1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara dated 20th May 2006 in Sessions Case No.16/05 whereby the accused appellant Kesu Lal has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for two years.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that FIR was lodged on 07.07.2005 at the Police Station Khamnor on the statement of Shanker Lal that on 06.07.2005 at 11PM in the night he along with his family was sleeping at his home. He suddenly woke up on hearing loud noise near his house. When he went out side his house, he saw that Kesu Lal was repeatedly inflicting axe blows on Naru Gameti and also abusing him. Shanker Lal raised alarm but no one came there. Naru fell down and presuming him to be dead Kesu Lal ran away. Thereafter the mother and wife of Naru came there who returned to their home after seeing him dead. The people from neighbourhood also came and saw dead body of Naru. In the morning the complainant Shanker Lal saw that there were big wounds caused by axe on the body. The motive of murder was stated to be old enmity and it was also stated that he could not report the matter in the night because of unavailability of conveyance.

3. Upon this report made at the Police Station Khamnor, FIR No.83/2005 (Ex.P38) was registered for offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC. After investigation, the accused appellant was charged for offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 504 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and sought trial.

4. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses, namely - PW1 Daulat Ram, PW2 Heera Lal, PW3 Shanker Lal, PW4 Sohan Singh, PW5 Bhanwra Gameti, PW6 Chain Singh, PW7 Sudhir Jain, PW8 Manohar Lal, PW9 Man Singh, PW10 Rateesh Kumar, PW11 Logar, PW12 Dhapu, PW13 Tulsi, PW14 Bhagga, PW15 Lakuda, PW16 Dr Jeevan Prakash, PW17 Sajjan Singh, PW18 Kewal Chand, PW19 Ratan Lal and PW20 Shyam Singh and documents Exhibits P1 to P41 were also produced in evidence.

5. The accused-appellant in his statement under section 313 CrPC denied the prosecution case including recovery of axe from his possession and regarding his arrest he stated that police brought him from his home. He also stated that the witnesses have deposed against him on account of enmity. In defence, he examined DW1 Deep Singh, who stated that father of the complainant PW3 Shanker Lal had sold his land to father of the accused-appellant Kesu through a written document Ex.D3 and though promised the said document was not got registered in favour of father of Kesu. He also stated that PW3 Shanker knew that Kesu is alone and if he goes to jail then entire land will remain with Shanker Lal and his father. It was also stated by him that this land was sold for repaying bank loan, for which warrant of attachment Ex.D4 was also issued.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of PW3 Shanker Lal is liable to be discarded as he is not a reliable witness. It is submitted that his conduct is not natural as he did not immediately report the incident to police and as there was no light the accused-appellant could not have been identified by him. It is also submitted that there are several material contradictions in his statement.

8. We are of the view that there is no merit in this argument as PW3 Shanker Lal, who is residing just a few yards from the place of occurrence, is a natural witness. A perusal of the site plan Ex.P17 reveals that the place of occurrence marked 'A' is at distance of approximately 30 feet from the house of PW3 Shanker Lal. Therefore, it was natural for him to have heard shrieks of deceased Naru Gameti who was repeatedly being hit by axe. He had also raised alarm. The incident took place at 11 o'clock in the night and even if there was no electric bulb or other light the ac