D. L. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar convicting appellant Kishnaram under section 302, I. P. C. and, sentencing him to imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that at about 2. 00 a. m. on 18/8/1984, P. W. 10 Rameshwar Sharma appeared at Police Station, Sadar Thana, Sikar and. presented a written report, Ex. P114. It was stated therein that at about 10. 00 pm. on 17/8/1984 his wife Smt. Mohini aged about 35 years along with his minor daughter aged about 2 years were coming from the house of Ratan Lal, where his wife had gone to participate in some function. While they were returning the accused drove his truck and crushed Smt. Mohini Devi and her minor daughter. It was also alleged that P. W. 12 Smt. Pushpa was with Smt. Mohini. The incident was seen by P. W. 14 Pawan Kumar, P. W. 15 Jhumar Mal and some other persons. It was further alleged in the F. I. R. that the appellant and P. W 10 Rameshwar were on inimical terms. The appellant had earlier threatened Rameshwar, P. W. 10 to kill some members of his family. The police registered a case under section 302, I. P. C. and proceeded with the investigation. The post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of two victims was conducted. The reports are Ex. P. I and Ex. p. 2. The accused was arrested and the truck was seized. After when the investigation was over: the police presented a charge sheet against the appellant and one Jhabarmal in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He framed the charge under section 302; IPC against the appellant and under sections 302/34, IPC against accused Jhabarmal. Both of them denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined 2 witnesses. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no incriminating material as against accused Jhabarmal to connect him with the deaths of two victims. He was consequently acquitted of the offence he was charged with. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however found the charge duly established against appellant Kishnaram. Kishnaram was, therefore, convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against his conviction, Kishnaram has come up in appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. O. P. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. In assailing, the conviction, it was vehemently contended by Mr. Dhanker that a case of death by rash and negligent act has been converted into that under section 302, I. P. C. It was contended that the motive alleged does not stand proved and if at all it is taken as proved, it was wholly insufficient and inadequate to push the appellant to commit the murder of Smt. Mohini and her minor daughter. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that looking to the relations between the appellant and P. W. 10 Rameshwar, it can safely be inferred that the appellant wanted to commit the murder of the family members of Rameshwar.

( 4 ) WE have bestowed our thoughtful considerations to the rival submissions. There are 5 eye witnesses speaking about the incident; they are: P. W. 1 Kishore, P. W. 2 Dungaram, P. W. 12 Smt. Pushpa, P. W. 14 Pawan Kumar and P. W. 15 Jhumarmal. We may point out at once that in Ex. P. 1 lodged promptly after the incident, only the name of P. W. 1 has been mentioned. It is significant that the name of P. W. 12 Smt. Pushpa who is daughter of deceased victim Smt. Mohini has not been mentioned in it. It may also be pointed out at this place tha