JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara dated 20th May 2006 in Sessions Case No.16/05 whereby the accused appellant Kesu Lal has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for two years. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that FIR was lodged on 07.07.2005 at the Police Station Khamnor on the statement of Shanker Lal that on 06.07.2005 at 11PM in the night he along with his family was sleeping at his home. He suddenly woke up on hearing loud noise near his house. When he went out side his house, he saw that Kesu Lal was repeatedly inflicting axe blows on Naru Gameti and also abusing him. Shanker Lal raised alarm but no one came there. Naru fell down and presuming him to be dead Kesu Lal ran away. Thereafter the mother and wife of Naru came there who returned to their home after seeing him dead. The people from neighbourhood also came and saw dead body of Naru. In the morning the complainant Shanker Lal saw that there were big wounds caused by axe on the body. The motive of murder was stated to be old enmity and it was also stated that he could not report the matter in the night because of unavailability of conveyance. 3. Upon this report made at the Police Station Khamnor, FIR No.83/2005 (Ex.P38) was registered for offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC. After investigation, the accused appellant was charged for offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 504 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and sought trial. 4. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses, namely - PW1 Daulat Ram, PW2 Heera Lal, PW3 Shanker Lal, PW4 Sohan Singh, PW5 Bhanwra Gameti, PW6 Chain Singh, PW7 Sudhir Jain, PW8 Manohar Lal, PW9 Man Singh, PW10 Rateesh Kumar, PW11 Logar, PW12 Dhapu, PW13 Tulsi, PW14 Bhagga, PW15 Lakuda, PW16 Dr Jeevan Prakash, PW17 Sajjan Singh, PW18 Kewal Chand, PW19 Ratan Lal and PW20 Shyam Singh and documents Exhibits P1 to P41 were also produced in evidence. 5. The accused-appellant in his statement under section 313 CrPC denied the prosecution case including recovery of axe from his possession and regarding his arrest he stated that police brought him from his home. 5. The accused-appellant in his statement under section 313 CrPC denied the prosecution case including recovery of axe from his possession and regarding his arrest he stated that police brought him from his home. He also stated that the witnesses have deposed against him on account of enmity. In defence, he examined DW1 Deep Singh, who stated that father of the complainant PW3 Shanker Lal had sold his land to father of the accused-appellant Kesu through a written document Ex.D3 and though promised the said document was not got registered in favour of father of Kesu. He also stated that PW3 Shanker knew that Kesu is alone and if he goes to jail then entire land will remain with Shanker Lal and his father. It was also stated by him that this land was sold for repaying bank loan, for which warrant of attachment Ex.D4 was also issued. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of PW3 Shanker Lal is liable to be discarded as he is not a reliable witness. It is submitted that his conduct is not natural as he did not immediately report the incident to police and as there was no light the accused-appellant could not have been identified by him. It is also submitted that there are several material contradictions in his statement. 8. We are of the view that there is no merit in this argument as PW3 Shanker Lal, who is residing just a few yards from the place of occurrence, is a natural witness. A perusal of the site plan Ex.P17 reveals that the place of occurrence marked 'A' is at distance of approximately 30 feet from the house of PW3 Shanker Lal. Therefore, it was natural for him to have heard shrieks of deceased Naru Gameti who was repeatedly being hit by axe. He had also raised alarm. The incident took place at 11 o'clock in the night and even if there was no electric bulb or other light the accused could have been easily identified by the complainant as both reside in the same village and also keeping in view that he witnessed the occurrence from a short distance. 9. PW3 Shanker Lal also stated that other villagers had come to the spot when Naru was already dead. 9. PW3 Shanker Lal also stated that other villagers had come to the spot when Naru was already dead. The wife and mother of the deceased also arrived at the spot and saw dead body of Naru. He also stated that he informed police in the morning. In his cross-examination, he stated that although there is telephone in the village but people who were having telephone did not open gates of their houses and hence, he could not make call in the night. He also accepted that his father mortgaged the land to father of Kesu 10-15 years ago and possession of the land is still with Kesu but denied that they had demanded possession of this land or that they were not on talking terms. 10. The statement of PW3 Shanker Lal finds corroboration in the statement of PW12 Dhapu, who is mother of the deceased Naru. She stated that when she heard loud noise, she reached the spot at about 11 o'clock in the night. When she reached near temple of Hanumanji she saw her son Naru lying on the ground, who was having wounds caused by axe. Shanker Lal told her that Naru had been killed by Kesu with axe. She further stated that the house of Shanker is also in close vicinity. 11. PW13 Tulsi who is wife of the deceased also deposed on similar lines. She stated that she was at home with her mother-in-law and upon hearing loud noise they went near the temple of Hanumanji where they saw Naru was lying dead. There was bleeding and injuries on his body. Shanker Lal told them that Kesu had killed Naru. She came weeping to the village and informed others about the incident. She has also stated that there was dispute between her husband and the accused. 12. The discrepancy pointed out in the statement of PW3 Shanker Lal is not very material. He stated that he came out of his house on hearing loud noise and that several other villagers including mother and wife of the deceased also came to the spot. As to who came first, villagers or the mother and wife of deceased, is not very significant as there was commotion in the village due to the incident and it is difficult to pin point as to who arrived first. 13. As to who came first, villagers or the mother and wife of deceased, is not very significant as there was commotion in the village due to the incident and it is difficult to pin point as to who arrived first. 13. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is discrepancy in the time of occurrence and the time of death as reflected in the postmortem report. We are of the view that there is no merit in this argument as well. The time of incident as mentioned in the FIR is 11 o'clock in the night. A perusal of postmortem report Ex.P32 reveals that postmortem was conducted from 10:30AM to 11:35AM in the next morning and hence 12 hours would have been over at 11AM. The time interval in the postmortem report between the death and postmortem is 12-18 hours. Therefore, there is hardly any discrepancy in the time of death and the postmortem as the doctor can not estimate the time of death with absolute certainty and for this reason a variation of a few hours is always there and in this case it is ranging from 12 to 18 hours. 14. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant further argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR inasmuch as the incident took place at 11PM and written report was submitted to the police at 08:15AM on the basis of which the FIR was formally registered at 10:15AM in the morning. This argument also has no substance and can not be accepted as the incident took place in a village at night and it is natural for the people to get scared and refrain from venturing to report the incident immediately. Some of the villagers who had telephone connection had not opened their houses. The matter was promptly reported in the morning. Hence, the accused-appellant can not derive any benefit from this aspect. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case especially the use of axe as weapon of the offence as blade of the axe is stated to be 3 inches while the dimension of injuries No.2, 3, 5 and 13 is more than 3 inches. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case especially the use of axe as weapon of the offence as blade of the axe is stated to be 3 inches while the dimension of injuries No.2, 3, 5 and 13 is more than 3 inches. A perusal of the evidence of PW16 Dr Jeevan Prakash who conducted the postmortem of dead body of Naru reveals that he has stated that the maximum width of blade of the weapon would have been 4 to 5 inches and that if a person hits someone with an axe of 15 centimeter blade having 2 feet long handle then depth of the injury will depend upon angle of attack and part of body impacted. It is, thus, obvious that the size of injury will not only depend on size of the blade of the weapon but also the manner in which it is caused and the force with which it is inflicted. No straight jacket formula can be laid out that if the weapon is of a particular size then injury has to be of exact or similar dimension. 16. Besides the evidence of PW3 Shanker Lal, PW12 Dhapu and PW13 Tulsi, the prosecution case has been supported by other evidence as well. PW5 Bhanwra Gameti and PW8 Manohar Lal are witnesses of recovery of axe Ex.P24 and have categorically deposed in support of the recovery. The axe was recovered on 10.07.2005 from the house of the accused-appellant being hidden under a pile of 'kelu' (roof tiles). They are independent witnesses and there is no evidence that they were in any manner biased against the accused-appellant. 17. PW7 Sudhir Jain is the witness of arrest of the accused appellant and seizure of blood-stained shirt which was worn by him at the time of his arrest. He is an independent witness and has fully supported the prosecution case. The accused-appellant ran away from his house and was arrested from forest area. Hence, it is quite probable that he was wearing the same shirt as was worn by him at the time of the incident. 18. The FSL report Ex.P36 further corroborates the prosecution case as the blood group on the axe as well as blood-stained shirt worn by the accused-appellant was found to be of 'A' group, which is the blood group of deceased Naru. 18. The FSL report Ex.P36 further corroborates the prosecution case as the blood group on the axe as well as blood-stained shirt worn by the accused-appellant was found to be of 'A' group, which is the blood group of deceased Naru. 19. PW11 Logar stated that at the time of incident he was woken by mother and wife of deceased Naru who stated that Kesu had killed Naru whose dead body was lying near Hanuman temple. He went there and found wounds caused by axe on the dead body. He also stated that there was enmity between Naru and Kesu on account of which Kesu may have killed him. 20. PW15 Lakuda stated that Shanker told him that Naru has been killed by Kesu. He stated that there was dispute between Kesu and Naru. PW14 Bhagga stated that he reached the spot in the night after having been informed by mother of the deceased PW12 Dhapu and saw the dead body of Naru. PW18 Kewalchand stated that he reached the spot after he was informed by PW12 and PW13 and he also saw the dead body having axe wounds. 21. As far as motive is concerned, it is borne out from the statements of PW12 Dhapu and PW13 Tulsi who had stated that there was enmity between deceased and the accused. PW12 Dhapu and PW13 Tulsi, the mother and wife of the deceased Naru respectively, would be last persons to implicate an innocent person and allow real culprit to go scot free. In case PW3 wanted to falsely implicate the accused-appellant, PW12 and PW13 would not have supported him. There is also corroboration for the motive in the statements of PW11 and PW15 who have also stated that there was enmity between accused and the deceased. Thus, we cannot accept that PW3 Shanker Lal wanted to involve the accused-appellant in the case due to his personal animosity. 22. Besides, the accused-appellant was arrested from forest in the presence of independent witness PW7 Sudhir Jain at 7:15PM on 07.07.2005. There was no occasion for him to abscond and hide in forest if he was innocent. 23. Therefore, in the wake of aforementioned evidence we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******