Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Balram against the judgement dated 5.12.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur whereby he was convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment thereof, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. He was also convicted for offence u/s.307 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Vijendra Singh S/o Pooran Singh lodged a report on 3.6.2003 at Police Station Sewar alleging that on 3.6.2003 at about 11.00 PM in the night when his brother Ratan Singh and father Pooran Singh were sleeping in village Golpura in front of their house, one Balram of their village came there armed with farsa and inflicted farsa blows on his brother Ratan Singh and father Pooran Singh. When his father and brother raised hue and cry, his mother, uncle Jagdish, Rajendra and other pesons of the village reached there. However, Balram continued to give beating to his father and brother with farsa. They were taken to the hospital in serious condition, however, in the course of treatment Ratan Singh expired. 3. On receipt of the aforesaid written report, regular first information report was chalked out for offence u/s.302 and 307 IPC and investigation commenced. The accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against him for offence u/Ss. 302, 307, 324 and 326 IPC. During trial, however, charges against the accused-appellant were framed only for offence u/Ss. 302 and 307 IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution produced as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents in support of its case. The defence has not produced any witness, however exhibited four documents. The accused in his examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication. The accused-appellant was eventually convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated as above. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statement of prosecution witnesses in their true perspective. The accused in his examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication. The accused-appellant was eventually convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated as above. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statement of prosecution witnesses in their true perspective. The evidence does not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that the so called eye witnesses namely; Vijendra (PW1), brother of the deceased-Ratan Singh, Jagdish (PW7), brother of injured-Pooran Singh and Smt. Bhauti (PW8), mother of the deceased-Ratan Singh could not have been eye witnesses because as per the own showing of Vijendra (PW1), he was sleeping on the roof, whereas his deceased brother Ratan Singh was sleeping on the ground with his father Pooran Singh. Jagdish (PW7) has also stated that on the day of incident i.e. 2.6.2003, he had returned from the place of Pramod Thekedar with whom he was working. He heard hue and cry in the house of his brother Pooran and when he went there he saw Balram inflicting blows on the body of injured Pooran. It is argued that when this witness has himself stated that he came from another house to the house of deceased on hearing hue and cry, how possibly could he witness the incident. Smt. Bhauti (PW8) has stated that she heard Ratan crying in the mid night around 12-1.00 that he has been killed and saw accused Balram inflicting farsa blows on the body of Ratan. When his father Pooran Singh tried to save him, Balram inflicted a farsa blow on his left shoulder. Learned senior counsel submitted that in the mid night when this witness was sleeping and came there on hearing the screams of the deceased, how could she see the initial part of the incident. 5. Learned senior counsel argued that in any case the eye witnesses could not have seen the occurrence and could not with certainty attribute specific role to the accused because the incident took place in the mid night and it was a dark night. The prosecution witnesses have given different versions as to the manner in which the incident took place and also the previous incidents which took place prior to the incident in question. The prosecution witnesses have given different versions as to the manner in which the incident took place and also the previous incidents which took place prior to the incident in question. One set of witnesses stated that prior to the date of incident a dispute arose between the accused and deceased while other witnesses stated that dispute arose twice before the incident. As per the prosecution witnesses the incident has taken place in three phases. In first phase, the accused-appellant put his shoe in reversed condition on the chabutara of the deceased and challenged him to turn it straight. Thereafter, accused Balram came at the place of complainant armed with farsa. Ratan and Vijendra caught hold of the farsa and the villagers intervened. Thereupon the daughter and wife of accused-appellant apologized. Again in the night at around 11-12.00 PM, appellant came and gave beating to Ratan Singh and his father Pooran Singh. It is thus evident that as per the prosecution witnesses, no one was there to check the accused-appellant in the first and second phase of incident of beating to the injured and the deceased. How could the appellant come to again beat the deceased in the short time, is difficult to appreciate. It was a dark night and it appears that someone else has committed murder of Ratan Singh and accused-appe-llant has been made accused only because of the incidents of first two phases. 6. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that according to the arrest memo (Ex.P9) of the accused-appellant, he himself sustained injuries. The prosecution has not explained the injuries of the accused. No prosecution witness has stated that either deceased or any of his family member gave beating to the accused. It creates doubt about the story narrated by prosecution. There is no evidence to prove that the accused sustained injuries in the incident of first phase or second phase and therefore it has to be expected that he received such injuries in the incident of third phase. Learned senior counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased. There is no inde-pendent witness, who may prove the allegation against the accused-appellant. 7. Learned senior counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased. There is no inde-pendent witness, who may prove the allegation against the accused-appellant. 7. Shri Biri Singh, learned senior counsel has argued that Rajendra Singh (PW9) also cannot be said to be an eye witness because he too has stated that he reached the house of Ratan Singh on hearing hue and cry and therefore his statement that he saw accused Balram inflicting farsa blows on the body of Ratan Singh and Pooran Singh, cannot be believed. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgement be set aside. 8. Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that the accused has rightly been convicted for the murder of Ratan Singh whose postmortem report (Ex.P14) has been proved by Dr. Harendra Singh (PW15). Accused is also responsible for causing injuries on the body of Pooran Singh (PW3) who sustained four injuries, one of which was incised wound in the size of 9.0 x 2.7 cm deep on left shoulder near neck leading to fracture, which injury was opined to be grievous. Recovery of iron farsa has been made at the instance of accused-appellant Balram vide Ex.P5, which as per the FSL report Ex.P18 was found to contain human blood. Pooran Singh (PW3) is the injured who sustained injuries in the same incident and, therefore, his presence cannot be doubted. Besides, there was also eye witness Bachchu Singh (PW2), who has also proved that on hearing hue and cry he reached the house of the deceased and found Pooran Singh having injury on his shoulder. On enquiry, he told him that Balram has murdered his son. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. The evidence in the present case mostly consist of eye witnesses account. Injured Pooran Singh (PW3), has stated that it was at about 9.00 PM on 2.6.2003 when he was sitting in his shop, one Bhagwan Singh S/o Surja came and sat on the chabutara facing the shop. Soon Balram joined him. Balram demanded match box from Bhagwan Singh. 10. The evidence in the present case mostly consist of eye witnesses account. Injured Pooran Singh (PW3), has stated that it was at about 9.00 PM on 2.6.2003 when he was sitting in his shop, one Bhagwan Singh S/o Surja came and sat on the chabutara facing the shop. Soon Balram joined him. Balram demanded match box from Bhagwan Singh. Then accused Balram asked Pooran Singh (this witness) why did he not invite the accused in the marriage of his daughters and then accused put his shoe from reverse side on the chabutara and asked Pooran Singh to put the shoe straight, if he had a courage (which is a way of posing challenge to one another by the villagers). On hearing hue and cry, his sons Ratan Singh and Vijendra also came there and altercation took place between them and accused Balram. The villagers intervened to separate them. Balram went to his house and this witness and his sons also came to their house. Ratan Singh and this witness were sleeping on the ground of their `bada' and Vijendra went to sleep on the roof. Balram returned back with farsa around 12.00 in the mid night and inflicted blows on Ratan Singh. This witness awoke from his slumber on hearing the screams of Ratan Singh and saw that Balram was inflicting farsa blows on his body one after the other. When this witness tried to save Ratan Singh, Balram inflicted farsa blow on his body too and thereafter the accused left. They immediately moved him to hospital on a tractor, but during treatment he died. 11. Vijendra (PW1), brother of deceased is the another witness who has stated that Ratan Singh was sleeping on the ground along the side of his father Pooran Singh and he was sleeping on the roof. When he heard the screaming of deceased Ratan Singh, he went down and saw Balram inflicting farsa blows on his body and also causing injuries by farsa to his father. Balram delivered two blows by farsa on the body of his brother Ratan Singh, which he sustained on his neck. Balram then fled. Smt. Bhauti (PW8) yet another witness, is the mother of deceased Ratan Singh and wife of Pooran Singh (PW3). She stated that altercation took place between them and accused around 10.00 PM that day. That time Balram did not have any weapon. Balram then fled. Smt. Bhauti (PW8) yet another witness, is the mother of deceased Ratan Singh and wife of Pooran Singh (PW3). She stated that altercation took place between them and accused around 10.00 PM that day. That time Balram did not have any weapon. He gave filthy abuses to them and left. After about one hour, he returned back with a farsa and started abusing the complainant party. Ratan Singh and Vijendra snatched his farsa and the villagers intervened. Then wife and daughter of Balram apologized on his behalf and thereupon farsa was returned to him. Then the members of the complainant party went to sleep. While her husband Pooran and Ratan Singh were sleeping on the bada, she was sleeping on the ground of his house. She heard the sound of screaming around 12.00-1.00 in the mid night. This witness has claimed that she saw Balram inflicting farsa blows on the body of Ratan Singh. When Pooran Singh tried to save him, he inflicted farsa blow on the left shoulder of Pooran. Jagdish (PW7) brother of Pooran (PW3) whose house is adjacent to that of the deceased has stated that on hearing hue and cry he reached the house of Pooran. He saw Balram inflicting severe blows on the body of Pooran Singh with farsa. Then he fled. Ratan Singh and Pooran Singh were both taken to hospital, however, within few minutes Ratan Singh died. This witness has given a clue to the motive of the accused. He has stated that the complainant party and other family members had ostracized accused Balram and therefore he was annoyed with them. Rajendra (PW9), another neighbour of Pooran Singh has stated that he reached his `bada' immediately on hearing the screaming of Ratan Singh. He saw Balram inflicting farsa blows on the body of Ratan Singh and also on Pooran Singh. Then Bachchu and Bhagwan Singh also came there and Bhauti and Vijendra other two witnesses also came there. 12. Bhagwan Singh (PW10) has stated that he had gone to take bath on the tube well of his agriculture field. When he returned back, Balram from the side of Bharatpur came there and demanded match box from him. He gave match box to him. Balram then started abusing, as a result of which Pooran and Balram started quarreling with each other. When he returned back, Balram from the side of Bharatpur came there and demanded match box from him. He gave match box to him. Balram then started abusing, as a result of which Pooran and Balram started quarreling with each other. Soon Ratan Lal, son of Pooran came there and then Balram left. He (this witness) came to his house for dinner and within some time Balram returned back with a farsa. The villagers intervened and snatched his farsa. Then Balram returned back to his house. In the mid night, he heard the voice of his father that thieves have come, but when he went out, he saw Pooran and Ratan in seriously injured condition and Ratan Singh died soon thereafter. The eye witnesses as also the neighbours who reached the place of occurrence immediately saw accused fleeing from the place of incident with a farsa thus categorically prove that it was accused-appellant alone who was responsible for the murder of Ratan Singh and injuries caused to injured Pooran Singh. 13. Dr. Harendra Singh (PW15) has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P14) of deceased Ratan Singh, according to which he received following injuries: “1. Incised wound 8.6 cm x 2.2 cm x brain matter deep on parieto occipital region on right side with clotted blood. 2. Incised wound 5.0 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on medial side of right shoulder. 3. Red bruise 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm on right shoulder posteriorly. 4. Red bruise 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm in front of right ear on face.” 14. In the postmortem report (Ex.P14), the cause of death has been opined to be ante mortem injury to brain which is sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. 15. Dr. Harendra Singh (PW15) has also proved the injury report of Pooran Singh (PW3) vide Ex.P15. According to injury report Ex.P15, he received following injuries: “1. Incised wound 9.0 cm x 2.7 cm x muscle deep on left shoulder near neck. 2. Red bruise with abrasion 9.0 x 2.5 cm lateral to injury no.1. 3. Lacerated wound 2.0 x 0.4 cm x skin deep on distal phalamx of ring finger of left hand. Second lacerated wound 0.5 to 0.3 cm x skin deep on distal phlaxm of ring finger of left hand inner surface.” 16. 2. Red bruise with abrasion 9.0 x 2.5 cm lateral to injury no.1. 3. Lacerated wound 2.0 x 0.4 cm x skin deep on distal phalamx of ring finger of left hand. Second lacerated wound 0.5 to 0.3 cm x skin deep on distal phlaxm of ring finger of left hand inner surface.” 16. On x-ray examination (Ex.P16) of injured Pooran Singh, the fracture of left first rib was found. Accused-appellant gave information under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for recovery of farsa, which eventually was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P5. The farsa was sent to the FSL. Besides `safi' and one pair of shoes vide Ex.P4, blood stained shirt and `baniyan' of deceased were recovered vide Ex.P8. Blood smeared soil and simple soil from the place of incident was recovered vide Ex.P12. While blood of `A' group was found from the shirt and baniyan, the blood of human original was found from the blood smeared soil, simple soil and iron farsa. 17. Contention that it was a dark night, therefore, the prosecution witnesses could not identify the accused is noted to be rejected for the simple reason that if the accused could identify the deceased Ratan Singh and his father Pooran Singh, they could as well identify him, particularly when they were both residents of same village. In fact, accused on the same day twice tried to attack the deceased. Thus the unfortunate death of Ratan Singh has its root in the two incidents that took place in first and second phase and the reason for this as per the prosecution witnesses is that Pooran Singh (PW3) did not invite the accused in the wedding of his daughter. Jagdish (PW7) has given the reason for this is that the accused was ostracized from the community. The accused was annoyed with Pooran Singh and it is therefore that he had thrown a challenge to him by putting his shoe by reversed side on the chaburata facing his shop, through which he challenged Pooran Singh to let it put straight and then he started abusing Pooran Singh, whereupon his two sons namely; Ratan Singh and Vijendra came there and then the altercation took place, but somehow or the other, the villagers intervened between the parties. Thereafter accused went to his village and again at 11 o' clock he returned back with farsa. Thereafter accused went to his village and again at 11 o' clock he returned back with farsa. That time again villagers intervened, snatched his farsa and separated the quarreling parties. The wife and daughter of the accused apologized and thereupon farsa was returned back to his wife. However, when the deceased Ratan Singh and Pooran Singh were fast asleep in the mid night, the accused came there again to attack them. This was therefore a premeditated attempt of accused-appellant to murder the deceased Ratan Singh and has its roots in the previous two attacks. He also inflicted severe blows on the body of Pooran Singh, one of which lead to fracture of shoulder bone by incised wound. Had this injury been sustained on head of Pooran Singh, he would have certainly died, but considering the manner in which the injury was caused and the sharp edged farsa with which the injury was caused to deceased, is clearly indicative of the intention of the accused to commit the murder of Pooran Singh as well. 18. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgement. The appeal is consequently dismissed.