from the evidence of P.W.2 that at the time of occurrence, there was sufficient source of light for identification of the accused. Hence, the charge framed against the appellant was duly proved by the prosecution. 11.1. With respect to non-examination of some witnesses, it was submitted by the learned counsel that such lapse is insufficient to discard the ocular evidence led by the prosecution. 11.2. Thus, according to the learned counsel, upon proper appreciation of the material evidence, the Sessions Court rightly convicted the appellant of the offence under section 302 r/w 34 IPC as also affirmed by the High Court and hence, there is no requirement to interfere with such concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below.9 12. As pointed out earlier, in connection with murder of the father of the complainant on 30.10.1997 at 9.45 p.m., the appellant was subjected to criminal prosecution, along with three accused viz., Veer Singh, Mintu and Dharamveer for the offence under section 302