JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J.: - Heard Smt. Kamla Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.11.1989 passed by Additional Judge, Bareilly in Session Trial No. 406 of 1988 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that Smt. Premawati sister of the informant Siyaram, who was 'Nut' by caste, was married to Ram Karan, who was a resident of Faiznagar, police station Kemri, district Rampur about 18 years back but after 8-10 days of her marriage, she returned back to her paternal house and did not go back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, without the consent of her family members, Smt. Premawati performed her second marriage with Baboo Ram, who was also a married person having 5-6 children from his earlier wife Smt. Teejo, who was residing at village Nagaria Saadat, District Rampur. Out of the said wedlock, six children were born to Smt. Premawati. The marital life of Smt. Premawati and Baboo Ram were cordial and they were living peacefully. Baboo Ram had purchased two houses in the name of Smt. Premawati one in village Mungra Mirganj and another at village Nagarai Saadat and had also taken 9 bighas of land of one Pandit Hari Shanker on Batai which was being looked after by Smt. Premawati. Baboo Ram used to live with Smt. Premawati instead of living with his first wife Smt. Teejo. On account of the said facts, accused Amar Pal @ Amra, who is the eldest son of Smt. Teejo and Baboo Ram was inimical to Smt. Premawati and on several occasions he has threatened to kill her, therefore, Smt. Premawati was apprehending danger to her life from him. This apprehension was shared by Smt. Premawati with the informant Siyaram. On 14,3,1988, Smt. Premawati was cutting grass at the field of Pandit Hari Shanker which was taken by Baboo Ram on 'Batai' where 'Lahi' crop was grown. Her brothers, i.e., informant Sia Ram and Narain was working on a nearby land which belongs to them. At about 5: 30 p.m., suddenly accused Amar Pal came out of 'Lahi' and started assaulting her by 'gandasa'. Her brothers, i.e., informant Sia Ram and Narain was working on a nearby land which belongs to them. At about 5: 30 p.m., suddenly accused Amar Pal came out of 'Lahi' and started assaulting her by 'gandasa'. On hearing her shriek, the informant and Narain ran towards her and in the mean time accused Amar Pal gave 2-3 blows of 'gandasa' on her neck which was seen by them. Thereafter, the accused ran along with 'gandasa' towards North and could not be apprehended despite the chase being made by the informant and Narain. On the alram raised by them, some other villagers, came at the place of occurrence and saw the accused appellant running away from there with 'gandasa'. When the accused could not be apprehended despite chase, the informant and Narain, returned to the place of occurrence and found that Smt. Premawati died due to the injuries sustained by her and blood was lying on the ground. Thereafter the informant Siyaram leaving Narain near the dead body, went to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. along with one Fakir Chand. On his direction, F.I.R. Ex. Ka. 1 was scribed by Habib ur Rahman and handed it over at police station Mirganj. On the basis of the F.I.R., chick F.I.R. Ex. Ka.2 was prepared and a case was registered vide G.D. entry at 6: 55 p.m. on the same day. The investigation of the case was carried out by Sub Inspector V.N. Yadav, who went on the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka. 10. He recorded the statement of the informant Siyaram at the police station and had reached the spot along with police force. He tried to search the accused but he could not be traced. The inquest report was prepared by S.I. Devendra Pandey which were marked as Exs. Ka. 5 to Ka.10. The dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem in a sealed cover through constable Chandu Singh and constable Ravindra Singh. The blood stained and plain earth was also taken in possession and was sealed and memo Ex. Ka. 12 was got prepared in the hand writing of S.I. Devendra Pandey. Khurpi was also taken in possession and Ex. Ka. 13 was prepared. The statement of all the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet Ex. Ka. 14. Ka. 12 was got prepared in the hand writing of S.I. Devendra Pandey. Khurpi was also taken in possession and Ex. Ka. 13 was prepared. The statement of all the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet Ex. Ka. 14. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. D.N. Shukla. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session. On 6.9.1989, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution story and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in support of its case had examined P.W. 1 Siyaram the informant, P.W.2 Narain P.W. 3 Ahmad Nabi eye witnesses of the occurrence, P.W.4 S.I. V.N. Yadav, the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.5 constable Chandu Singh, who had taken the dead body for post mortem along with another constable, P.W.6 Jai Singh Head Constable, who proved the chik and the G.D. entries and P.W.7 Dr. D.N. Shukla, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased. 6. P.W.1 informant Siyaram has deposed before the trial court about the prosecution story as has been narrated by him in the F.I.R. which was also corroborated by P.W.2 Narain, who is his real brother. Both of them have stated that the deceased Smt. Premawati was their sister. She was married to Ram Karan Nut of Faiznagar, Rampur but she left him and performed her second marriage with Babbo Ram 19 years ago and started living with him at village Mungra Mirganj and gave birth to six children. Baboo Ram was a married person having six children from his first wife Smt. Teejo, who lived at village Nagaria Saadat. Baboo had purchased two houses in the name of their sister Smt. Premawati one at village Mungra Mirganj and other at village Nagaria Kalan. He had also taken 9 bighas of the land by Pandit Hari Shanker on 'batai' which was being looked after by Smt. Premawati. Baboo Ram had no connection with his first wife Smt. Teejo and had separate agricultural land. On account of the said facts, when the accused Amar Pal, who was the eldest son of Baboo Ram and Smt. Teejo attained the age of majority felt annoyed against his step mother Smt. Premawati and had threatened her on several occasions. Baboo Ram had no connection with his first wife Smt. Teejo and had separate agricultural land. On account of the said facts, when the accused Amar Pal, who was the eldest son of Baboo Ram and Smt. Teejo attained the age of majority felt annoyed against his step mother Smt. Premawati and had threatened her on several occasions. Smt. Premawati had told them about the threats being given by accused Amar Pal and did not pay any heed on it. They further deposed that on the date of incident they were working at their field which was near the field of Pandit Hari Shanker which was taken by Baboo Ram on 'batai' at about 5: 30 p.m. they heard the shriek of Smt. Premawati, who was cutting grass in the said field. On hearing the shriek, they rushed towards the said field and saw that accused Amar Pal was assaulting Smt. Premawati with 'gandasa' and when they reached there they saw Amar Pal giving 2-3 blows of 'gandasa' on her. On which they raised the alarm and chased the accused, who ran away towards North along with 'gandasa' and could not be apprehended. Smt. Premawati sustained injuries on her neck, face and head due to which she died on the spot. The other persons of the village, who gathered at the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by them also seen the accused running away from there. P.W.2 stayed on the spot and his brother Siyaram went to lodge the F.I.R. thereafter the police came. The Khurpi and grass were seen by the Investigating Officer. 7. P.W.3 Ahmad Nabi has deposed that he is a butcher by profession and brings cattle for the said purpose. The slaughter house is near the railway station of Nagaria Saadat and he tether his cattle at 50-60 paces away. On the date of occurrence, he was searching his buffalo which was missing and when he reached at the place of occurrence at about 5: 30 p.m. he saw that Smt. Premawati was crying and accused Amarpal was inflicting blows of 'gandasa' on her. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were challenging and running towards Amarpal, who ran away towards North with 'gandasa' and could not be apprehended. Smt. Premawati died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by her on face, neck and head. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were challenging and running towards Amarpal, who ran away towards North with 'gandasa' and could not be apprehended. Smt. Premawati died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by her on face, neck and head. He further deposed that the land where the incident has taken place was taken on 'Batai' by Baboo Ram and Smt. Premawati used to look after it and there was 'Lahi' crop upto knees. 8. P.W. 4 Sub Inspector V.N. Yadav is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has submitted the charge sheet and prepared other police reports. P.W.5 Chandu Singh is the Constable, who took the dead body in seal condition to the mortuary. P.W.6 is the Head Constable, who has proved the chick F.I.R. etc. 9. P.W. 7 Dr. D.N. Shukla has conducted the post mortem of the deceased Smt. Premawati and found following ante mortem injuries on her person: - "1. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x trachea deep on the front of right side of neck just below adamsapple. 2. Incised wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. x muscle large vessel cut on right side neck. 4 cm. above mid of right collor bone. 3. Incised wound 7.5 cm. x 3 cm. x trachea and Oesophagus cut on the front of neck lower part just above sternum notch. 4. Linear abrasion 3 cm. x 0.2 cm. on the top of right shoulder. 5. Linear abrasion 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. over left collar bone in middle." 10. On internal examination he found that the trachea was cut. The stomach contained partially digested food material about 100 grams. Fecal matter and gases were present in the intestines. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. The deceased was aged about 35 years. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was sitting and cutting grass in the field in which 'Lahi' crop was grown upto 5-6 meters in height and the field of the eye witnesses was about 50-60 paces away from there, hence it is not possible for them to see the incident from such far distance in between 'Lahi' crop, hence their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. The weapon 'gandasa' was not recovered by the police during investigation and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The weapon 'gandasa' was not recovered by the police during investigation and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The trial court has misread the evidence on record and has convicted the appellant which should be set aside by this Court. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly argued that the appellant has surrendered before the court below on 29.3.1988 in the present case since then he is languishing in jail and already served out 26 years in jail, hence some sympathetic consideration be taken by this Court. 13. Per contra learned A.G.A. has argued that the incident has taken place in the broad day light at about 5: 30 p.m. on 14.3.1988. The deceased Smt. Premawati, who was working in the field which was taken by her husband from Pandit Hari Shanker on 'batai', was done to death by her step son accused Amar Pal @ Amra by assaulting her with 'gandasa' and on the alarm raised by her P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who were working in the nearby field rushed at the place of occurrence and saw the incident. The appellant inflicted 2-3 blows of 'gandasa' on Smt. Premawati in front of them and when they tried to apprehend him he fled away from the place of occurrence along with 'gandasa' towards North and could not be apprehended. It was further argued that the appellant has strong motive to commit the said crime as he was annoyed with his step mother on account of the fact that his father Baboo Ram was living separately with his step mother and purchased two houses in name and also the land which was taken by his father Baboo Ram on 'batai' by Pandit Hari Shanker was looked after by Smt. Premawati. It was further argued that P.W. 3, who is an independent witness of the occurrence had also deposed against the appellant and said that he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with 'gandasa' due to which she died. The post mortem report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution story, hence the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is fully justified and no interference is called for by this Court. 14. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. The post mortem report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution story, hence the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is fully justified and no interference is called for by this Court. 14. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the real brothers of the deceased, it is apparent that the father of the appellant Baboo Ram had two wives. The appellant was the son of his first wife Smt. Tejoo., who was living separately from Baboo Ram, who was living with his second wife Smt. Premawati for the last 18 years. Baboo Ram was having six children each from both the wives. Baboo Ram had purchased two houses in the name of Smt. Premawati and further taken a land of one Pandit Hari Shanker on 'batai' which was being looked after by the deceased Smt. Premawati which was disliked by the appellant and he became annoyed with Smt. Premawati and when he attained the age of majority, he committed the murder of the deceased by inflicted 2-3 blows of gandasa on her neck, head and face. The said incident was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are real brothers of the deceased and reached at the place of occurrence on hearing the shriek of Smt. Premawati and when they tried to apprehend the appellant, he ran away towards North along with 'gandasa'. The statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.7 Dr. D.N. Shukla, who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased and has opined that the cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. P.W.3, who was an independent witness of the occurrence has also stated that the deceased was killed by the appellant. His evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 regarding the manner of incident coupled with the fact that the post mortem report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution story as has been stated P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their deposition before the trial court. P.W.6 also found blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and Khurpi which was lying near the right leg of the deceased by which she was cutting the grass. 16. P.W.6 also found blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and Khurpi which was lying near the right leg of the deceased by which she was cutting the grass. 16. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the place of occurrence is doubtful and further the incident could not be witnessed by them from a distances of 50-60 paces away as there was 'lahi' crop grown at a much height due to which the assault made on the deceased could not be witnessed by the said two witnesses, does not fall to reason as the incident has taken place at 5: 30 p.m. in the evening on 14.3.1988 and there was sufficient source of light to identify the appellant by the two eye witnesses, i.e., P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who are the real brothers of the deceased and were working in a nearby field which belonged to them. Nothing has been shows by the learned counsel for the appellant by which it can be said that the two eye witnesses P.W.1 and P.W. 2 had any reason to falsely implicate the deceased as the deceased herself had married with Baboo Ram 18 years ago against the wishes of said eye witnesses. Moreover, appellant no.3, who is an independent witness had also no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case and the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that he was a pocket witness of the appellant also does not borne out to be correct from the deposition of P.W.3 which was recorded by trial court. Thus after scrutinizing the evidence of eye witnesses of the occurrence and other witnesses, we do not find anything adverse in their evidence which may discard their testimony, hence the conviction and sentence of the appellant which awarded by the trial court is hereby upheld. 17. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 18. It is needless to say that the appellant is at liberty to approach the State Government for the remission of sentence which may be sympathetically and expeditiously considered by the State Government in view of the provisions under Section 432 Cr. P.C. taking into account that the appellant is in jail since for last 26 years.