JUDGMENT : ATUL KUMAR, J. This Jail Appeal was filed accused-appellant Dev Karan against the judgment dated 08.02.2007 in Sessions Case No. 27/2005 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Dev Karan which was passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Churu. By the impugned judgment, the accused-appellant Dev Karan was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 452, IPC as under:- 1. Section 302, IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo five months additional SI. 2. Section 452, IPC Five years RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months additional SI. 2. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial court. 3. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that only on the basis of evidence of relatives and interested witnesses, the accused-appellant was convicted for a major charge of murder and criminal tress-pass. It has further been argued by him that looking to the evidence of relative witnesses, benefit of doubt could have and should have been given to the accused-appellant by the trial court. In result, the accused-appellant prays for acquittal from the charges of sections 452 and 302, IPC in this appeal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that it is nothing but an 'open and shut' case. It has further been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused-appellant committed murder of his nephew on 22-07-2005 in the presence of three persons who are mother, wife and brother of the deceased and presence of these three eye-witnesses is not doubtful. They have fully supported the prosecution story and the facts mentioned in the FIR. There is no contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. Medical evidence is also against the accused-appellant. Hence, it has been argued that in the appeal of the accused-appellant, there is no proper defence. Therefore, the appeal of the accused-appellant should be dismissed. 5. In the light of these arguments, we have perused record of the case. We are fully convinced that judgment of the trial court has no infirmity and evidence of the witnesses has been properly appreciated by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal of the accused-appellant should be dismissed. 5. In the light of these arguments, we have perused record of the case. We are fully convinced that judgment of the trial court has no infirmity and evidence of the witnesses has been properly appreciated by the trial court. Presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot is quite natural and in these circumstances, this court being in agreement that appreciation of evidence done by the trial court is not supposed to be re-appreciated but for satisfaction of the accused-appellant, if we summarily look into the evidence led by the prosecution in the trial court then it can be said that the FIR (Exp.6) was lodged soon after the incident on 23.07.2005 at about 09:30 a.m. by Om Prakash who is brother of the deceased. It was mentioned in the FIR that the accused-appellant usually under the state of intoxication used to quarrel with his brother Bajrang for no reason and in the said evening when his brother Bajrang admonished the accused-appellant for his act then in the next morning on 23.07.2005 at about 5:00 a.m., the accused-appellant came with a ‘Gandasi’ in his hand and then he brutally killed Bajrang by ‘Gandasi’. 6. PW1 Bahgwati Devi is widow of the deceased Bajrang. She is a young lady of 26 years of age. Her husband was killed in her presence by her uncle in law Devkaran. She says that on that day at about 5:00 a.m., in the morning, she was busy in feeding her animals and her mother and brother in law were talking to each other. Her husband Bajrang was sleeping and at that juncture, the accused-appellant attacked on her husband by ‘Gandasi’ and due to severe assaults of ‘Gandasi’ by the accused-appellant, her husband died on the spot. In her cross-examination, she has not been shattered from her in chief. She says that after the incident, Devkaran had fled from the place of the incident along with the blood stained ‘Gandansi’. 7. PW2 Ms. Manni is mother of the deceased. She is an old lady of 61 years of age. She has fully supported the facts contained in the FIR and there is no contradiction in her statements from the contents of FIR. 7. PW2 Ms. Manni is mother of the deceased. She is an old lady of 61 years of age. She has fully supported the facts contained in the FIR and there is no contradiction in her statements from the contents of FIR. She says that in the early morning when her son was sleeping, the accused-appellant attacked him with the help of a ‘Gandasi’ and killed him on the spot. She was cross-examined at length but nothing has come out in her cross- examination which can be said to be in favour of the accused-appellant. Thus, she is also a truthful and reliable witness. 8. PW5 Om Prakash alias Om has also corroborated the contents of FIR. He states that he was eye-witness of the incident and in his presence, his brother was killed by the accused- appellant Devkaran. He was also cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but he has also not been shattered from his previous statement. There is no contradiction in his statement, his police statement and the FIR. There is no reason to disbelieve him. 9. PW 9 Raj Narayan, Assistant Sub-Inspector is the investigating officer of the case. He proves formalities of the investigation conducted by him. PW7 Shivratan Godara, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Taranagar states that investigation of FIR No.148/2005 was entrusted to him by previous investigating officer Rajnarayan, ASI. He submits that he had arrested the accused-appellant Dev Karan in this case and then the accused-appellant gave him an information of recovery of ‘Gandasi’. It was recorded in writing by him as Exp.19. He further states that in furtherence of that information ‘Gandasi’ was recovered from the house of accused-appellant. In his cross-examination, this witness also has said nothing in favour of the accused-appellant. PW6 Manoj Kumar and PW11 Prabhu Dayal also prove the said recovery as Motbirs of recovery. 10. PW4 Dr. Jai Narayan Khatri had conducted post-mortem of deceased Bajrang. Post-mortem report (Exp.5) was exhibited by him. He states that the following incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased and all injuries of ante-mortem nature: (1) incised wound 7 x 2 cm bone deep. (2) Incised wound 7 x 2 cm bone deep and frontal bone of head was found fractured. (3) Incised wound 3 x ?½ cm bone deep on front of head. He states that the following incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased and all injuries of ante-mortem nature: (1) incised wound 7 x 2 cm bone deep. (2) Incised wound 7 x 2 cm bone deep and frontal bone of head was found fractured. (3) Incised wound 3 x ?½ cm bone deep on front of head. (4) Incised wound 6 x 2, ?½ cm bone deep on right eye. (5) Incised wound 1 x ?½ cm on right forehead. (6) Incised wound 2 x ?½ cm on right eyebrow. (7) Incised wound 9 x 2 cm x 4 cm on right cheek towards jaw. (8) Incised wound 5x ?½ cm bone deep on right eyebrow. (9) Incised wound 6x4 cm bone deep on right jaw with bone cut. (10) Incised wound 3, ?½ x 3 on upper lips. (11) Incised wound 1 x ?¾ cm on lower lips. 11. It was opined by the doctor that Bajrang died because of shock caused to him by brain injuries. In his cross-examination, this witness has also not said anything in favour of the accused-appellant. 12. PW3 Isab Ali Khan, HC, PW8 Dinesh Singh HC, PW 10 Surendra Kumar (Photographer) and PW 12 Vikram Singh had also been examined by the prosecution in the trial court. They have also said nothing in favour of the accused-appellant. 13. In the circumstances of the case, looking to the un-controverted oral evidence, medical evidence and record, we are fully convinced that the accused-appellant Devkaran was rightly convicted by the trial court under sections 302 and 452, IPC by the trial court and this appeal deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed and conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against accused-appellant Devkaran under sections 302 and 452, IPC is hereby maintained. The accused-appellant is in jail since his arrest. He should serve the remaining part of sentence as per the judgment of the trial court as such. Two copies of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail authorities where the accused-appellant is serving the sentence. Out of these copies, one copy be provided to the accused-appellant and another copy be used by the jail for office purpose. The record of the trial court be returned along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed.