JUDGMENT : Umesh Kumar, J. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 31.8.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Maharajganj in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 2003 by which accused-appellant Gopal was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default thereof imprisonment for one year; under Section 323 I.P.C. for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof two months rigorous imprisonment; under Section 324 I.P.C. one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof six months imprisonment; and lastly, under Section 326 I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof one year further imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story, in nutshell, is that informant (P.W.4) Ganga Prasad, who is the Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dhani, presented a written report at Police Station Vrijmanganj, District Maharajganj alleging that on 6.8.2003 at about 5 a.m. Gopal, son of Nand Kishor due to financial conflict assaulted his brother-in-law Govind son of Ram Lakhan with pointed rod whereby Govind sustained grievous injuries on his eyes. Upon hues and cries of the children of injured, Gopal further assaulted his niece Pattu @ Girija and nephew Raghav with the said pointed rod and both of them were grievously injured. All the three were sent to the District Hospital Gorakhpur in critical condition same day. This incident was witnessed and heard by several persons. As none of the family members of injured Govind was available, he being village pradhan gave this information. 3. On the said written report, on 7.8.2003 at about 9.30 a.m., an F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 315 of 2003 under Section 323, 324, 326 I.P.C. During treatment, injured Anand Kand @ Govind expired on 7.8.2003 at about 8.45 a.m. An information about his death was communicated to the police that was entered in G.D. No. 17 at 10 a.m. on 7.8.2003 (Ext. Ka-16) and thereafter by G.D. No. 19 at 12.30 a.m. on 9.8.2003, offence was converted under Section 304 I.P.C., i.e., (Ext. Ka-17). 4. Injury report of injured/deceased is available on record, i.e., Ext. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-3/1. P.W. 11 Dr. Ka-16) and thereafter by G.D. No. 19 at 12.30 a.m. on 9.8.2003, offence was converted under Section 304 I.P.C., i.e., (Ext. Ka-17). 4. Injury report of injured/deceased is available on record, i.e., Ext. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-3/1. P.W. 11 Dr. Ghanshyam Singh medically examined the injured/deceased Anand Kand @ Govind and found the following injuries:- ^^1- 3 bulkbtM ?kko tks 2 lseh- x 22 ls-eh- x elyMhi nkfguh vkWa[k ds ckgjh fgLls esa Fkh] nkfguh vkW[k CySd gks x;h Fkh] [kwu te dj dkyk gks x;k FkkA 2- dbZ QVs gq;s ?kko tks 1-00 lseh-x 0-5 lseh- x fLduMhi Vw ely rd] tks 6 ls-eh- x 3 ls-eh- ds {ks=Qy esa cka;h vkWa[k ds Åij Fkk] ftlls [kwu fudy jgk Fkk o ck;ha vkW[k [kqy ugha jgh Fkh] ftls vkWa[k ds MkDVj dks fn[kkus dh lykg nh x;hA 3- ,d QVk gqvk ?kko] tks 2 ls-eh- x 0-5 lseh- x elyMhi] tks nkfguh dku ds vkxs Fkk] [kwu fudy jgk FkkA 4- ,d iapMZ ¼?kksik½ gqvk ?kko tks 0-5 lseh- x 0-2 lseh x elyMhi] tks xnZu ds nkfgus rjQ Fkk] [kwu fudy jgk FkkA 5- ,d QVk gqvk ?kko tks 3 ls-eh- x 0-5 ls-eh- LdsyMhi] tks flj ds nkfguh rjQ nkfgus dku ds Åijh fgLls ls 5 ls-eh- Åij Fkk] [kwu fudy jgk FkkA ejht csgks'k Fkk vkSj eWqg ls cksydj dksbZ tokc ugha ns jgk FkkA pksV uaa0 1] 3] 4 /kkjnkj uqdhyh pht ls rFkk pksV ua0 2] 5 fdlh dqUnkys ls igWqpkbZ x;h FkhA lHkh pksVsa rkth Fkh] pksVksa dh xEHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq;s lHkh pksVsa MkDVj }kjk fuxjkuh esa j[kh x;hA fnukWd 06-08-03 dks gh 9%20 cts ,-,e- ij jk?ko dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k MkDVj }kjk fd;k x;k] mlds 'kjhj ij ijh{k.k ds le; fuEu pksVsa Ikk;h x;hA 1- ,d bulkbtM ?kko 2 ls-eh- x 0-05 ls-eh- x LdsyMhi] tks [kksiM+h ds nkfgus rjQ Fkk] [kwu cg jgk Fkk] ,Dl js dh lykg nh x;hA 2- ,d QVk gqvk ?kko tks 2 ls-eh- x -5 lseh x LdsyMhi] tks nkfguh rjQ [kksiM+h ds fiNys fgLls esa pksV ua0 &1 ls 10 ls-eh- ihNs Fkh] [kwu cg jgk Fkk] ,Dl&js dh lykg nh x;hA 3- ,d QVk gqvk ?kko 1 ls-eh- x 0-5 ls-eh- x elyMhi tks ihB ij nkfgus rjQ Fkk] [kwu cg jgk FkkA nkfguh vka[k CySd FkhA ejht csgks'k FkkA MkDVj dh jk; esa pksV ua0& 1 /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vk;h Fkh] ckdh nksuksa pksV fdlh dqUnkys ls vk;h Fkh] pksVksa dh xEHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq;s MkDVj }kjk mls vius fuxjkuh esa j[kh x;hA fnUkkad 06-08-2003 dks fnu esa 9%30 ,-,e- ij MkDVj }kjk fxjtk iq=h vkuUndUn dh pksVksa dk MkDVjh ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA mlds 'kjhj ij fuEu pksVsa ik;h x;hA 1- bulkbTM ?kko 2 ls-eh x 5 ls-eh- x LdsyMhi tks [kksiM+h ds cWk;s rjQ ckW;sa dku ds Åijh fgLls ls 8 ls-eh- Åij FkkA 2- ,d QVk gqvk ?kko tks 3 ls-eh- x 5 ls-eh- x ekWl dh xgjkbZ rd] tks [kksiM+h ds cka;s rjQ] pksV ua0& 1 ls 5 ls-eh- ihNs dh rjQ Fkk] [kwu cg jgk FkkA 3- ,d ¼?kksik½ gqvk ?kko] tks 0-5 ls-eh- x 0-5 ls-eh- x elyMhi] tks xnZu ds ckW;h rjQ Fkh] [kwu cg jgk FkkA pksV ua0&1 o 3 fdlh /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vk;h Fkh o pksV ua0& 3 fdlh dqUnkys ls vk;h FkhA pksV lk/kkj.k Fkh o rkth FkhA After death of the deceased Anandkand @ Govind, inquest was conducted, i.e., Ext. Ka-11 and other relevant record such as police prapatra 13 (Ext. Ka-12), letter to Inspector (Ext. Ka-13), letter to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-14), Naksha-nash (Ext. Ka-15) by the Investigating Officer Virendra Bahadur Singh (P.W.13). Recovery memo of kathri blood-stained and plain earth (Ext.Ka-8) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Recovery of rod/sariya was made at the pointing out of Gopal and recovery memo (Ext. Ka-7) was prepared in presence of Kashid Ali (P.W.8) and Deen Dayal (P.W.10). During investigation, site plan (Ext. Ka-6) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. He further recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-9) against Gopal Gupta and Nand Kishor. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem and the autopsy was conducted by Dr. U.C. Pandey (P.W. 12), who found following injuries on the body of the deceased; ^^1- flyk gqvk ?kko ftlesa 4 VkWds yxs FksA 2- flyk gqvk ?kko nks Vkadks ls] nkfgus dku ls 4 ls-eh- ÅijA 3- flyk gqvk ?kko pkj Vkadks lfgr] flj ds nkfgus rjQ dku ls 5 ls-eh- Åij ,oa ihNs A [kksyus ij vUnj tek gqvk [kwu ik;k x;k ,oa nkfgus rjQ dh isfjVy cksu VwVh gq;h FkhA 4- QVk gqvk ?kko 4 ls-eh- x 1-00 ls-eh- x gM~Mh rd xgjh] nkfguh HkkSag ds Bhd cxy esaA 5- QVk gqvk ?kko 3 ls-eh- x 0-5 lseh ukd ds ckWa;s rjQ ds fgLls ijA 6- uhyxw fu'kku 4 ls-eh- x 3 lseh nkfgus vkW[k ds pkjksa rjQA dkVus ij vUnj [kwu tek gqvk FkkA 7- uhyxw fu'kku 5 ls-eh- x 3 ls-eh- ckW;h vkW[k ds pkjks rjQ ik;k x;kA dkVus ij vUnj [kwu tek gqvk FkkA [kksiM+h [kqyus ij ef"r"d dh f>Yyh QVh Fkh A ef"r"d esa gsekVksek FkkA MkDVj ds vuqlkj e`R;q flj ij vk;h pksVksa ds dkj.k dksek dh otg ls gq;h gSA^^ 5. Accused Gopal Gupta was charged under Section 304, 323, 324, 326 and alternative under Section 302 I.P.C. whereas other accused Nand Kishor was charged under Section 304/120B, 323/120B, 324/120B, 326/120B and alternative 302/120B I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. Accused Gopal Gupta was charged under Section 304, 323, 324, 326 and alternative under Section 302 I.P.C. whereas other accused Nand Kishor was charged under Section 304/120B, 323/120B, 324/120B, 326/120B and alternative 302/120B I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses- P.W. 1 Smt. Geeta and P.W.6 Usha ( eye-witnesses); P.W. 2 Raghav and P.W. 3 Girija @ Pattu are said to be injured eye-witnesses; P.W.4 Ganga Prasad @ Mangal Prasad (informant); P.W.5 Jayantrimani Tripathi, and P.W. 7 Nagendramani Tripathi are witnesses of criminal conspiracy committed by Nand Gopal; P.W.8 Kashid Ali and P.W. 10 Deendayal are witnesses of recovery memos Exts. Ka-7 & 8; P.W.9 Kaushalanand is the witness of inquest; P.W.11 Dr. Ghanshyam Singh has made injury report Ext. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-3/1; P.W.12 Dr. U.C. Pandey; P.W. 13 Virendra Bahadur Singh, S.O. Vrijmanganj and P.W. 14 S.O. Udai Pratap Yadav are Investigating Officers of the case out of whom P.W.13 submitted charge sheet and P.W.14 conducted inquest; P.W.15 Constable Moharrir Kanhaiya Prasad has proved Ext. Ka-16 and P.W. 16 Mohammad Rafiq Khan have proved Exts. Ka-17, 18, 19 & 20. 7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Gopal denied the prosecution assertions. He stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He claimed to adduce evidence in defence but no evidence was produced by him. 8. Nand Kishor was acquitted by the Trial Judge of the criminal conspiracy to commit the said offence, learned A.G.A. informs that no State appeal has been preferred by the State. 9. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. for the State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that due to enmity, said accused Gopal Gupta has been falsely implicated, evidence of eye-witnesses are not compatible with injuries sustained on the body of the injured/deceased, recovery of kathari is itself doubtful, recovered rod was never sent for forensic analysis. He alternatively submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, offence would not traverse beyond Section 304 I.P.C. 11. He alternatively submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, offence would not traverse beyond Section 304 I.P.C. 11. On the contrary, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed and stated that prosecution version is well supported by the injured eye witnesses, moreover it is further supported by eye-witnesses who are very close relatives to the accused-appellant which further authenticates the veracity of the prosecution case and direct testimony of ocular witness cannot be disbelieved. The offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is well established by the ocular evidence duly supported by medico legal report available on record, thus, conviction of appellants recorded by trial court is liable to be affirmed. 12. P.W.-1 is the wife of the deceased- Anand Kand @ Govind. She is illiterate. She initially used to reside with her husband in Vikas Nagar Colony but the financial condition of the deceased deteriorated coupled with the fact that there was none to cook in her parental house for her acquitted father and brother- accused-Gopal. Against this backdrop, father requested P.W.-1 that she, with her family should stay along with him which would be beneficial for both. P.W.-1 along with her family, i.e. husband and 3 children started living with her father. P.W.-1 further deposed that whatever money was given to her by the deceased, she used to pass on the same to her brother-accused/Gopal for running the house. 3 days prior to the occurrence, on the day of Nag Panchami, an altercation took place between the deceased- husband and her brother-accused/Gopal relating to family expenses. On the fateful day at around 5 in the morning when P.W.-1 and her sister Usha (P.W.6) returned after answering the nature call, they saw that accused Gopal was assaulting her husband with sharp-edged Saria (iron rod) on head and eyes. P.Ws.- 2 & 3 i.e. children of P.W.1 raised hue and cries, who too were assaulted with that saria by accused Gopal. She remained firm and could not be dented in her cross-examination as to the time, place, mode and manner of the occurrence. She is wholly reliable. 13. P.W.2 Raghav, injured minor son of deceased Govind Agrahari @ Anand Kand, is also an eye witness. The Court after ascertaining his capacity permitted him to depose. She remained firm and could not be dented in her cross-examination as to the time, place, mode and manner of the occurrence. She is wholly reliable. 13. P.W.2 Raghav, injured minor son of deceased Govind Agrahari @ Anand Kand, is also an eye witness. The Court after ascertaining his capacity permitted him to depose. He stated that incident took place 7 months earlier at the residence of maternal grand father in the morning at 5.00 A.M. he along with his father, mother, sister and brother were residing at village Dhani; his father was a driver; prior to the incident on the date of Nag Panchami, Milkman wanted his payments, on this hot exchange of words took place between his father and his maternal uncle Gopal; father rebuked Gopal; who threatened his father that ^^bldk eu c< x;k gS bls ckn esa crkmxk ukuk uUn fd'kksj us Hkh dgk Fkk fd eS rqedks ns[k ywaxkA** Thereafter, his maternal uncle asked the deceased to vacate the house, the father(deceased) was preparing to vacate the house, his maternal grand father said that if the son-in-law vacates, his prestige would be lowered. On 6-8-2003, at 4-45-5.00 A.M., grand father woke up his mausi-Usha and his mother, the duo went to answer the nature's call and at that time, they were lying but awake. On the cries raised by his father, he saw that material uncle Gopal was assaulting him ( the father) by sharp edged iron rod on head and face. When he raised alarm, his elder sister Girja @ Pattu also cried on which said maternal uncle also assaulted him and his sister Girja @ Pattu. While assaulting was on the deceased, mother and mausi-Usha came back to witness the occurrence. This witness identified accused-Gopal in Court also and stated that he is Gopal Gupta who had assaulted him, his father and his sister with sharp edged iron rod. While assaulting was on the deceased, mother and mausi-Usha came back to witness the occurrence. This witness identified accused-Gopal in Court also and stated that he is Gopal Gupta who had assaulted him, his father and his sister with sharp edged iron rod. ^^xokg et:d ftlds lj ds cky cus gq, gS us U;k;ky; es ?kVuk esa igqaWpkbZ x;h vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk pksV fn[kyk;k tks nkfgus dku ds yxHkx 3 lh-,e- ihNs yxHkx 5 lh-,e- dh ifjf/k es gh lj dh gMMh yxHkx 1&1@2 ls 2 ls lh-,e- vUnj dh rjQ /klh gqbZ gS vkSj dVs dk Hkh fu'kku Li"V fn[kkbZ iM+ jgk gSA gesa uqdhyh lfj;k ls flj ij o ihB ij pksV yxh FkhA gekjh cgu fxfjtk mQZ iVVw dh xys ij o flj ij pksV yxh FkhA tc gekjh eka o ekSlh vk x;h fpykbZ rc xksiky Hkkx x;sA ogka geas o gekjs firk th dks cgu dks xkao ds yksx xksj[kiqj lnj vLirky ys x;sA mlds ckn dqN nsj nok djus ds ckn firk th dks xEHkhj pksV ds dkj.k ftyk fpfdRlky; ds MkDVj }kjk esfMdy dkyst xksj[kiqj es e`R;q gks x;hA rFkk yxHkx rhu fnu rd ftyk fpfdRlky; es esjk o esjh cgu iV~Vw dk nok gqvkA xEHkhj pksV o fLFkfr xEHkhj gksus ij geas o gekjh cgu dks esfMdy dkyst xksj[kiqj es Hkst fn;k x;kA tgka ij HkrhZ jg dj gekjk o cgu fxfjtk dk nok bykt A ** This witness stated that on the cries for help made by mother and aunt, accused Gopal ran away. Although, this witness is a child witness, but has explained the occurrence, mode and manner of assault and participation of the accused in totality. He is reliable and trustworthy witness. The law on this point is clear that testimony of a child witness cannot be rejected unless found unreliable and tutored. (See Gul Singh Vs. State of MP, (2015) 88 AllCriC 358 (SC). A child witness is competent to testify under Section 118 of Evidence Act. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify, if it has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. The Trial Judge may resort to any examination of a child witness to test his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify, if it has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. The Trial Judge may resort to any examination of a child witness to test his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. If on a careful scrutiny, the testimony of a child witness is found truthful, there can be no obstacle in the way of accepting the same and recording conviction of the accused on the basis of his testimony, (see K.Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 2955 ) and State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master, AIR 2010 SC 3071 . The position of law relating to the evidence of a child witness has also been dealt with by the Apex Court in Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 12 SCC 565 and Golla Yelugu Govindu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 4 Scale 569 . In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & others, (2010) 47 OCR 263 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court also has gone a step ahead in observing that a child of tender age who has witnessed the gruesome murder of his parents is not likely to forget the incident for his whole life and would certainly recapitulate facts in his memory when asked about the same at any point of time notwithstanding the gap of about ten years between the incident and recording of his evidence. 14. P.W.3 Girja @ Pattu is also an injured eye witness of occurrence. She also supported the prosecution case and has shown her injuries in the Court. Relevant portion runs as under: ^^lk{kh us U;k;ky; ds le{k vius lj dks >qdkdj pksV dks fn[kkbZ rks pksV ck, dku ds 6 lh-,e- uhps dku ds uhps lh/khbZ es ck, dU/ks ls mij pksV dk fu'kku o xys es ck,a rjQ pksV dk fu'kku vkt Hkh ekStwn gS U;k;ky; us voyksdu fd;kA ekek xksiky dks ikik ds lj es o vka[k ds cxy es uqdhyh lfj;k ls ekjrs ns[kk FkkA HkkbZ jk?ko dks lj ij ihNs dh rjQ ihB ij uqdhyh lfj;k ls pksV yxh FkhA** This witness stated that accused Gopal assaulted her father on head and near eyes by sharp edged iron rod. She explained injuries of his brother also. She explained injuries of his brother also. The witness gave description of sariya by saying that 'sariya' is an iron rod about 2 and half feet which is commonly used for killing snakes and this iron rod was kept in the room where accused-Gopal resides. She explained mode and manner of assault on her father and her brother by accused. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, we are of the opinion that there is no discrepancy or any material contradiction which can throw any suspicion in the prosecution version. 15. P.W.6-Usha, sister-in-law(sali) of deceased and sister of the accused-Gopal is also an eye witness. She has supported the prosecution evidence by narrating entire facts of the commission of offence, like P.W.2 and P.W.3. From close scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, we are of the opinion that she is a reliable and trustworthy witness. 16. The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that eye witnesses, in the present case are relatives and thus, they are interested witnesses, has no substance. There is no proposition of law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witness. The reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witness had intention to shield actual culprit and implicate the accused falsely. A close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is natural witness. His evidence, however, must be considered carefully. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is not a ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. Considering worth of the evidence of evidence of a relative, their Lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 SCC 173 . (Dayal Singh& others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 263 .) 17. In the case in hand, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are reliable and trustworthy witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution version narrated by them is consistent with the other evidence on record, natural course of human events, surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities of the case is such which will carry conviction and their evidence is free from suspicion and the Court may accept the same. The prosecution version narrated by them is consistent with the other evidence on record, natural course of human events, surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities of the case is such which will carry conviction and their evidence is free from suspicion and the Court may accept the same. Eye witness version cannot be discarded by the Court merely on the ground that the said eye witness happened to be a relative or friend of the deceased when they are also closely related to the appellant/accused. 18. P.W.4 Ganga Prasad is village Pradhan who proved FIR. He stated that inmates of locality informed him about the occurrence committed by the accused-Gopal by causing injuries to deceased by sharp edge sariya, due to which deceased died. He also stated that sariya used in the commission of offnece was recovered on pointing of accused-Gopal. 19. P.W.8 is a witness to the recovery of weapon, who turned hostile, but admitted his signatures on the recovery memo (Ext. Ka-8). P.W.9 is a witness to the inquest. He proved the same. P.W.10 is also a witness of recovery and has proved the same. 20. P.W.11 Dr. Ghan Shyam medically examined the deceased and other injured, i.e. P.W. 2 and 3. He proved the injury report (Ext. Ka-2 and 3). P.W. 12 Dr. U.C.Pandey conducted autopsy of the body of deceased-Anand Kand and proved the autopsy report (Ext. Ka-5). 21. P.W.13 is the investigating officer who conducted investigation, recorded statements of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, prepared site plan, collected blood stained, plain earth and blood stained kathari. He proved the police papers. P.W.14 Udai Pratap Yadav, S.I. conducted inquest, prepared relevant police papers and send the dead body for post mortem. He proved the police papers exhibited in the case. P.W.15 Kanhaiya Prasad, and P.W. 16 Constable Moharrir proved check FIR and G.D. entries (Ext. Ka-17 and 18 etc.). 22. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part-I or Part II of IPC has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected because the case of appellant would not fall under any exception of Section 300 of IPC. In the case in hand, giving multiple blows itself speaks the intention to kill the deceased and acted in a cruel manner to ensure the death of deceased. 23. In the case in hand, giving multiple blows itself speaks the intention to kill the deceased and acted in a cruel manner to ensure the death of deceased. 23. Taking into consideration the entire aspects of the matter, eye witness account duly corroborated by medical evidence and the circumstances under which present offence has been committed, this Court has no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the trustworthiness of the injured eye witness account. 24. We are of the view that the learned Trial Judge was justified in convicting/sentencing the appellant as above. 25. This appeal has no substance and same is dismissed. 26. Appellant-Gopal Gupta is already in jail. Registry is directed to transmit the original record of the Trial Court and the judgment for immediate compliance to the Court concerned so as to ensure that the accused-appellant serves out the remaining sentence, in accordance with law. The Trial Court is obliged to communicate compliance report to this Court forthwith.