JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Rajkumar Biswas has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of incident was Gopinath, aged about 45 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, Gopinath, Srimanta (PW-1) and appellant were brothers. They along with their mother Shashirani Biswas (PW-8) lived in one and the same campus. On 10.7.2012, at about 3 p.m., while Gopinath was taking rest in the courtyard, the appellant killed him by causing injuries with a spade. At that time, Shashirani was in the house and she saw the appellant causing injuries to Gopinath. She naturally shouted for help, as a result of which, many neighbours gathered and they also saw Gopinath lying dead and the appellant standing nearby. Srimanta, who was working in the field, was informed about the incident. He then rushed to his house and found Gopinath lying in an injured condition. He also found appellant in the house. Srimanta thereafter made ejahar exhibit 6 against the appellant at Police Station Mayong and when police reached the place of occurrence, the people handed over the custody of appellant to police. 4. Investigating Officer – Mina Kanta Dutta (PW-10) prepared the inquest report exhibit 2 of the dead body and referred the same for post mortem examination. He also prepared the sketch map exhibit B and seized one spade vide seizure list A, which was used for killing Gopinath. 5. Dr.ATM Eusuf (PW-4) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. He found deep cut injury cutting all vital vessels of the right side of the neck and stab injury on the left lateral aspect of the chest. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit-3 opined that Gopinath died due to cut and stab injuries, which were ante mortem in nature. 6. During trial, at the stage of framing of charge, the appellant pleaded not guilty, but later, while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he candidly admitted having killed Gopinath with a spade. 7. As mentioned above, Shashirani is mother of appellant and also of victim Gopinath. She is an eye witness to the incident. 7. As mentioned above, Shashirani is mother of appellant and also of victim Gopinath. She is an eye witness to the incident. She has categorically testified that the appellant, right in front of her, caused cut injuries to Gopinath with a spade, while he was taking rest outside the house. In the cross examination, nothing has been suggested to her as to why she would falsely implicate the appellant. Also since the incident took place in the campus, where she lived, she was naturally present there and had the occasion to see the unfortunate incident of her one son killing another. Srimanta has testified that on receiving information about the incident, when he reached home, he saw Gopinath lying in an injured condition. According to him, he also found the appellant in the house, who was handed over to the police. Srimanta has admitted to have lodged First Information Report against the appellant. Similar is the evidence of witnesses – Ruhidas Mandal (PW-2), Bhagaban Biswas (PW-3), Mahendra Mandal (PW-6) and Chitra Kanta Mandal (PW-7). They all have testified in one voice that on hearing commotion, when they rushed to the house of appellant, they saw Gopinath lying with a cut injury on his neck and appellant standing nearby, who was caught, then tied and finally handed over to the police. Apart from the evidence of eye witness Shashirani, there is also a clear admission by the appellant, while being examined as an accused, that he had killed Gopinath with a spade, because Gopinath unnecessarily rebuked and scolded him. On scanning the evidence of Shashirani, we find her to be truthful and reliable witness. Her evidence also stands corroborated by the post mortem examination report of Gopinath prepared by Dr. ATM Eusuf. 8. The prosecution has thus succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant that he alone was the perpetrator of crime. 9. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.