosecution story. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Leela Ram Vs. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC Pg. 3717 at 3720 has held that every irregularity or even an Illegality during the Investigation ought not necessarily be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case. Also, in State of West Bengal Vs. Mohd. Umar 2000 (8) SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that practically it is almost impossible to come across a single case wherein the investigation was completely or 'lawlessly or was absolutely fool proof. As such this Court feels that unless the error on the part of the Investigating Officer is so material which creates a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the prosecution story, a charge which otherwise proved cannot be said to have not been proved. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Investigating Officer has not taken blood stained soil from the place of incident but in our opinion the same does not appear to be material for the reason that incident took place over a pathway and It cannot be said if the blood stained soil remained intact after few hours as the people must have passed through it. 15. In view of the above discussions, we are in agreement with the Impugned judgment and order passed by the 'learned Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 and 307 I.P.C. Accordingly the appeal IS dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody by the court concerned for serving out the sentence.