Judgment T. P. SHARMA, J. (1) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-2-2005 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 368/2004, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Sawat Ram in sharing common intention and causing simple injury to LTrmila and Parmeshwari in sharing common intention, convicted the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and to undergo RI for three months, respectively. (2) Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants, and thereby committed illegality. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful night of 18-6-2004 at about 8.30 p.m. Sawat Ram (since deceased) after consuming liquor was abusing his wife and children, the appellants herein, who are neighbours of Sawat Ram, came to the house of Sawat Ram. appellant Mehttar Ram was holding stick and appellant Shivprasad was holding betel axe, they dragged Sawat Ram from his house towards lane, assaulted him by stick and betel axe and caused his instantaneous death. Urmila (P.W. l)-wife of Sawat Ram and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2)-daughter of Sawat Ram were present in the house and they have witnessed the incident. Within four hours of the incident. Urmila (P.W. 1) went to the police station and lodged FIR vide Ex. P-1 and merg intimation vide Ex. P-2. The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses, prepared inquest over the dead body of Sawat Ram. vide Ex. P-3. Injured Parmeshwari was sent for medical examination vide Ex.P-14C and she was examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6). vide Ex. P-14, who found one lacerated wound over forehead. Urmila was also examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) vide Ex. P-15 and three injuries were found on her body. Dead body of Sawat Ram was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Ratanpur vide Ex.P-13C. Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) conducted autopsy vide Ex. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6). vide Ex. P-14, who found one lacerated wound over forehead. Urmila was also examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) vide Ex. P-15 and three injuries were found on her body. Dead body of Sawat Ram was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Ratanpur vide Ex.P-13C. Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-13 and following injuries were found :- (1) Deep incised wound of size 4" x 1/2 x 3/4" over left side of fronto parietal bone. (2) Deep incised wound of size 31/4" x 1/2" x 3/4" over head. (3) Incised wound over right cheek of size 21/4" x 1/2" x 1/2". (4) Incised wound over right fronto parietal bone of size 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" along with fracture. Internal bone beneath the injury was found fractured. Except injury No. (3) all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, appellant Mehttar Ram was taken into custody, he made discloser statement of stick vide Ex. P-4 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-6. Appellant Shivprasad also made discloser statement of axe vide Ex. P-5 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P- 7. Bloodstained soil, plain soil and three broken pieces of teeth of the deceased were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-8. One bamboo stick was recovered from another juvenile offender Ramprasad vide Ex. P-9 and his clothes were also seized vide Ex. P-10. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex. P-17. The Investigating Officer also prepared spot map vide Ex. P-21. Bloodstained sari of the appellant was seized vide Ex. P-6. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-20. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination and presence of blood was confirmed on axe recovered from accused Shivprasad and stick recovered from accused Mehttar Ram, vide Ex. P-22. (3) STATEMENTS of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bilaspur who committed the case to the Court of Session. Bilaspur where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. (4) IN order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bilaspur who committed the case to the Court of Session. Bilaspur where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. (4) IN order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313, of the Cr. P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Accused Mehttar Ram has taken specific defence that at the time of incident deceased Sawat Ram was assaulting him by stick and, therefore, with a view to save himself and in exercise of the right of private defence, by snatching stick from Sawat Ram he has caused injury to Sawat Ram. Accused Shivprasad has taken defence that at the time of incident he was not present in the village and he has gone to Bilaspur (with witness Durga Prasad (D.W. 1), and thereby he has taken the defence of alibi. After affording oppotunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. (6) MR. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, vehemently argued that as per case of the prosecution, particularly, evidence of Urmila (P.W. 1) and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2), the incident took place on account of filthy language used by deceased Sawat Ram on Mehttar Ram who was residing in front of the house of Sawat Ram and on sudden provocation, Mehttar Ram went to the house of Sawat Ram whom Sawat Ram assaulted on which by snatching stick from Sawat Ram, appellant Mehttar Ram has caused some injuries to Sawat Ram (since deceased): At the time of incident Mehttar Ram has also sustained injuries, but same has not been explained by the prosecution. Appellant Shivprasad was not present at the time of incident. At the time of incident, there was darkness 'and the witnesses were not in a position to see as to who has caused injury to whom, by which object and upon which part of the body. MR. Appellant Shivprasad was not present at the time of incident. At the time of incident, there was darkness 'and the witnesses were not in a position to see as to who has caused injury to whom, by which object and upon which part of the body. MR. Yogeshwar Sharma further argued that if evidence of the prosecution is considered as true, even then act of the appellants does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304, Part- I of the IPC. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, placed reliance in the matter of Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2005 (1) CC SC 460 in which the Supreme Court has held that if injury is caused to teach lesson to the deceased, act of the accused does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304, Part-I of the IPC. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma further placed reliance in the matter of Thankachan v. State of Kerala, 2005 (3) CC SC 1181 in which the Supreme Court has held that injury caused by katar with a view to save his mother and death was as a reault of excessive haemorrhage, act of the accused squarely falls under Section 304, Part-11 of the IPC, not under Section 302 of the IPC. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma also placed reliance in the matters of Adu Ram v. Mukna, and Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (3) CC SC 1149 (SC) in which the Supreme Court has held that incident took place on account of sudden quarrel, case falls under Section 304, Part-II of the IPC. (7) MR. Yogeshwar Sharma learned counsel for the appellants, also submits that the prosecution is under obligation to explain the injury found over the body of the accused, if same is not explained, inference would be drawn that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version, and that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point. MR. Yogeshwar Sharma relied upon the matter of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar. 1976 Cri LJ 1736 : AIR 1976 SC 2263 in which the Supreme Court has held that in a murder case. MR. Yogeshwar Sharma relied upon the matter of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar. 1976 Cri LJ 1736 : AIR 1976 SC 2263 in which the Supreme Court has held that in a murder case. the non-examination of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. (8) MR. Yogeshwar Sharma further relied upon the matter of Murlidhar v. State of M.P.. 1978-II MPWN 163) in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the accused is entitled to cause injury in exercise of the right of private defence and the prosecution is required to explain the injury found over the body of the accused. On the other hand, Mrs. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondent. opposed the appeal and submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has not explained the injury over the body of one of the appellants and the defence has not adduced any evidence to show that accused Mehttar Ram has sustained injury at the time of incident. Although the witnesses have admitted that at the time of incident electric light was not present in the village, but they have not stated that there was darkness at the time of incident. Urmila (P.W. 1) and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2)-eye-wit- nesses have substantially corroborated the case of the prosecution and have deposed that the appellants have caused fatal injuries to Sawat Ram resulting in his death. (9) IN order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. (10) IN the present, case, homicidal death of deceased Sawat Ram has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants, otherwise also it established by the evidence of Dr. (9) IN order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. (10) IN the present, case, homicidal death of deceased Sawat Ram has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants, otherwise also it established by the evidence of Dr. Anil Shrivastava (RW. 6) and autopsy report Ex. P-13 that four fatal injuries were found over head and face of the deceased and death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. INjury found over the body of Parmeshwari has also-not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants and same is also established by the evidence of Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) and injury report Ex. P- 14. Similarly, injuries; found over the body of Urmila have also-not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants and same are also established by the evidence of Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) and injury report Ex. P-15. As regards complicity of the appellants in the crime in question, conviction of the appellants is substantially based on the evidence of Urmila (P.W. 1) wife of the deceased and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2) daughter of the deceased, both are relative witnesses and both are injured witnesses, and their presence at the time of incident is natural. (11) URMILA (P.W. 1)-wife of the deceased has categorically deposed in her evidence that at the time of incident her husband has consumed liquor and was abusing her and her children on which the appellants whose house was adjoining to her house came to her house, appellant Mehttar Ram was holding stick and appellant Shivprasad was holding tabli-small betel axe, they assaulted her husband by betel axe and stick in the verandah, thereafter, they dragged him towards the lane and assaulted him as of result her husband died instantaneously. Thereafter, the appellants left the place of incident. Her evidence has been substantially corroborated by the evidence of Parmeshwari (P.W. 2). (12) The incident took place at about 8.20 p.m. Other witnesses have admitted that at the time of incident electric light was not available in the village, but they have not stated anything that there was no other light or there was complete darkness. Parmeshwari (P.W. 20 is injured witness and she has been examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6). Parmeshwari (P.W. 20 is injured witness and she has been examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6). As per the evidence of both the witnesses viz., Urmila (P.W. 1) and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2). both were present at the time of incident. Sawat Ram (since deceased) was abusing them at that time the appellants came to their house, appellant Mehttar Ram was holding stick and appellant Shivprasad was holding betel axe, they assaulted Sawat Ram in their verandah and thereafter they dragged him towards the lane and again assaulted him till his death. These witnesses have denied the suggestion that accused Shivprasad was not present at the time of incident. (13) SHIVPRASAD has examined defence witness Durga Prasad (D.W. 1). As per the evidence of Durga Prasad (D.W. 1), at the time of incident SHIVPRASAD was with him at Bilaspur, thereafter, they came to the village and after taking bath in the pond they reached to house at about 9.30 p.m. As per his evidence, appellant SHIVPRASAD purchased medicine from some shop, any receipt issued by the shopkeeper would have been the best evidence in support of the defence of alibi, but for the reasons best known to appellant SHIVPRASAD, neither he has filed any receipt nor he has examined the shopkeeper. Evidence of Durga Prasad (D.W. 1) reveals that he is completely a chance witness. His evidence shows that he has tried to explain the fact that from 4-5 p.m. till 9.30 p.m. on the fateful day, appellant SHIVPRASAD was with him. (14) IN the light of evidence of eye-witnesses, evidence of other witnesses does not inspire confidence. Evidence of Urmila (P.W. 1) is well corroborated by the evidence of Parmeshwari (P.W. 2), promptly lodged FIR Ex. P-1 and merg Ex.P-2 which reveal that the appellants have caused repeated injuries over the body of Sawat Ram which resulted in his death. These witnesses have not admitted the injury found over the body of accused/appellant Mehttar Ram and Mehttar Ram has not adduced any evidence to prove any injury. P-1 and merg Ex.P-2 which reveal that the appellants have caused repeated injuries over the body of Sawat Ram which resulted in his death. These witnesses have not admitted the injury found over the body of accused/appellant Mehttar Ram and Mehttar Ram has not adduced any evidence to prove any injury. As held in the matters of Lakshmi Singh, (AIR 1976 SC 2263 : 1976 Cri LJ 1736) (supra) and Murlidhar (supra) definitely the prosecution is under obligation to explain the injury found over the body of the accused, but the accused is under obligation to prove that injury was found upon his body that too at the time of the incident however, in absence of any evidence of injury sustained by the accused, the prosecution is not under obligation to explain any such injury. The cases of Lakshmi Singh (supra) and Murlidhar (supra) are distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. (15) EVIDENCE of Urmila (P.W.I) and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2) well corroborated by the FIR Ex. P-l and merg Ex. P-2 are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants have caused homicidal death of the deceased. (16) AS regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality and in case of direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances. In the present case, both the appellants went to the house of the deceased, they were holding stick and betel axe and they assaulted the deceased in his house, thereafter they dragged him towards the lane and again assaulted him till his death. Present offence is not a sudden quarrel, the appellants have not caused injuries to the deceased all of a sudden and in a bit of anger, even the appellants have not caused injuries to the deceased while exercising the right of private defence or to save any person. Therefore, the cases of Balbir Singh (supra), Thankachan (supra). Adu Ram (supra) and Kandaswamy (supra) are distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. Therefore, the cases of Balbir Singh (supra), Thankachan (supra). Adu Ram (supra) and Kandaswamy (supra) are distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. (17) EVIDENCE adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly reveals that the appellants have firstly assaulted the deceased in his house, thereafter, they dragged the deceased on the lane and again assaulted him by axe and stick and caused repeated injuries on head which shows grave intention of causing his death, also sharing common intention and also causing injuries to Urmila and Parmeshwari. (18) After appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them in the aforesaid manner. On close scrutiny, we do not find any illegality in conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.