weather. In fact, the learned court below rejected such plea of the Appellant. At that point of time, PW 4, who is the wife of PW 1, was cooking nearby. On a consideration of the evidence of PW 1, the learned court below found that he was barely couple of cubits away from the deceased when the assault happened and therefore, he could not have had any difficulty in identifying the Appellant even if there was darkness all around, which in the view of the Court, is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach at. Rather, PW 1 was found to be a natural witness and he described the incident being present at the spot. Immediately after the assault, PW 1 raised alarm responding which other witnesses arrived. That apart, PW 1 identified MO I which was held by the Appellant. The defence tried to create a dent in the evidence of PW 1 in that respect but rightly the learned court below rejected it overruling the possibility of involvement of any other individual except the Appellant. Immediately after the incident, the F.I.R. was lodged which further ruled out chance of false implication. It hardly appears to be a case of mistaken identity. In cross-examination, PW 1’s wife, namely, PW4 though admitted that it was raining heavily at the relevant point of time and was not possible to see the face of each other, however, despite such elicitation by the defence, the identification of the Appellant cannot be doubted since he happens to be her brother-in-law by some relation. It is not the defence of the Appellant that somebody else was the author of the crime. No such specific stand was ever taken by the Appellant. Rather, the plea of the Appellant is one of denial simpliciter and false accusation. In addition to it, the manner in which the assault was carried out by
