JUDGMENT 1. - Bhagwana, the appellant-accused, has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 302, IPC, imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, for committing murder of Mst. Khandobai w/o Shri Mitturam. 2. The prosecusion case, in brief, commenced with the F.I.R. (Ex. P. 1) lodged by Mitturam s/o Chclaram Rajput on 17th September, 1978 at police Station Ramgarh (Alwar) alleging that he had gone to his father-in-law house in village Meghawas in the evening of 16th September, 1978 and, in his own village Hajipur, his mother Mst. Pedibai, his wife-Mst. Khandobai and three children were there. On the next day morning at about 8 a. m., Thariyaram from his village came to Meghawas and informed him that in the night at 11 p.m. while Mst. Khandobai was worshipping on the occasion of 'Chandragrahan' on her cot, accused Bhagwana came and inflicted knife blow and seriously injured her. Upon this information, Mitturam rushed to his village Hajipur and there, he found his wife Mst. Khandobai laying with pool of blood. There after, he took his wife to Nowganwa hospital where she breathed to her last. As per report, it was brought to the notice of Mitturam that when Bhagwana injured his wife, his mother Mst. Pedibai who was sleeping near Mst. Khando Bai's cot, raised an alaram and, on hearing the cries of his wife and mother, neighbours-Nikkobai, Thariyaram, and Lalluram etc., reached there and witnessed the occurrence. 3. A case was registered under section 302, Indian Penal Code and after usual investigation of the case, accused Bhagwana was challenged. After commitment, accused Bhagwana was tried by the learned Sessions Judge. As many as 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. and he denied the allegations. 4. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments, in a detailed comprehensive judgment, arrived at the finding that it was the accused Bhagwana, who with a dragger caused serious injuries to Mst. Khandobai resulting into her death. 5. Dr. C. B. Mathur (PW4) who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Khandobai stated in his statement that he found four injuries on her body. He opined that the injuries No. 1 & 2 were simple caused by sharp weapon and injuries No. 3 and 4 were perforating injuries caused by sharp pointed weapon. 5. Dr. C. B. Mathur (PW4) who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Khandobai stated in his statement that he found four injuries on her body. He opined that the injuries No. 1 & 2 were simple caused by sharp weapon and injuries No. 3 and 4 were perforating injuries caused by sharp pointed weapon. All the injuries were found to be anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. According to the doctor's statement, death was caused due to shock, profuse bleeding and injuries on the vital organs, i.e. left lung and intestines and which, particularly either of the injuries No. 3 & 4, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Mathur also found a dead healthy foetus of thirty weeks present in the uterus of Mst. Khandobai, which was on account of these injuries. Lalluram (PW-8) also got one simple injury of sweating on left knee. 6. From the above evidence, it is clear that the death was of homicidal nature and, the learned Amicus curiae has also not been able to challenge these findings. 7. While coming to the evidence of eye witness, Mst. Pedibai (PW2) who is mother-in-law of the deceased Mst. Khandobai is the most important witness in the present case. According to her statement, Bhagwana accuse came in the night and asked about Mitthuram. In reply, she stated that he had gone to his father-in-law's house. Upon this reply, Bhanwana told her that, if Mitthu is not there, does not matter, let him talk with the wife of Mitthu. Mst. Pedibai (PW 2) further stated that, saying that sentence, accused Bhagwana started inflicting her daughter-in-law Mst. Khandobai with dragger. She saw accused inflicting injuries on chest, arm of left hand of Mst. Khandobai. The motive for causing this murder, as per version of Mst. Pedibai (PW 2) in her statement was that accused-Bhagwana wanted to engage his daughter with her son-Dalu but, Mitthu had refused for this engagements. 8. The learned counsel has not been able to show any infirmity in her statement. All that he pointed out was that this witness-Mst. Pedibai (PW 2) in the police statement admitted that her sight was not very good. 8. The learned counsel has not been able to show any infirmity in her statement. All that he pointed out was that this witness-Mst. Pedibai (PW 2) in the police statement admitted that her sight was not very good. In our opinion, when the witness was sitting near the cot of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence in a closed vicinity, no importance can be attached to it because she was in a position to witness the occurrence. It should not be forgotten that the accused first attacked to the deceased and, therefore, the witness knew very well as to who was the accused and the accused was well known to the family and the accused was not a stranger. 9. Tharyarm (PW 3) corroborated the testimony given by Mst. Pedibai (PW 2). He is also neighbour and natural witness duly attracted by alarms and cries of the deceased and Mst. Pedibai (PW 2). 10. Nothing has been shown why this witness-Tharyaram (PW 3) should be disbelieved. Lalluram (PW 3) reached the place of occurrence after hearing cries of Mst. Pedibai and saw the accused Bhagwana inflicting three-four injuries to Mst. Khandobai with a dragger. It is important to notice that this witness-Lalluram (PW 3) tried to intervene and challenged the accused but, on which the accused threatened him and thereafter ran away giving blow by leg. 11. Dr. C. B. Mathur (PW 4) corroborated that Lalluram (PW 8) received injuries and, as such, the testimony of Lalluram (PW 8) is of sterling worth because his presence on the spot and, the version that accused gave a kick to him, is also proved by the medical evidence. Mst. Pedibai (PW 2), Tharyaram (PW 3) and Mst. Nikkobai (PW 18) also stated that Lalluram carne there while the incident was going on. This witness Mst. Nikkobai (PW 18) is also neighbour and her presence is natural one on the alarams and cries by Mst. Pedibai (PW 2). 12. Mst. Nikkobai (PW 18) also corroborated that she saw the accused going to the house of the deceased with a long knife and, then she heard cries of Mst. Pedibai (PW 2) and on which she reached the scene of the occurrence. She has also seen the accused striking with knife on the person of Mst. Khandobai. 13. It would thus be seen that all the four witnesses, Mst. Pedibai (PW 2) and on which she reached the scene of the occurrence. She has also seen the accused striking with knife on the person of Mst. Khandobai. 13. It would thus be seen that all the four witnesses, Mst. Pedibai (PW 2), Tharyaram (PW 3), Lalluram (PW 8) and Mst. Nikkobai (PW 18) proved that it was the accused Bhagwana and accused alone who struck repeatedly on the person of Mst. Khandobai with a long knife (dragger). It is immaterial that one calls it a knife or dragger or long knife. 14. The learned counsel laid great emphasis on the fact that all these witnesses have stated that the injuries were caused when Mst. Khandobai was sitting on the cot but no blood stains have been detected on that cot and, therefore, the entire story is false and concocted one. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the cot was recovered after 16 days and, therefore, it was not possible to have blood stains on the cot in such a quantity where it could have been detected by the serologist. 16. We have examined this aspect of the case and, find that the recovery of the cot was made after a fortnight and, therefore, if the human blood could not be detected on account of insufficiency of the quantity for determination, this circumstance cannot be given such an importance so as to reject and discard the testimony of all the four witnesses being wholly independent and natural witnesses. 17. We are convinced that the learned Sessions judge was justified in holding that Bhagwana accused is wholly responsible for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code as he had intentionally .caused the death of Mst. Khandobai by giving four successive blows with a dragger which is a sharp edged and pointed weapon. 18. The learned trial Court has also placed reliance upon the circumstantial evidence for the 'corroboration of the eye witnesses and relied upon the evidence of Safeda (PW7) who saw the accused running away with a dragger in his hand and, thereafter extra judicial confession which the accused- Bhagwana made before Bannaram (PW 12). Undoubtedly, the above evidence supports the eye witness's version and corroborated them, it is also true that the medical evidence also corroborated the testimony of the eye witnesses which we have relied upon. 19. Undoubtedly, the above evidence supports the eye witness's version and corroborated them, it is also true that the medical evidence also corroborated the testimony of the eye witnesses which we have relied upon. 19. We do not think it necessary to discuss other evidence of other witnesses because, in our opinion, we are convinced that the finding of the learned Sessions judge about the appreciation of their evidence is justified on facts and even on the fresh appraisal of the evidence, we do not find any infirmity. 20. The learned trial court has also discussed the evidence regarding the motive and we are also in agreement with the trial court that the motive as disclosed by the mother in law of the deceased in her statement (PW2) with regard to refusal by Mitthuram (PW3) for engagement of daughter of the accused with the son of Mst. Pedibai (PW2), also wholly justified. 21. It is not necessary to repeat the entire evidence again because in our opinion, on a thorough and comprehensive consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions judge has recorded the findings of the guilty against the accused. Bhagwana and our fresh appraisal also shows that the presumption proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable shadows of doubt. 22. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal of the appellant- Bhagwana fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code awarded to Bhagwana S/o Binduram Rajput of Hajipur, to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment is upheld. The accused- appellant is in jail. He may be detained to undergo the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar vide judgment dated 31-7-1979. *******