JUDGMENT 1. - By the Judgment dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 3, Udaipur, Camp salumbar in Sessions Case No. 61/2008, appellant-accused Phula has been found guilty of inflicting grievous hurt whilst committing lurking house trespass and committing the murder of Narsingh Khatik and has been convicted and sentenced as under:- S.No Offence Under Section Sentence for the Period Fine Imposed Default in. sentence in event of payment of fine 1. 2. 302 I.P.C. 459 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment Seven Year's R.l. Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 1,000/- 3 Month's S.l. 3 Months' S.l. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appellant-accused has preferred this jail appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which was admitted for hearing vide Order dated 6.4.2009 and the record of the learned Trial Court was called for. 3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present case are that on 20.7.2008, Babulal (PW-5) gave oral information (Ex. P-7) that on that day he was at his bara then at about 10.00 P.M., he was asked to come to home on telephone from his wife on which he reached his home at about 10.30 P.M. in the night. On reaching his home, his wife told that Phula, after inflicting axe blows on his son Kiran, ran away and Kavaram and Mukesh have taken Kiran to the hospital. Thereafter, after an hour, they returned with the body of Kiran and told that he died in the way. It was also stated by him that there was a quarrel between Kiran and Phula two days ago and for this reason Phula has killed his son. 4. On the above said report (Ex. P-7), the First Information Report No. 160/2008 (Ex. P-10) under Sections 302 and 459 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation was commenced and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet for offences under Sections 302 and 459 Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused. The learned Trial Court, after hearing, framed charges under Sections 302 and 459 Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused for which he denied and claimed trial. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and proved Ex. P-l to Ex. P-16. The learned Trial Court, after hearing, framed charges under Sections 302 and 459 Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused for which he denied and claimed trial. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and proved Ex. P-l to Ex. P-16. Thereafter the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he claimed prosecution evidence as false and submitted that he is innocent and he has been implicated falsely and did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. Thereafter, after hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel for the accused, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 459 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant-accused preferred this Jail Appeal. 8. We have heard learned Amicus Curaie for the appellant Shri Kalu Ram Bhati and learned Public Prosecutor Shri CS Ojha and perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence with available record. 9. Learned Amicus Curaie for the appellant-accused Sri. Bhati has submitted that there was no eye-witness of the incident. It was also submitted that wife of Kavaram and wife of Babulal were stated to have seen the incident but they were not produced as witnesses. It was also submitted that Kavaram did not see the appellant-accused inflicting the axe blows. It was further submitted by him that the prosecution has been failed to establish the motive behind the incident. Still without considering any material, learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant-accused and sentenced as aforesaid, therefore, the appeal of the appellant-accused may be allowed. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that soon after incident appellant-accused absconded and was seen by Kavaram (PW-4) and after his arrest, in pursuance of his information blood stained axe was recovered from his conscious possession. He further submitted that as per medical evidence the cause of death of Kiran was excess bleeding and total cut of spinal chord, which was found dangerous to life. He inflicted axe blow on the neck which is the vital part of the deceased with such a grave force that single injury was found sufficient for causing his death, therefore, it is a clear murder. 11. He inflicted axe blow on the neck which is the vital part of the deceased with such a grave force that single injury was found sufficient for causing his death, therefore, it is a clear murder. 11. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it reveals that Kavaram (PW-4) was the eye-witness who deposed that on 19.7.2008 the day of occurrence, he saw the appellant-accused Phula running with axe after inflicting injuries on the neck and hand. It was also deposed by him that there was a quarrel between deceased Kiran and appellant-accused Phula and due to this, appellant-accused committed murder of deceased Phula. Further, Teekamchand (PW-6) also deposed that on 19.7.2008, he was sleeping and when he heard cry of Kanta W/o Kava and Jamna W/o Babu, he reached there and when he was going there he saw Phula running with axe and when he reached at the place of incident, he saw that blood was oozing from the neck and left hand of Kiran. 12. From the statements of above witnesses, it is clear that it was the appellant-accused who came at the place of incident with axe and was seen by these two witnesses. It was not the case of defence that there was any enmity of these witnesses with the appellant-accused. Further, it has been stated that there was quarrel between deceased Kiran and the appellant-accused Phula and due to this he killed the deceased. Thus, there was clear motive behind the incident. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused has submitted that Kanta W/o Kavaram and Jamna W/o Babu also saw the incident but they were not produced as prosecution witnesses. From the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to prove the prosecution case. To examine a case, quality of evidence is to be seen and not the quantity of evidence. 14. The Investigating Officer Umesh Menaria (PW-8) deposed in his statement that the appellant-accused gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P-12) and in pursuance of which he got recovered the axe from his residential house. It was also deposed that the axe and other articles were sent for chemical examination and as per the F.S.L. Report (Ex. The Investigating Officer Umesh Menaria (PW-8) deposed in his statement that the appellant-accused gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P-12) and in pursuance of which he got recovered the axe from his residential house. It was also deposed that the axe and other articles were sent for chemical examination and as per the F.S.L. Report (Ex. P-17), the axe was found stained with human blood of Group "O" and the blood-stained soil and the clothes of deceased were also found stained with human blood of Group "O". 15. Thus, in view of the above, we find that the prosecution has proved, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused caused the death of deceased by inflicting axe blow and thus, he was guilty of committing culpable homicide. 16. Dr. Lalit Deedwania (PW-12) deposed in his statement that there was incised wound 21 cm X 9 cm on left side of neck, cutting all the majeles, arteries and 3rd cervical vertebra, 2nd, 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra were detached from each other, right hand was detached from right upper extremity due to cutting of bones of the lower l/3rd of forearm. The cause of death opined was hyporolemic shock and transection of spinal cord created by sharp weapon associated with cutting of radial and ulna arteries of right forearm. It was also deposed by him that even if the deceased was brought to the hospital in time, then also there was no chance to save his life. 17. From the postmortem report (Ex. P-15), it is clear that the appellant-accused inflicted blow from axe on such a vital part with such a force that there was no chance to save his life. Thus, this is a clear case of murder. 18. In our opinion, ocular evidence produced by the prosecution, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused. The prosecution case was, therefore, established beyond doubt. The learned Trial Court has also rightly appreciated the evidence and has also rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.The record of the Court below be returned with the copy of the judgment.Appeal Dismissed. *******