JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by accused Meghraj alias Bhhotiya who has been convicted by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur under S. 302 I. P. C. for Committing the murder of his own wife Pushpa. 2. Pushpa deceased was first married to Ramdeo. The couple last rest dead at Lucknow in U. P. Ramdeo and Pushpa's marriage resulted in birth of two daughters and one son, one of them being P. W. 1 Savitri. Ramdeo expired. Pushpa then came to Jodhpur. Pushpa after coming to Jodhpur resided with the accused as Natayat along with three children from his earlier husband Ramdeo. 3. On March 25, 1979, the accused took a Malia on rent from Mohanraj (P. W. 5.) Pushpa and the three children started living in this Malia. 4. On March 27, 1979 at about 4 P. M. in the afternoon, it is alleged that the accused had an altercation with Pushpa on the paternity of the child which was in the womb of Pushpa, as accused suspected that she was carrying child to the womb of some other person who was the real father. It is alleged that the accused suggested Pushpa that she must have abortion but Pushpa refused, as according to Pushpa it was the accused who was the father of this child and no one else. 5. It is alleged that thereafter the accused committed murder of Pushpa in the Malia where she was sleeping and which was witnessed by her daughter Savitri. It is also alleged that accused made extra judicial confession before Baldeo and Baldeo thereafter went to the Police Station Khanda Falsa and lodged the first information report Ex. P. 1. in which the entire incident was mentioned. The S. H. O. registered the case and then conducted the investigation. On the completion of the investigation, the S. H O. filed the chargesheet and after commitment to Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution hearing both the evidence of the parties convicted the accused for the murder of Pushpa as mentioned above. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of P. W. 1 Savitri and P. W. 2 Baldeo. 7. The learned Amicus Curias has challenged the finding of the trial court. 8. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of P. W. 1 Savitri and P. W. 2 Baldeo. 7. The learned Amicus Curias has challenged the finding of the trial court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused at length and perused the record and also the reply of the Public Prosecutor. 9. An important feature of this case is that the entire case depends upon the testimony of P. W. 1 Savitri daughter of the deceased. Savitri is said to be 12 years of age at the time of the alleged murder of her mother, 10. She was an eyewitness to the entire incident as the entire family of the accused, Savitri, Savitris mother Pushpa and other two children were living in one Malia. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that Savitris statement fails to inspire confidence because she has changed her version. Her testimony is inconsistent which is improbable and further she has not been corroborated by Baldee (PW 2). It was pointed out that Savitri in her statement in examination-in-chief gave the story that when the deceased was injured by the accused she wanted to cry but she was stopped by the accused on the threat that she would also be killed. Thereafter the accused remained sitting for sufficient time. During that time he called his brother in the nearby house and the brother was not available. He asked brothers wife to get car for taking Pushpa to hospital. This version has not been corroborated by any other evidence and in cross-examination the story given is contradictory according to the Amicus Curiae. It was then pointed out that according to the cross-examination-version when she cried Baldeo and other persons came inside the Malia who were attracted by her cries and then the people collected outside the house. It was pointed out that this version is not only inconsistent with the earlier version given in the examination-in-chief. Further Baldeo's version is absolutely different because according to Baldeo the accused came to his shop and made extra judicial confession on account of which he along with accused went to the Malia where the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. 12. Further Baldeo's version is absolutely different because according to Baldeo the accused came to his shop and made extra judicial confession on account of which he along with accused went to the Malia where the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. 12. The Amicus Curiae further submitted that Baldeos version that extra judicial confession was made at his shop and further that when he reached the Malia Savitri told the details of the incident and the part played by the accused is not corroborated by the testimony of Savitri as Savitri has not stated that she told the story to Baldeo. 13. The learned Amicus Curiae further pointed out that the inquest report prepared was not prepared in the Malia but was prepared in the Police Station because according to the statement of Mohanlal, in the house there is only one Malia but the S. H. O. has stated that there were two apartments in the Malia. He again pointed out that the inquest report did pot contain the name of the accused and how he caused injury also does not find mention and the presence of Savitri has not been mentioned which goes to show that this inquest report is a fabricated document prepared in the Police Station. 14. The learned Amicus Curiae laid great stress on the importance of the inquest report and stated that the inquest report should contain all material facts regarding the name of the accused so that the important material which is available at the first possible opportunity is brought on the record, and the absence of such data would create doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the appeal. On a thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions we would like first to discuss the alleged infirmities in Savitris statement as pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae. However, before discussing them we must mention that Savitri at the time of giving statement was questioned by the Sessions Judge in order to find out whether she is competent to testify and whether she appreciates and understand the sanctity of oath. Savitri was 11 or 12 years of age and according to her statement when she appeared to give her statement she was married. Savitri was 11 or 12 years of age and according to her statement when she appeared to give her statement she was married. The answers which she has given to the various questions put by the Court undoubtedly shows that she was intelligent enough to understand the difference between truth and falsehood, the result of speaking false and the sanctity of oath. 16. She has given the entire history of how her mother was living at Lucknow with her father and how after death of her father Ramdeo, they came to Jodhpur. She has also stated the basic reason of the between the deceased and the accused and that was on account of her mother conceiving a child which according to accused was not his but of some other person and the accused insisted of abortion which was resisted too by the deceased. 17. In our opinion, these features of her statement shows that she at the age of 11 or 12 years was quiet intelligent and the faculty of observation memory of this girl are excellent. 18. The Amicus Curiaes submission that when Baldeo came to the Malia Savitri did not disclose that accused has killed deceased, is not correct She positively said This part of her statement is corroborated by Baldeo also. 19. The mere fact that in the examination-in-chief she gave the story that the accused tried to call his brother and told his brother's wife to get a car from Kalu for taking Puspa to hospital and thereafter the accused remained sitting outside that Malia for two to three hours, is not inconsistent with the accused going for son time to Baldeos shop which is on the ground floor and making an extra confession. No question was put to her by the counsel for the accused that at no point of time the accused went out of Malia and came back. Unless there is specific contradiction on this point, merely by general statement that for about 2-3 hours to accused remained out side the Malia would not rule out the possibility of the accuse going down stairs and making a confessional statement to Baldeo. 20. Similarly the mere fact that in the cross-examination witness has stall that people came attracted by her cries would not mean that the extra judicial consistent was not made to Baldeo. In our opinion, both are consistent and there is inconsistency. 20. Similarly the mere fact that in the cross-examination witness has stall that people came attracted by her cries would not mean that the extra judicial consistent was not made to Baldeo. In our opinion, both are consistent and there is inconsistency. 21. Much stress was laid on the time factor and it was argued that to witness came after taking the flour with half an hour from a flour mill and by the time there was going to be sun set and evening. According to this version in to cross-examination the incident took place near about the sun set time but the version in the statement is that it took place near about 4. 22. We are not prepared to disbelieve the witness merely because to estimate of time is slightly different in different context in the same statement. We cannot brush aside and for set the important factor that Savitri is an illiterate girl and belonging to poor scheduled caste and was only of about 11 years at the time she observed the incident. Even in the case of statement of major adult educated people such time difference is implicit and inherent. 23. It appears to us that the whole incident and the various actions after the incident happened after 4 P. M. and in the ever. It was the month of March and normally the sun sets at about 6 or 6.30 P. M. That being so, from 4 to 6.30 there was 2 1/2 hours time at the relevant time and that being so the estimate can differ. 24. The fact that Savitri was there in the Malia near the deceased finds place in the first information report Ex. 1 also. It mentions that Savitri was sitting by the side of the deceased and was weeping and on inquiry she stated that her father has killed her mother and the reason for the murder was the father's suspicion that her mother has conceived child from some other person and she should get the child removed by abortion, a suggestion which was not accepted by mother. 25. This first information report was recorded by the Police at P. S. Khanda Falsa in the night at about 8 30 P. M. The sub-inspector went to the spot after recording the first information report and he has also stood as P. W. 6 Ramchandra. 25. This first information report was recorded by the Police at P. S. Khanda Falsa in the night at about 8 30 P. M. The sub-inspector went to the spot after recording the first information report and he has also stood as P. W. 6 Ramchandra. He reached the spot after recording the first information report which was presented in writing by Baldeo at about 8.30 Ramchandra's statement further shows that Savitri was there and Savitris statement was recorded on the spot. Baldeo accompanied him and his statement was also recorded there. After recording the statement of these two witnesses on the spot, the accused was arrested on the spot. 26. Nothing has been shown by way or any contradiction from the police statement of the F. I. R. to discredit this version which is borne out by the statements of Savitri, Ramchandra and Baldeo. We are, therefore, of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that Savitri was a natural witness and her presence with her mother in the house was natural. Her testimony has inspired confidence and she has not been shaken in the cross-examination. She has answered all the questions with remarkable truthfulness and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve her. 27. We, therefore, feel that the sole statement of Savitri in the facts and circumstances of the present case could have been held sufficient for proving the alleged offence by the accused. 28. We may now turn to the statement of Baldeo. Baldeo has proved extra judicial confession made by the accused immediately after the occurrence at the shop of Baldeo. Baldeo went to the Malia with the accused and inquired from Savitri and whatever confession was made by the accused before Baldeo was confirmed by the statement of Saviri on the spot. Baldeo also observed the dead body, and the Scissors and Soti lying in blood in the Malia. He went to the Police Station and filed the first information report and that report corroborates the statement of Baldeo. 29. It has not been shown in manner why Baldeo should be disbelieved. The accused in his statement has said that Baldeo used to come to his wife and thereby he suggested that Baldeo had illicit relations with his wife. He went to the Police Station and filed the first information report and that report corroborates the statement of Baldeo. 29. It has not been shown in manner why Baldeo should be disbelieved. The accused in his statement has said that Baldeo used to come to his wife and thereby he suggested that Baldeo had illicit relations with his wife. Various questions were put to Baldeo in cross-examination, and therefore, the Sessions Judge was justified in observing that this explanation is an after thought in a non-successful effort to discredit Baldeo. 30. We are of the opinion that Baldeo is a witness whose presence on his shop which is on the ground floor of this Malia near by was natural Baldeo and the accused both are Mochi by caste and there is no reason to think that Baldeo would falsely implicate the accused. Normally the instinct would be to exculpate and try to save the accused who was of his same community and is neighbour after the death of the deceased and too the witness had no interest. The fact that Baldeo has supported the prosecution lonely shows that he is an independent witness of sterling worth. The first information report borates Baldeos testimony and it was lodged in the Police Station immediately after the occurrence within a few hours only. The learned Amicus Curiae has not pointed out that in any manner Baldeo has improved his statement. 31. All that was argued was that if Baldeo would have been known the accuseds name then he would have informed the police then the Police came for preparation of the inquest report and the inquest report would have contained the name of the accused. 32. In this connection our attention was drawn to S. 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code which enjoins upon the Officer Incharge of the Police Station who had received the information about such offence to prepare the inquest report. The relevant portion of Section 174 is as under:- "Shall make an investigation and draw open report of the apparent cause of death description such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted." 33. In this respect the learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the judgment of this Court in Banwari v. State of Rajasthan (1978 R. L. W. 340) where in it was observed that inquest report is a document of vital importance and has to be prepared promptly. It was observed further that if the facts about the occurrence are mentioned in the inquest report, it would go to show that by that time the true version of the occurrence had been known. If, however, the facts of the incident are not mentioned in the inquest report, it would mean that, the Investigating Officer, who had prepared the inquest report was not definite about the factual position. 34. A perusal of para 11 of the above judgment would show that in that case on first information report regarding the murder was lodged with the police, The name of eye-witness Jeevansingh was not disclosed in the inquest report. Their Lordships were discussing the effect of non mention of the source of information to the inquest report where the name of the accused was mentioned in a case where the first information report is not lodged. 35. The absence of sowce of knowledge of the name of the accused was held ; to be material to discredit the eyewitness. Gurdeosingh v. State (Punjab Law Report (1963 Vol. 65 page 409) was relied upon in which it was mentioned that the inquest report is a document of vital importance. It was from Gurdeosingh (supra) that this argument was made by the counsel in the case of Banwari (supra) that if the Investigation Officer at the time of preparation of the inquest report was not definite about the factual position then it is an important circumstance against the prosecution. Their Lordships said that this argument cannot be said to be devoid of force. Then they discussed that the witness Jeewansingh had tried to be an omniscient person and this witness was patently to the injury. On the totality of the circumstances the witnesss testimony was found to be insufficient in the absent of corroboration. 36. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1975 S. C. 1962). Then they discussed that the witness Jeewansingh had tried to be an omniscient person and this witness was patently to the injury. On the totality of the circumstances the witnesss testimony was found to be insufficient in the absent of corroboration. 36. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1975 S. C. 1962). Head note (B) reads as under:- "Murder case-Inquest report-Names of four out of nine accused missing in the body of the inquest report-Omission not explained-Prosecution party inimical to accused-Omission, held throw doubt on complicity of four accused-F. I. R. found to have been written after inquest report was prepared by A.S.I.-F. I. R. held lost ints authenticity." In the above decision there were 9 accused but the name of four were not mentioned in the inquest report and the omission was not explained. The High Court treated as a doubtful circumstance as in that case that this circumstance shows that High Court was justified in holding omission of the names of the four acquitted by the High Court in the inquest report was a very importance circumstance which went in favour of the four accused. This casts doubt on the authenticity of the F.I.R. 37. We have gone through the above judgment and we find that no explanation was given while nine names were known but only four were omitted and five were mentioned in the inquest report.In para 6 their Lordships observed that names of four accused were deliberately added in the inquest report at the instance of the prosecution and this circumstance was treated as an adverse circumstance against the prosecution. 38. It would thus be seen that the factors regarding the mentioning or non-mentioning of the names of the accused in the inquest are to be considered in each individual case on its own and there cannot be any suggestion. In Pedda Narayan a v. State of A. P. (1975 SCC (Cri.) 427) their Lordships observed as under. "The object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstance or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. In Pedda Narayan a v. State of A. P. (1975 SCC (Cri.) 427) their Lordships observed as under. "The object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstance or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report. From the mere fact that these were not noted in the inquest report it cannot be concluded that the statement given by the witnesses and read over at the inquest did not contain these overt acts and the statements produced at the trial are those of the witnesses which were taken later. Hence the omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of court." 39. We feel that the object of the 174 proceedings has been very aptly laid down Pedda Narayans case (supra) and that clearly shows that details are foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under S. 174 Cr. P. C. 40. In the instant case we find that the inquest report was made by the officer concerned in the presence of the witnesses and in the Malia itself after the first information report had been recorded in the Police. No question has been put to the S. H. O. as to why the name of the accused was not mentioned in the inquest report. We are certain that if this question would have been put to the S. H. O. he would have certainly stated that the practice of preparation of the inquest report never requires mentioning of name of the accused and details. 41. We, therefore, feel that non-mention of the name of the accused in the inquest report is not fatal to the prosecution and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on that adecount. 42. We are, therefore, satisfied that the statement of Savitri (P. W. 1) read with statement of Baldeo (P. W. 2) and the first information report Ex. P. 1 providing corroboration read with statement of Dr. 42. We are, therefore, satisfied that the statement of Savitri (P. W. 1) read with statement of Baldeo (P. W. 2) and the first information report Ex. P. 1 providing corroboration read with statement of Dr. N. S. Kothari (P. W. 4) who has conducted the post mortem clearly goes to show that the accused committed the murder of the deceased. The Doctor found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on the right forehead laterally in oblique direction near scalp hair margin with surrounded abrasion 3.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. with illdefiued swelling right temple region. On opening the sealp there was a cephalo-haematoma in the right frentc-parietal region of the scalp. There was a depressed fracture of right fronto-temporal bone extending as fissured fracture of right parietal bone and anterior cranial fossa with partially clotted blood coming out front the nose and mouth. 2. Incised wound 3.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x bone deep on the right eye-brow -obliquely. 3. Incised wound 1 cm. x 0.3 cm. x bone deep on the medial end of right eye-brow obliquely near upper part of the bridge of nose right side. 4. Incised wound 3 cm. x 1/2cm. x muscles deep on the left upper eye-lid in transverse direction. 5. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x mucus membrane deep on the inner aspect of right lower lip with abrasion 2.5 x 1 cm. on the right side of the chin and outer aspect of right lower lip. 6. Stal wound 1 cm. x 0.4 cm. x muscle deep in transverse direction on the right side of the neck. I cm. above the medial end of right clavical. 7. Stal wound I cm. x 0.4 cm. x muscle deep on the transverse direction just below the injury No. 6. 8. Stab wound 1.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on the right side of the neck below thyroid cartilage in the transverse direction 3.5. Cm away from the side line. 9. Stab wound 1 cm. x 0-4 x muscle deep 1 cm. above the injury No.S and 4 cm. away from the mid line in the transverse direction. 10. Two small stab wound each 0.4 cm. x 0.3. cm. muscle deep on the right side of the neck deep on the right of the neck just lateral to injury No. 8. 11. x 0-4 x muscle deep 1 cm. above the injury No.S and 4 cm. away from the mid line in the transverse direction. 10. Two small stab wound each 0.4 cm. x 0.3. cm. muscle deep on the right side of the neck deep on the right of the neck just lateral to injury No. 8. 11. There was a gravid uterus of size 18 cm. x 13 cm. x 7 cm. having foetus 12 to 16 weeks size, 12.5 cm. long, weight was 35 grams with placenta and cord. The sex was indistinguishable. Note : Stab wound on the right side of the neck (injury) No. 6 to 10 wen muscle deep and muscle tissues are stained with blood and muscula mass contains blood clots. All these injuries were ante mortem. 43. In the opinion of Doctor the cause of death of Smt. Pushpa was come as result of head injury. 44. There is no doubt, in the instant case that, this offence was committee deliberately, intentionally, voluntarily having full knowledge and the weapot used were intended to cause death of the deceased and, therefore, the present one was the case where the accused has rightly been convicted of the offence of murder. 45. No other point was argued before us. 46. We are satisfied that the conviction of the accused under section 302 I. P. C. for causing the murder of his wife Pushpa is fully justified and is based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence and law. 47. The accused has already been sentenced to the lesser sentence: imprisonment for life. 48. Consequently. the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. *******