U. K. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of Sri G. P. Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Ghazipur dated 3. 2. 1986 convicting the appellant Mohan Yadav under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that the appellant Mohan Yadav had committed the murder of his wife Smt. Sigeshwari Devi in his house about 3 a. m. in the night between April 4 and April 5, 1985 in village Rayeespur, P. S. Saidpur, District Ghasipur. It had been seen by the brother of the deceased Ram Narain Yadav P. W. 2, his friend Mangala Singh (P. W. 3), Kumar Yadav, the father of the appellant and some other persons living in the vicinity. ( 3 ) THE document Ex. Ka 4 indicates that during preparation of the inquest report, the investigating officer had also made recovery of certain blood stained clothes and shoes of the appellant and the sickle and the broken Iota with which the injuries on Smt. Sigeshwari Devi had been inflicted. The sickle, had a pointed iron handle. Marks of blood had been present on it and also on the Iota. ( 4 ) THE autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Sigeshwari Devi had been done on 6. 4. 1985 at 4 p. m. It follows there from that she had sustained the following ante-mortem injuries:1. Oblique lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm. x bone deep on the forehead, 3 cm. above the root of nose. 2. Vertical penetrating wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 6 cm. mouth cavity deep, directed downwards, forwards and left wards, spindle shaped; situated on the right temple. 5 cm. behind and below the outer angle of the left eye. 3. Oblique penetrating wound 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. bone deep on the right cheek, 0. 5. cm below injury No. 2 directed downwards, forwards and leftwards. 4. Curved incised wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. (bone deep) on the right temple (lower part) 2 cm. behind injury No. 2 direction down wards. 5. Horizontal incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm. x mouth cavity deep on the left cheek; 1 cm. outer to the left angle of mouth. 6. Penetrating wound 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. (bone deep) on the right temple (lower part) 2 cm. behind injury No. 2 direction down wards. 5. Horizontal incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm. x mouth cavity deep on the left cheek; 1 cm. outer to the left angle of mouth. 6. Penetrating wound 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm x bone deep on the left cheek, 2 cm. below injury No. 5. 7. Anterior posterior lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the right side of skull, 4 cm. above the outer angle of right eye. 8. Horizontal contusion 6. 5 cm. x 4. 5 cm. on the anterior surface of the neck over hyoid. The internal examination revealed that there was a full term male baby in the uterus. In the stomach was found 2 oz. of semi digested rice and pulse. The frontal and hyoid bones had been fractured. ( 5 ) THE doctor who had opined the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of strangulation, had also recorded that fronthy blood was coming out from the nostrils, cars and mouth and fluid blood from the vagina. ( 6 ) THE prosecution witness Ram Narain Yadava (P. W. 2) deposed that his sister Smt. Sigeshwari deceased was being cruelly treated by the appellant. She had come to live in her parental house for that reason. Mohan appellant had gone to bring her back. They did not agree initially to it but ultimately sent her to live with him a year before the incident. She had a child of him about six years old. He had been at the house of his I deceased sister in the night when the incident took place. Mohan appellant and his sister as pointed by him earlier went to sleep between 10 and 11 p. m. About 3 a. m. in the night he heard the shrieks of her sister. The door of the room was closed. He sawthe appellant assaulting his sister with sickle and iota from the window opening in the courtyard which as follows from the site plan Ex. Ka 9 could be reached after a long round. When Mohan did not stop the assault inspite of his asking him not to do so, he rushed to reach the door which was on the other side thirty to forty steps from there. Ka 9 could be reached after a long round. When Mohan did not stop the assault inspite of his asking him not to do so, he rushed to reach the door which was on the other side thirty to forty steps from there. Mohan appellant in the meantime, however, after locking the door ran away. Mohan was living separately from his parents from two years. He had gone to the village Rayeespur of his own from the village Rampur Manjha where some children had gone to take examination. His village Manikpur was at a distance of 12 to 13 Kms. from Rampur Manjha whereas Rayeespur was at a distance of 8 Kms. from there. His friend Mangla had accompanied him. In the cross-examination later he gave out that he could not say as to when Mohan appellant and Sigeshwari deceased had gone to sleep after taking their meals. The mother and sister of Mohan took two to three minutes to open the door through which he got into the courtyard from where he saw the incident. Mangla had also gone with him inside the courtyard. He had seen his sister on her belly while she was being assaulted. The father of Mohan had broken open the lock of the door from which he had entered the room wherein Smt. Sigeshwari had been murdered. His father had also gone inside it with him. The body of Smt. Sigeshwari was half- naked. Her clothes were torn. He scribed the report in the police station. He did not mention in the F. I. R. about the assault with iota as he was perturbed. In the room wherein the incident took place there was a lighted Diya. ( 7 ) MANGLA Singh (P. W. 3) deposed that the door of the room at the time of the incident had been closed from inside;. He and Ram Narain had seen Mohan appellant assaulting Smt. Sigeshwari from the window in the courtyard. He had not gone to village Rayeespur earlier. He could not say how long it took him to reach Rayeespur from Rampur Manjha. He and Ram Narain both had taken their meals in the house of Mohan. They thereafter came out while Mohan and Sigeshwari remained inside the house. He did not see any other male or female member in the house wherein Mohan and Smt. Sigeshwari resided. He could not say how long it took him to reach Rayeespur from Rampur Manjha. He and Ram Narain both had taken their meals in the house of Mohan. They thereafter came out while Mohan and Sigeshwari remained inside the house. He did not see any other male or female member in the house wherein Mohan and Smt. Sigeshwari resided. He saw Smt. Sigeshwari lying naked in the room after the door was opened. None else was present there. There was merely one room in the house of Mohan. At the time of the incident there was a lantern inside it. Mohan while assaulting was pressing the neck of Smt. Sigeshwari with his fool. He denied to have told the Investigating Officer that he had seen Mohan throttling the neck of Smt. Sigeshwari with his hand. ( 8 ) THE appellant was given opportunity to state about each incriminating circumstance on record against him. The appellant inspite of all the efforts made by the Sessions Judge chose to keep his lips tight. The Sessions Judge in his judgment has mentioned as to how he was of the view that the appellant was neither deaf nor dumb. The appellant is shown by him to have expressed the desire to be defended by amicus-curiae after he had mentioned to him that he could call his counsel from the Bar Association. The appellant, there appears no good reason to presume suffers from any mental infirmity. The father of the appellant had been named as a witness in the F. I. R. The appellant did not request that he be examined. His father as given but by Ram Narain Yadava, (PW-2), had been living separately from him. Ram Narain Yadava, the brother of the deceased could safely be credited with the knowledge that Smt. Sigeshwari deceased and Mohan appellant alone were living in the room wherein Smt. Sigeshwari Devi was found murdered. Smt. Sigeshwari \is was clear from the post-mortem report was about to deliver a child. It could not reasonably be expected that in the advanced stage of her pregnancy she could have been done to death by some one when he failed to satisfy his sexual thirst. Smt. Sigeshwari \is was clear from the post-mortem report was about to deliver a child. It could not reasonably be expected that in the advanced stage of her pregnancy she could have been done to death by some one when he failed to satisfy his sexual thirst. The incident having taken place in a room of the house in a portion of which the parents and sister of the appellant also resided, it was very unlikely that an outsider would have committed the murder and fled away after locking the door from outside. The post-mortem report shows that Smt. Sigeshwari Devi had been given several blows. She had been hit both with sickle and Iota and strangulated. Smt. Sigeshwari during the assault would naturally have cried. If some outsider would have committed the murder, the parents and sister of Mohan appellant could never have spared him and lodged a report against him. ( 9 ) RAM Narain Yadav (P. W. 2) has pointed in his statement that his sister used to be beaten by Mohan and on account of it, she had gone to live with him and her parents. He also, as mentioned above, had pointed that she had again gone to live with Mohan only a year back. There appears no reason at all to view with any suspicion this statement of his. The Investigating Officer had interrogated a large number of persons living in the vicinity to ascertain as to what could be the cause of the murder of Smt. Sigeshwari. There appears no reason to doubt atleast that the appellant Mohan was ill-disposed towards Smt. Sigeshwari deceased. The suggestion on behalf of the counsel for the appellant during trial that Smt. Sigeshwari had gone to live with her parents because of the poverty of the appellant is altogether unfounded. ( 10 ) THE Investigating Officer, as pointed above, had found some male garments soaked with blood inside the room wherein Smt. Sigeshwari had been assaulted. In the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 4 they were pointed to belong to the appellant. The appellant was confronted with this circumstance but he did not repudiate it. ( 10 ) THE Investigating Officer, as pointed above, had found some male garments soaked with blood inside the room wherein Smt. Sigeshwari had been assaulted. In the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 4 they were pointed to belong to the appellant. The appellant was confronted with this circumstance but he did not repudiate it. The mere fact that the appellant could not be apprehended while committing the crime and managed to make, good his escape although Ram Narain (P. W. 2) and Mangla (P. W. 3) were said to have chased him could not show that he was just a victim of suspicion or else he would have been apprehended. It is true that Ram Narain (P. W. 2) had no work in the village Rayeespur on the date of the incident but this circumstance could not completely rule out his visit there. It was pointed that he had gone to help children take examination in Rampur Manjha which was quite likely in the month of April. Further there was another sister of his married in the same village and he could be anxious about Smt. Sigeshwari deceased in her advance stage of pregnancy. Ram Narain (P. W. 2) stated about the breaking open of the lock by the father of the appellant and he also having seen the appellant assaulting and thereafter running away. In the First Information Report there is averment that Kumar Yadav was a witness of the crime along with others. The attention of the appellant had been drawn to the F. I. R. but he did not deny its correctness. It could not be said to be so belated for it had been lodged within seven and a half hours of the incident and within four hours or so of the sunrise at the police station which was four miles from the place of the incident. So far as Mangla is concerned it is true that he could not state about the time taken by him in reaching Rayeespur from Rampur Manjha and about the exact time of his arrival at Rayeespur. He also gave a different statement with regard to the light inside the room for he pointed that a lantern was burning and not a Diya therein. His statement with regard to lantern does not find corroboration from the recovery memo Ex. K-4. He also gave a different statement with regard to the light inside the room for he pointed that a lantern was burning and not a Diya therein. His statement with regard to lantern does not find corroboration from the recovery memo Ex. K-4. He could not tell as to how the room wherein Smt. Sigeshwari Devi had been murdered was got opened. These features of his statement do show that he is not quite a worthy witness but even if his statement is discarded, there remain strong circumstances against the appellant dealt with above coupled with the statement of Ram Narain (P. W. 2) and fair investigation by Surendra Pandey, S. H. O. Police Station Saidpur and nondenial by the appellant of his complicity in the crime which safely lead us to the conclusion that the finding of guilt recorded by the Sessions Judge against the appellant does not call for interference. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life are upheld. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the Sessions Judge. Appeal dismissed. .