( 1 ) THE present appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Valsad, at Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1987 before him on 12/10/1989. The appellant was charged tor murder of dharmeshbhai Rameshbhai and for attempt to commit murder of Ushaben rameshbhai, Laduben Bhanabhai and Kusumben Dhirubhai and came to he convicted for all the offences that he was charged with. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence of murder with a specific direction that he has to undergo the said imprisonment till his last breath. No separate sentence was awarded to the accused for the attempts on lives of Ushaben. Laduhen and Kusumben. although he was convicted for the same. The said judgment and order is challenged by the accused in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the accused was working for about four years with Rameshbhai Makanji of village Kaliara of Chikhli taluka of Valsad district. Ushaben is the wife of Rameshbhai Makanji. Their younger son was dharmesh. On 6/03/1984. Rameshbhai had gone to the fields. One servant had gone to the wadi (field ). The other servant had come from the field at about 8-30 a. m. . Ushaben was in the house. The elder son of Rameshbhai was studying and Ushahen was cooking. The accused was sitting in the courtyard andl was having breakfast. At that time minor Dharmesh, who was having breakfast, went to the accused and started having the breakfast together. After the breakfast was over. Dharmesh said something to the accused. The accused took an axe from the veranda and gave a blow on right cheek of Ushaben. He inflicted another blow with axe on head of Dharmesh. Because of the alarm raised by these two persons, the neighbours came and accused inflicted axe blows on Kusumben and Laduben. who had come to the rescue. People from neighbourhood rushed in. caught hold of the accused, tied him with a tree, shifted the injured persons to the hospital and Ramanlal lodged F. I. R. in this regard with the police. The police registered the offence and started investigation. On the other hand, Dharmesh died while he was in hospital. The police after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Chikhli, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session. At the trial before the Sessions Court the accused pleaded not guilty and expressed his desire to face the trial. He has pleaded innocence. Some mental derangement was noticed by the learned trial Judge and he had referred the accused to Civil Surgeon and in turn to Mental Hospital al Baroda. The trial proceeded after certificate of fitness was received from mental hospital. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proved the case against the accused and passed the impugned judgment and order. It is this judgment that is challenged in this appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. S. G. Uppal learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D. N. Patel. learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. We have been taken through the relevant and material pieces of evidence by both of them. We have taken into consideration the pieces of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge and find that no error is committed by the learned trial Judge in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved guilt of the accused.

( 4 ) THE bone of contention on behalf of the appellant is that the learned trial judge has committed an error in evaluating the evidence. The accused had no motive for committing this offence. The story that is given by eye-witnesses is improbable and cannot inspire the confidence of a judicial conscience. The accused, therefore. ought to have been acquitted. It was further contended that the learned trial Judge has, after convicting the accused, directed that the accused should undergo life imprisonment