After completion of the Investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed against the appellarii. In order to prove its accusations against the appellant, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 were the eye-witnesses. The documents prepared during the investigation were also filed in support of the case. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied his involvement in the crime. His plea was that a false case has been registered against him. However, he led no defence evidence. Placing reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other evidence adduced on record, the appellant as noted above was found guilty. The appeal of the appellant against his conviction came to be dismissed by the High Court. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in appreciating the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses and undue importance to the recovery of the weapon of offence (knife) has been given. It was urged that the High Court has failed to take cognizance of the fact that no motive has been attributed to the appellant for commission of the offence, therefore, the appellant could not have been found guilty of the charge levelled against him. Learned counsel next submitted that non-examination of Sumit Singh, who allegedly lodged the First Information Report of the crime in the Police Station and owner of Sandeep Pan Shop, is fatal to the prosecution case and both these witnesses were Intentionally withheld by the prosecution with a view to conceal the true facts of the case. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra, Mr. Sushil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, supported the judgments of the courts below. Mr. Singh submitted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses supported by other ocular and documentary evidence has been rightly examined and appreciated by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. He submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of the informant and other witness because the prosecution has fully established the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable and convincing evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that in the presence of direct evidence, motive recedes to the background and, therefore, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive of the appellant to commit the murder of deceased. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the conduct of the eye-witnesses is unnatural as they had not disclosed the genesis of the incident to the members of the family of the deceased on the same day or they had not immediately reported the matter to the police. After completion of the Investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed against the appellarii. In order to prove its accusations against the appellant, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 were the eye-witnesses. The documents prepared during the investigation were also filed in support of the case. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied his involvement in the crime. His plea was that a false case has been registered against him. However, he led no defence evidence. Placing reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other evidence adduced on record, the appellant as noted above was found guilty. The appeal of the appellant against his conviction came to be dismissed by the High Court. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in appreciating the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses and undue importance to the recovery of the weapon of offence (knife) has been given. It was urged that the High Court has failed to take cognizance of the fact that no motive has been attributed to the appellant for commission of the offence, therefore, the appellant could not have been found guilty of the charge levelled against him. Learned counsel next submitted that non-examination of Sumit Singh, who allegedly lodged the First Information Report of the crime in the Police Station and owner of Sandeep Pan Shop, is fatal to the prosecution case and both these witnesses were Intentionally withheld by the prosecution with a view to conceal the true facts of the case. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra, Mr. Sushil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, supported the judgments of the courts below. Mr. Singh submitted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses supported by other ocular and documentary evidence has been rightly examined and appreciated by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. He submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of the informant and other witness because the prosecution has fully established the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable and convincing evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that in the presence of direct evidence, motive recedes to the background and, therefore, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive of the appellant to commit the murder of deceased. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the conduct of the eye-witnesses is unnatural as they had not disclosed the genesis of the incident to the members of the family of the deceased on the same day or they had not immediately reported the matter to the police. Submit