A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.:- Appellants were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for intentionally and knowingly causing the death of Hanmantu Sambayya Torem on 15th June, 2002 between 10-00 p.m.. and 10-30 p.m.. at village Nandigaon. 2. Both the appellants-accused were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default thereof, further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each. 3. The appellants are, therefore, before this Court in the present appeal. 4. While hearing the appeal, though learned counsel for the appellants is absent, as this appeal pertains to the year 2004, and the appellants being in jail, with the assistance of learned APP Mr. T. A. Mirza, we have gone through the impugned Judgment and Order and record and proceedings. In the light of Judgment of Honble Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. [ AIR 1996 SC 2439 ] we have proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. 5. Heard learned APP Mr. T. A. Mirza for the respondent. Perused the evidence recorded by Trial Court. 6. PW 2 Poshakka is the wife of deceased Hanumantu Torem, who lodged First Information Report [Exh.21]. She stated that on the date of incident at about 9-00 p.m., when she was at the house along with her husband and children, both the accused-appellants had come to her house and asked her husband to accompany them towards the house of accused. Thereafter, as she heard noise from that side, she came out of her house and went to see what happened. She saw her husband lying in front of the house of accused. Upon seeing her, both the accused ran away from the spot. Her husband was having injuries on the chest and blood was oozing therefrom. On the next day, namely on 16th June, 2002, she lodged a report with Police Station. 7. She saw her husband lying in front of the house of accused. Upon seeing her, both the accused ran away from the spot. Her husband was having injuries on the chest and blood was oozing therefrom. On the next day, namely on 16th June, 2002, she lodged a report with Police Station. 7. On going through the cross-examination of PW 2 Poshakka, we find the testimony of this witness on the material point that the accused persons had taken her husband towards their house, and further that after some time, on hearing the noise, she went towards the house of accused, saw her husband lying on the ground and accused persons running away from the spot is fully consistent. The only omission brought on record is that on seeing her, the accused persons ran away. But there is no omission as to accused persons being seen by her where her husband was lying in a pool of blood. The evidence that her husband had followed accused persons from her house has not been shaken. 8. In her testimony. PW 4 Madnakka stated that on the day of incident, in the night time, she heard noise of a quarrel, She saw that a quarrel was going on near the house of Lachakka. She went towards the spot and found the deceased lying on the road. 9. Learned Prosecutor declared this witness hostile and cross-examined her. In the cross-examination, PW 4 Madnakka narrated the entire incident of murder of Hanumantu with necessary details. In her further cross-examination, there is hardly any inconsistency in her evidence. No questions were at all put to her about seeing of the incident by her. 10. The next eye-witness is PW 5 Lachakka Madnaiyya Torem. She clearly stated in her testimony that she saw the incident of Samaiyya assaulting Hanmantu by a dagger and his subsequent abscondance. She further stated that in the incident, Chinakka caught hold of Hanumantu. Chinakka also fled away from the village. She saw the incident in the light of an electric street lamp and Hanumantu lying in front of the house of accused. 11. Learned Prosecutor also declared this witness hostile. But according to us, this witness did not turn hostile, since she narrated the incident properly. 12. Chinakka also fled away from the village. She saw the incident in the light of an electric street lamp and Hanumantu lying in front of the house of accused. 11. Learned Prosecutor also declared this witness hostile. But according to us, this witness did not turn hostile, since she narrated the incident properly. 12. Be that as it may, after declaring PW 5 Lachakka hostile, in the cross-examination, she narrated some more facts, which confirm that she was the eye-witness. Not only that, she further confirmed that accused Samayya is her close relative. In the cross-examination, her testimony on the material points has not at all been shaken. To our mind, this witness, who is a close relative of one of accused, has to be believed. 13. Both the above eye-witnesses have, thus, fully supported the prosecution case and the incident of murder has been proved by the prosecution beyond any doubt. 14. In view that there is direct evidence in this case, the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court cannot at all be altered. 15. To sum up, we find no merit in the present Appeal. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.