R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 494 of 2003 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2000, arising out of F.. R. No. 209 of 2001, registered at Police Station Sarita vihar, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 26. 4. 2003 has held the appellant, Suresh, guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further, vide his separate order dated 28. 4. 2003, has awarded the appellant, sentence of imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 302 IPC. The appellant was given the benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as have been noted by the learned additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows :- ?as per prosecution, accused murdered Chameli on the night of 7/8th June 2001 at about 12:30 am when she was sleeping in the field. Case of murder against him was registered on the basis of statement of Raju, who used to work in the fields of husband of Chamel. He in his statement to police stated that he was resident of Hazratpur, Distt. Badauan, UP and for last 8 years he was doing agriculture work in the fields of his uncle Sewa Ram and his family. His uncle sewa Ram, with his younger son Kallu, had gone to his native village about 10 days back. Chameli, w/o Sewa Ram for the last 3-4 days, used to come in the fields and sleep there. Veerpal also used to live in the same hut in the fields, in which he (Raju) used to live. Veerpal also used to do labor work in the fields. For last about 2 months Suresh, nephew of Sewa Ram and son of hukam Singh, who was elder brother of Sewa Ram, had started sleeping in the fields. He used to do the work of pulling rickshaw. Suresh was in the habit of taking drinks and on the night of incident, he had come at about 9 pm after taking drinks. At about 10 pm, Chameli brought meals for everyone Mahipal, grant son of Chameli also accompanied her to fields. He used to do the work of pulling rickshaw. Suresh was in the habit of taking drinks and on the night of incident, he had come at about 9 pm after taking drinks. At about 10 pm, Chameli brought meals for everyone Mahipal, grant son of Chameli also accompanied her to fields. Everybody including Suresh took meals in the fields itself and Suresh after taking meals, went to a nearby cot and slept there. Others also, after taking meals, slept in the fields itself. At night he suddenly heard cries and woke up. Mahipal, grand son of chameli, was crying and he saw that Suresh was holding a 'phawra' in his hand and Chameli was lying on the ground. Suresh had hit Chameli on her head and body with Phawra 2-3 times. He (Raju) also cried and Veerpal also got up on his cries. Suresh, on seeing this, ran away from there. He and Veerpal chased him but Suresh ran towards darker side of the fields and escaped. He immediately went to house of Chameli and informed his son Nathu about murder of Chamel. Nathu accompanied him to the spot. Chameli was lying on the ground in pool of blood. Police was informed of the incident. Police came on the spot and recorded his statement. Police registered a case on the basis of statement of raju. IO reached on spot and after sending rukka seized pahwra used in the crime, which was having blood stains and some hair stuck to its blade from the spot. Police also seized blood stained earth and normal earth from the spot and sent body of Chameli to hospital for postmortem. IO recorded statements of veerpal and Mahipal, who were present at the time of incident. Husband of deceased was called from the village. IO had tried to search the accused on the same night in the company of Raju and Veerpal but accused was not to be found. IO thereafter went to village of accused in his search but accused was not in his native village also. Accused could not be traced by IO. However, accused surrendered in court on 16. 7. 01. After completing the investigation, challan was filed in court. Accused was charged by this court for murder of Chameli on 13. 12. 01. Accused pleaded not guilty. ? Accused could not be traced by IO. However, accused surrendered in court on 16. 7. 01. After completing the investigation, challan was filed in court. Accused was charged by this court for murder of Chameli on 13. 12. 01. Accused pleaded not guilty. ? ( 3 ) PROSECUTION in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. Of these, PW-1, Raju, PW-2, Mahipal and PW-3, Veerpal, are, what may be termed as eye-witnesses, who were present in the field on the night when chameli was murdered. All the three witnesses support the prosecution's case. ( 4 ) PW-1, Raju, deposes to the effect that on 7th day, it was thursday, last year, he was sleeping, when at about 12:30 a. m. , Mahipal, woke him up and told him that Suresh, accused, had killed the old woman, who used to live in the field. The witness woke up and saw Suresh running towards the direction in front of him. The witness gave a chase but could not catch up with suresh. The witness deposes that it was dark. The police was informed about the murder of his aunt Chamel. During those days, the witness used to live in the field of Ratti Ram with his uncle Sewa Ram and that this field was on the edge of a canal. He was living there prior to eight years of this incident. His aunt Chameli generally slept at home but on occasions, used to sleep in the fields as well, as she did on the fateful night. Accused Suresh is the son of hukam Singh, who is brother of Sewa Ram. Suresh was in the habit of consuming liquor and tobacco. On the day of the occurrence, Suresh had come after consuming liquor. The witness goes on to depose that on the fateful night, his aunt Chameli had brought meals. Mahipal had accompanied her while he, Suresh and another had taken meals together, where after they had gone to sleep in the field. The witness had seen a kassi (phawra) in the hands of accused when he got up and saw Chameli lying on the ground instead of cot. The witness did not see the actual assault. Mahipal had accompanied her while he, Suresh and another had taken meals together, where after they had gone to sleep in the field. The witness had seen a kassi (phawra) in the hands of accused when he got up and saw Chameli lying on the ground instead of cot. The witness did not see the actual assault. His statement was recorded vide memo Exhibit PW 1/a and the phawra was seized vide memo Exhibit PW 1/b. In cross-examination, it was elicited from this witness that he had seen Suresh running from the spot and had identified him. It was also elicited that the accused was wearing white baniyan and black trouser and that the witness could see him even at that time, though there was no electric light in the field. ( 5 ) PW-2, Mahipal, is a child witness, studies in the IInd class. The court after questioning him thought it fit to administer oath. He states that Chameli was his grandmother. He was sleeping with Chameli on the cot which was lying outside the jhugg. It was summer season and they were sleeping outside jhugg. He and his grandmother Chameli had brought meals from home to the field on that night. The witness along with Veerpal, Suresh, Raju and chameli took meals together. Suresh, correctly identified in the court, is his maternal uncle; Veerpal is his brother and Raju is his maternal uncle. After consuming food, everyone went to sleep while he slept with his grandmother, chamel. The witness heard a sound and got up and found his grandmother on the ground in an injured condition having received injuries with a phawra while suresh ran away from there. Suresh had slept at a distance of 15 feet away from their cot when the witness had gone to sleep. The witness goes on to depose that when he got up on hearing the noise, Suresh was standing a little away from his nani (Chameli) and was holding phawra in his hand. On the witness making a noise, Raju and Veerpal woke up at which time, Suresh ran away. The witness further deposes that his grandmother was bleeding while lying on the ground. Raju had made an attempt to catch Suresh who had run away from the spot after killing his nan. The witness was subjected to cross-examination but nothing material could be elicited from the witness. The witness further deposes that his grandmother was bleeding while lying on the ground. Raju had made an attempt to catch Suresh who had run away from the spot after killing his nan. The witness was subjected to cross-examination but nothing material could be elicited from the witness. ( 6 ) PW-3, Veerpal, states that he used to work in the agriculture fields of Sewa Ram as a servant. The fields are in village Jasola. The witness used to sleep in the fields itself. He knew Chameli, wife of Sewa Ram and used to call her nan. On the day she died, the witness was in the fields. On the fateful day, Chameli had come to the fields with meals for all of them. Mahipal had come with her. All of them took food together. Accused Suresh had also taken meals on that day with them. Mahipal and Chameli slept together on one cot while the witness slept on another cot. Mahipal raised a noise. The witness got up from within the mosquito net and saw the accused running from the fields. He was running away from the fields because he had killed nani, chamel. While running, the accused threw away the phawra. When the witness went near Chameli, he saw blood flowing from her on the ground. He identified the phawra Exhibit P-1 to be the phawra accused Suresh was holding. In cross- examination, the witness deposes that the phawra was thrown by Suresh about three or four feet away from Chamel. Neither Raju nor Mahipal had told him that Suresh had killed Chameli but he had seen Suresh with phawra near Chamel. She was lying on the ground. The observation of the court is that the witness is about 18 years of age. ( 7 ) PW-8, Dr. T. Nile, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic sciences, AIIMS, had conducted postmortem on the body of Chameli and found following injuries :- ?1. Cut lacerated wound in the right side of the face. 2. Cut lacerated wound in the right side of the neck. 3. Cut lacerated wound in the right partial region. 4. Cut lacerated wounds, 2 in number in the right shoulder on the posterior aspect. 5. Cut lacerated wound in the left forearm. ? Cut lacerated wound in the right side of the face. 2. Cut lacerated wound in the right side of the neck. 3. Cut lacerated wound in the right partial region. 4. Cut lacerated wounds, 2 in number in the right shoulder on the posterior aspect. 5. Cut lacerated wound in the left forearm. ? in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was comma due to head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury Nos. 1 to 5 were possible by a sharp edged weapon. All injuries were ante-mortem. The witness was shown the 'phawra' and he deposed that injury nos. 1 to 5 can be caused by the phawra. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the phawra that was recovered was stated to have fallen three or four feet away from chameli, as has been deposed by PW-3, Veerpal, but the same was recovered by PW- 7, Constable Vijay Kumar, on 8. 6. 2001 lying 50 meters away from the dead body. He also contends that there is evidence on record to show that there were two phawras in the field on the fateful night. According to the counsel, there is every possibility that someone other than Suresh had committed the crime since the phawra used for the crime was found lying 50 meters away from the dead body and that the phawra allegedly thrown by the accused was two or three feet away from the body and was not the weapon of offence. He also contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive which, in a case of this nature, assumes great importance. ( 9 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel and with great respect find ourselves unable to accept the same. Taking the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, we find that these witnesses have, shortly after the murder, seen the accused holding a phawra and running from the spot. There is no explanation as to why the accused was holding phawra at that time and why he ran away from the spot. Merely because imaginary distances narrated by the witnesses are at variance does not give rise to such suspicion as would enable us to discard their depositions. The weapon of offence stands connected to the crime by scientific evidence. Merely because imaginary distances narrated by the witnesses are at variance does not give rise to such suspicion as would enable us to discard their depositions. The weapon of offence stands connected to the crime by scientific evidence. The medical evidence corroborates the use of the phawra in the murder of Chamel. Suresh is seen with the phawra close to the body of the deceased by her grandson who was sleeping on the same cot and got up on hearing the noise of the assault and immediately seen the accused with the phawra where after the accused ran away from the spot. PW-1, Raju, on being woken up, gave chase to Suresh but could not catch up with him. ( 10 ) APPRECIATING the testimony of the witnesses, we find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused even though there be no motive established. The trial court has analyzed the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that Suresh is guilty of the offence of murder of Chamel. The reasoning of the trial court cannot be faulted with. We on re-appraisal of material on record have also come to the conclusion that Suresh is guilty of having committed murder of Chamel. We, therefore, affirm the judgment dated 26/4/2003 and order on sentence dated 28/4/2003. In that view of the matter, Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2003 is dismissed.