B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Maiku has been convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life imprisonment for causing the death of one Sarju Prased on 9. 1. 1981 at about 3. 00 P. M. , in village Mairtola, Tahsil Umariya, District Shahdol. The deceased had sustained injuries on his neck, head and back. These injuries have proved by Dr. Ramlal Chopra (P. W. 9) and his post mortem report is EX. P. 9-A. These injuries, according to Dr. Chopra, could be caused by sharp edged weapon and injury on neck resulted fatal. The injuries were in the ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause death. Sarju Prasad's death was thus homicidal. No challenge was laid to this fact before us. ( 2 ) THE First Information Report of the incident was lodged the same day at about 6. 00 P. M. by Panchwati (PW 1 ). the wife of the deceased. According to the First Information Report, when after returning from her work, she was taking bath in a well near her house, she saw the deceased and the appellant who is the son of her sister, also coming from their work. They fought and the appellant assaulted Sarju Prasad with a cycle chain. Somehow they were separated and Panchwati persuaded her husband to go to the house of her sister so as to settle the dispute. Soon after their reaching the sisters house the appellant came with a tanqiya in his hand and gave Sarju Prasad three or four blows with it. According to the first information report, the assault was witnessed by her son Jaggu (PW 3), daughter Munni and sister's Younger Soil Chhotu alias Chhotelal (PW 5 ). Sarju Prasad died as a consequence of those injuries on the spot itself. The axe (Art. AT) was seized and was found to be blood stained according to the report of serologist (Ex. P/13 ). The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the appellant, believed Panchwati (PW 1) and found corroboration to her statement from the testimony of Jaggu (PW 3) and Chhote alias Chhotelal (PW 5 ). It was also found that the axe which was discovered at the instance of the appellant, contained human blood. P/13 ). The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the appellant, believed Panchwati (PW 1) and found corroboration to her statement from the testimony of Jaggu (PW 3) and Chhote alias Chhotelal (PW 5 ). It was also found that the axe which was discovered at the instance of the appellant, contained human blood. This evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of causing the murder of Sarju Prasad and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. ( 3 ) IN court Panchwati (PW 1) stuck to her version which she gave in the First Information Report. She deposed that first the appellant beat her, husband with cycle-chain and later when they came to the house of her sister, the appellant caused the deceased blows with tanqiya. One of those blows proved fatal. She identified the axe. In cross-examination, she stated that her sister was then not in her house and there was none-else there. In paragraph 14 of her cross-examination, she was confronted with her statement made before the Judicial Magistrate, Umatiya. She admitted that there she stated that she found the injury on the ribs of the appellant and that the said injury was caused by tanqiya. She, however, stated that she said so at the dictate of Sub-Inspector although in fact she did not see any injury on the person of the appellant. She also admitted that she had found the appellant and the deceased coming fighting from the side of the market. Jaggu (PW 3) who according to Panchwati (PW 1), was present on the spot and had seen the incident, was at the relevant time of 15 years of age. There is nothing to indicate that the learned, Sessions Judge tried to ascertain from him if he could understand the implication of questions put to him. From his deposition, it however, appears that he could follow what he has stated. On oath he has stated that be saw the appellant hitting his father with tanqiya. According to him as to the relevant time, he was pulling water from a well. He has stated in the cross-examination that inspite of his mother's shouting out for help, nobody turned up. He could not deny that he has stated before the Magistrate that the appellant and his father were seen fighting and at that time they were drunk. According to him as to the relevant time, he was pulling water from a well. He has stated in the cross-examination that inspite of his mother's shouting out for help, nobody turned up. He could not deny that he has stated before the Magistrate that the appellant and his father were seen fighting and at that time they were drunk. He deposed that he didnot see tanqiya injury on the back , of the appellant. He denied to have made any statement before the Magistrate that his father snatched the tanqiya from the appellant and in that an injury was caused to the appellant on his back. We can ignore the evidence of Chhotu alias Chhotelal (PW 5) who is aged about to years and to whom oath was administered by the learned Sessions Judge without ascertaining if he could understand the implication of what he was deposing. The only other relevant evidence on record is that of Har Mahender Singh (PW 8), the sub-Inspector of police, who investigated into the offence. He has deposed that the appellant gave the memorandum pursuant to which the tanqiya was recovered. Clothes were also recovered from his house. He did not find any injury on the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was not sent for any medical examination. Although the learned counsel for the appellant suggested that because of some contradictions in the testimony of the aforesaid witness from their earlier statements, they are not reliable we feel that the witnesses have come out with truth. There seems to be no earthly reason why the wife of the deceased Panchwati (PW 1) would falsely implicate her real sister's son. The account of the incident given by her appears to be rather natural. It is true that post mortem report (Ex. P/9-A) does not show that deceased Sarju Prasad had sustained any injury which could be caused by a cycle-chain, but merely for this, her testimony -cannot be discarded. Dr Chopra (PW 9) was not cross-examined to say if he had noticed no other injury. It may as well, therefore, be that the doctor performing post-mortem examination, directed his attention towards such visible injuries which caused the death. We cannot, therefore, discard Panchwatis statement merely because the incident of beating with cycle-chain is not corroborated by medical evidence. His deposition that the deceased was hit by tangiya is duly corroborated by Dr. It may as well, therefore, be that the doctor performing post-mortem examination, directed his attention towards such visible injuries which caused the death. We cannot, therefore, discard Panchwatis statement merely because the incident of beating with cycle-chain is not corroborated by medical evidence. His deposition that the deceased was hit by tangiya is duly corroborated by Dr. Chopra (PW 9 ). That the author of those injuries was not other than his real sisters son is duly corroborated by the testimony of Jaggu (PW 3 ). In view of the aforesaid evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that it is the appellant who hit Sarju Prasad with tanqiya and caused his death. ( 4 ) IT is in the deposition of Panchwati (PW 1) and also in the deposition of Jaggu (PW 3) that a little before the incident they had seen the deceased and the appellant coming together. They were then fighting. There is also suggestion that they were then drunk. The post mortem report (Ex. P/-9), however, does not show that the deceased had consumed liquor. The appellant who was also arrested soon after the incident was not found to be drunk. As we have stated earlier, he was not even sent for medical examination. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the appellant and the deceased were found with each other under the influence of liquor. There is also a suggestion that the appellant received an injury by tanqiya. Panchwati (PW 1) denied to have made any such statement before the Magistrate Jaggu (PW 3) however, could not even deny if any such statement was made before the Magistrate. Har Mahender Singh (PW. 8) has, however, emphatically said that he did not find any such injury on the person of the appellant. We are therefore, of the opinion that the appellant is not right in suggesting that he had received injury by tanqiya and at the hands of the deceased. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant after some quarrel with the deceased went home, brought the Tangiya and with all force and deliberation delivered blows to deceased Sarju Prasad. We, therefore, do see any reason to give the appellant benefit of any exception to Section 300, Indian Penal Code. His act in assaulting Sarju Prasad with tangiya and thereby causing his death under the circumstances established as aforesaid amount to murder. We, therefore, do see any reason to give the appellant benefit of any exception to Section 300, Indian Penal Code. His act in assaulting Sarju Prasad with tangiya and thereby causing his death under the circumstances established as aforesaid amount to murder. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel also pointed out some irregularities in investigation. It could not be shown if any such irregularity has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, for that reason the trial cannot be held vitiated. The appellant gets no benefit thereform. ( 6 ) FOR what we have said above, we are of opinion that the appellant is clearly guilty of offence of murder and he has been rightly convicted under section 301, Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) THE appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed .