ORDER 1. The appellant Jag Ram who is the younger brother of the deceased, one Munni (wife of the deceased) and one Satish (brother-in-law of the deceased) were charged with the offence of murder of deceased Ramesh committed on 27th March, 1995. Accused Satish is a proclaimed offender. The other two accused, namely, the present appellant Jag Ram and Munni have been found guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, The present appeal is filed by the accused Jag Ram challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution examined several witnesses out of which Seema (P.W. 1 - daughter of the deceased) and Sunil (P.W. 2 -son of the deceased) were put up by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. Whereas P.W. 1 turned hostile, P.W. 2 who was aged about 8 years at the time of commission of the offence is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned trial Court and the High Court have believed the evidence of P.W.2 as being worthy of being relied upon to convict the accused persons. 3. We have perused the evidence of P.W.2 from the original record. In his examination- in-chief P.W.2 has given a graphic description of the incident clearly implicating the accused appellant Jag Ram as having assaulted the deceased with a knife and then having helped the other accused to pack the dead-body in a quilt and then in a gunny bag. 4. In cross-examination, P.W. 2 had admitted that at the relevant point of time there was no electricity in the house and that he has woken up by his sister P.W. 1 at which point of time he heard the deceased crying. P.W. 2, in his cross-examination, has further stated that as there was darkness in the house he lit a candle by getting the matchbox from another room from the ground-floor. 5. There was a leading question put to P.W. 2 by the prosecution as to whether he had seen the incident with his own eyes to which he replied in the affirmative. If we are to disprove the aforesaid leading question put to P.W. 2 we do not see any reason as to why the said witness i.e. P.W.2 should be disbelieved. His evidence is clear, consistent and has been accepted by two courts. There is no compelling reason disclosed to us to take a different view of the matter. If we are to disprove the aforesaid leading question put to P.W. 2 we do not see any reason as to why the said witness i.e. P.W.2 should be disbelieved. His evidence is clear, consistent and has been accepted by two courts. There is no compelling reason disclosed to us to take a different view of the matter. We, therefore, can find no infirmity in the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed. 6. We are told by the learned counsel for the accused appellant who is appointed by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee that the accused appellant has served over 14 years in jail. If this is correct, the Jail Authority shall process the matter to enable the appellant to seek remission/early release under such scheme as may be in force in the State. 7. With the aforesaid observations the appeal is dismissed and the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed is affirmed.