JUDGMENT E.S. Da Silva, J - The appellant is the original accused who has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a direction that the detention that he has undergone from the date of his arrest on 29-1-1989 till the date of the judgment should be set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 25th January, 1989 between 10-30 and 17 hours at Ambede, Nagargao, the appellant assaulted his wife Banabai Kumbar with stones and fist blows on her chest and forehead killing her on the spot on the suspicion that she was having illicit relations and thereby committed offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. On behalf of the prosecution, the evidence of P.W.3 Rayappa Siddhappa Sar has been recorded who has stated that he knows the appellant who was working along with him in the property of one Harmalkar at Maloli Valpoi for about one year. He was known as Shivaji. He also knew his wife who was working for the said Harmaikar. Some 5 months prior to his deposition on 27th June 1989, the police took him to ajungle at Maloli and showed a dead body which he recognised to be of the appellant's wife. About 4 days prior to that day he had not seen the appellant working for Harmalkar. He also said that the appellant was staying in his neighbourhood in a room provided by Harmalkar and a few days prior LO the day he saw the dead body he also did not see the accused in his room. P.W.4 Rajaram Pokle has also stated that sometime in December 1988 he engaged the deceased Banabai to do the work in his property to remove weeds in the coconut plantation. He employed her at the request of one woman working in the neighbourhood for one Nanda Kanekar. The said woman told her that Banabai had left her husband as they could not pull on well and that she had filed a case with the police. She requested him to give her some employment as Banabai had no source of income. Banabai worked with him for about a month and on 21st January 1989 or so she told him that she would go to the police station to finalise the case of snapping relations with the appellant. She requested him to give her some employment as Banabai had no source of income. Banabai worked with him for about a month and on 21st January 1989 or so she told him that she would go to the police station to finalise the case of snapping relations with the appellant. The son of Banabai was also staying with her. After the day Banabai left him telling that she was going to finalise the case, she did not return. At that time she left with her son and the appellant. He saw all of them boarding a bus. P.W.6 Sitabai Gawas has also stated that she stays at Nagargao and that her house is close to the bus stop. They have a cashew grove at Nagargao wherein the dead body of a female was found. That stop is known as Ambedem. She used to fetch water from across the road from a well. In January 1989 at about 10 a.m. she saw the appellant forcibly dragging a woman away from her house on the road. The woman was refusing to go with him. There was one boy about 11 years old along with that woman. Some 2 or 4 days thereafter the dead body of a woman was found in that cashew grove. The appellant appears to be like the man whom she had seen on that day pulling the woman. P.W.8 Narayan Harwalekar has also stated that he is running a tea shop at Nagargao and he knows the appellant who was working with one Harmalkar at Nagargao. He remembers that the appellant passed in front of his tea-shop on 26-1-1989 at about 10 a.m. He was at that time accompanied by a woman and a boy of 10 years of age. They were proceeding towards Maloti. P.W.9 Ladu Gauthankar has also deposed that some 7 months prior to his deposition in August 1989, on 25th of that month, he saw the appellant at Nagargao along with a woman and a boy of about 8 years of age. The accused was asking them to follow him. P.W. 10 Ramkrishna N. Parab has stated that he is working as conductor in Kadamba bus bearing No. GDX 89 plying from Panaji to Nanora. The accused was asking them to follow him. P.W. 10 Ramkrishna N. Parab has stated that he is working as conductor in Kadamba bus bearing No. GDX 89 plying from Panaji to Nanora. On 25-1-1989, at about 5.30 p.m., the bus started its return journey from Nanora to Panaji and the appellant boarded the bus at about 5.35 p.m. at the Bambar stop which is a little after Nanoda. Along with the appellant one boy about 8 to 10 years of age also boarded the bus. The appellant and the boy got down from the bus at Mapusa. P.W.12 Mahadev Rane has stated that he was working in the farm of one Harmalkar at Maloli where the accused was also working at the relevant time. The last time he saw him was 25-1-1989, at about 5.30 p.m., when he along with his son boarded Kadamba bus from near the farm and the bus was from Nanoda to Panaji. The appellant was having a bag in his hands. P.W.13 Sumathi Harmalkar has also stated that she knows the appellant who was known as Shivaji and he was working in the farm of one Bharat Harmalkar at Maloli. He used to stay there in a room along with his wife and son. For about 3 months prior to January 1989 neither the appellant's wife nor his son were with him in the room. Last time he saw the appellant was along with his son on 25-1-1989, at about 5.30 p.m. At that time the said son who was known as Pintia was crying. When she asked him as to why he was crying and offered him milk he told her that “Dadane Aila marle”. She thought that the appellant had simply assaulted his wife. She did not see the appellant or his son neither has she seen his wife after 25-1-1989. P.W.14 Bharat Harmalkar stated that he is having a farm at Maloli and the appellant whom he used to call Shivaji was working for him. He used to live in a room in his farm with his wife and a young son. Of late he had started assaulting his wife after drinking and therefore the appellant's wife left him. P.W.14 Bharat Harmalkar stated that he is having a farm at Maloli and the appellant whom he used to call Shivaji was working for him. He used to live in a room in his farm with his wife and a young son. Of late he had started assaulting his wife after drinking and therefore the appellant's wife left him. On 25-1-1989 he went to the farm late in the evening and he was told by another labourer Madev Rane that the appellant had come and left for good along with his son and had taken his baggage. About 2 days prior to that he was not regular at work and had not met him. On the day he left he did not make any payment to him. On 26-1-1989 he lodged a complaint in the police saying that the appellant had left the work. P.W.18 Chandrakant Kumbar said that the appellant was his father. He was living with his grand-parents for the last about 10 months and before that he was living in another place along with his mother. She was known as Banabai. They were living together alone and his mother use to water some coconut plants. His mother was killed by the appellant. His father called his mother from the place where she was working. They went by bus and got down at Valpoi. Thereafter they went walking oil a tarred road. The appellant thereafter killed his mother with a stone. The stone was by the side of the tarred road. The appellant threw the stone on her mother's forehead and on her right and left shoulders. The incident occurred in the jungle. There were trees at the scene of offence on both sides. When the appellant assaulted his mother she took her tongue out. She was assaulted when she was lying on the ground. The stones with which she was hit were about 5 inches in diameter. The appellant picked the stones on the way. The appellant hit the stones on his mother thrice. Thereafter she died when she was flat on the ground. After his mother died the appellant took him to one Bharat. They went to Bharat's place walking. One Sumati gave him some food to eat. He told Sumati that the appellant had assaulted his mother (Dadane Aila marli). After they had food they left from there to village Kisrud to their own house. After his mother died the appellant took him to one Bharat. They went to Bharat's place walking. One Sumati gave him some food to eat. He told Sumati that the appellant had assaulted his mother (Dadane Aila marli). After they had food they left from there to village Kisrud to their own house. The police came to Kisrud and took away the appellant. He also admitted the suggestion that on the way the appellant pushed his mother and she fell down on the ground. P.W.21 Dr. Anjani Borkar has stated that he was working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Curtorim from 28-12-1986 upto 1989 when she was posted at Curtorim. On 20-10-1987, at 5.45 p.m., one Banabai Kumbar was referred to her by Valpoi police for examination and at that time she found an incise wound on the skull about 5 inches in length. The patient gave a story of assault as beating by her husband. She also said that her husband used to beat her often. The hurt certificate duly signed was produced by her and marked as Exhibit P.W.21/A. On 30-1-1989 P.S.I. Valpoi referred to her the appellant Bandu Santu Kumbhar for examination. When she examined him she did not find any evidence of internal or external injuries. He told her before she started examining him that he had committed murder of his own wife Banabai Kumbhar 5 days ago. Certificate of the examination of the appellant signed by the medical officer was produced and marked as Exhibit P.W.21/B. 2. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment it is seen that the learned SessioJ1s Judge has based the conviction of the appellant not only on the testimony of the lone eye witness who is his young minor son P.W.18 Chandrakant, but also on the medical evidence as well as other circumstantial evidence including the extra-judicial confession purportedly made by the appellant to P.W.21 Dr. Anjani Borkar. 3. As far as the evidence of the eye witness is concerned, we have seen that P.W.18 Chandrakant has clearly deposed that on the day of the incident the accused came to the place where his deceased mother was staying along with him in the farm of one Rajaram Pokle and took them in his company. Accordingly they boarded a bus which dropped them at Valpoi. Accordingly they boarded a bus which dropped them at Valpoi. From there they went walking to a place in the jungle off the tarred road where there were trees. Once at the site his father assaulted the deceased, who was lying on the ground, with stones which he hit on her head and on the region of her chest (right and left shoulders). When she was being assaulted she took her tongue out. The stones were about 5 inches in diametre and after the assault her mother died. This evidence given by Chandrakant, inspite of being a minor of about 7 to 8 years of age, is perfectly consistent with his earlier statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bichalim, P.W .16 Divekar Kenkre under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has testified about the contents of the narration given by Chandrakant to him of the incident occurred on 25-1-1989, after being satisfied that he was in a position to understand the questions put by him and to give them proper replies and on ascertaining that he was doing so without any pressure or influence either from the police or from any member of his deceased mother's family. In this statement which has been produced by the Magistrate and marked Exhibit P.W.16/A. Chandrakant deposes that the accused took him and his mother, about 4 days prior to his deposition given on 31-1-1989, from the house of their owner in a vehicle which was stuck on the way and from there they went walking into a property where there were cashew trees. His mother was unwilling to go but his father dragged her from the road into the property where she was pushed down and she fell facing the sky. Then his father kept one leg on her neck and with the help or a stone, about 5 inches in diameter, hit her on her forehead and chest. When one stone slipped from his hand he picked up another's tone from the ground with which he continued to hammer her head and chest a number of times. His mother was bleeding profusely and pleading with his father not to assault her. Then he also asked the appellant not to beat his mother and started crying. His father then gave two slaps on his face. Thereupon they returned to the house of the owner from where they took a Kadamba bus to Mapusa. His mother was bleeding profusely and pleading with his father not to assault her. Then he also asked the appellant not to beat his mother and started crying. His father then gave two slaps on his face. Thereupon they returned to the house of the owner from where they took a Kadamba bus to Mapusa. 4. This lively description of the incident given by Chandrakant fits very well in the context of the statements given by the various witnesses who have deposed about the circumstances referred to by Chandrakant in his version of the physical assault on his mother by the appellant and which was personally witnessed by him. In this regard the evidence of P.W.4 Rajaram Pokle, P.W.6 Sitabal Gawas, P.W.8 Narayan Y. Harwalekar, P.W.9 Ladu Gauthankar, P.W.I0 Ramkrishna N. Parab, P. W.12 Mahadev A. Rane, P.W.13 Sumathi Nakul Harwalkar, P.W.14 Bharat Harwalkar to which we have already referred to above supply no doubt a complete chain of circumstances surrounding the tragic killing of Banabai and establish a direct connection between the physical assault and injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellant on his wife with stones and her violent death as a necessary result of such type of injuries certified by medical evidence given by Dr. Usgaonkar who has also corroborated before the Court the contents of the post-mortem report produced by him and marked Exhibit P.W.17/B. 5. To be noted also that in her deposition P.W.13 Sumati has referred to the fact that Chandrakant told her, when she saw him crying in the company of the appellant on 25-1-1989, at about 5.30 p.m., in the farm of Bharat Harmalkar at Manoli while she gave him food and asked as to why he was crying, that "Dadane ailea marle" . This statement of Sumati was not specifically challenged by the accused although in cross-examination a general suggestion was put to the witness that Chandrakant had not said anything to her on that day. However, Chandrakant himself has confirmed having made such statement to Sumati when he deposed before the learned Sessions Judge. It is true that this statement was denied by the appellant in his cross-examination, but at the same time a suggestion was put by him to Chandrakant which was admitted by him that on that fateful day the appellant pushed his mother on the way and she fell down on the ground. It is true that this statement was denied by the appellant in his cross-examination, but at the same time a suggestion was put by him to Chandrakant which was admitted by him that on that fateful day the appellant pushed his mother on the way and she fell down on the ground. This suggestion made by the appellant by itself confirms the evidence of Chandrakant as well as so many other witnesses who have deposed to the fact that on the day of the incident the appellant was seen in the company of the deceased and his son walking on the road during the morning period and from there proceeding "towards the jungle where Banabai's dead body was found. The said evidence also unmistakenly points out to the circumstance that later on the same evening, by 5.30 p.m. people saw him with his minor son only at Manoli where he boarded a Kadamba bus which dropped them at Mapusa. The fact of the deceased Banabai being not with them that evening when admittedly she was in their company on that morning has not been even attempted to be explained by the appellant and therefore we are well justified in drawing an adverse inference against him on this count alone. 6. The appellant was also not able to explain in what circumstances he just left on that day the job from his employer Bharat Harmalkar without informing him or even collecting his dues and simply went away taking with him his minor son or when did he part company with his deceased wife whom he picked up on that morning from Rajaram Pokle's farm. It is in the evidence of the said Rajaram that for the last about one month prior to her death Banabai was working in his property and on that day she left the place along with the appellant telling him that she was going to the police station to finalise the case of snapping relations with her husband. 7. Further there is also evidence pointing out to the strained relations between the appellant and the deceased since a few months before her killing apparently on account of the deceased's purported behaviour which had created in the appellant's mind a doubt about her conjugal fidelity. 7. Further there is also evidence pointing out to the strained relations between the appellant and the deceased since a few months before her killing apparently on account of the deceased's purported behaviour which had created in the appellant's mind a doubt about her conjugal fidelity. The said evidence suggests that for about one or two months prior to the incident the deceased Banabai and her minor son left the company of the appellant at the farm of Bharat Harmalkar where she also was working along with her husband and started living separately in the farm of Rajaram Pokle where the accused came and took her with him on the day on which she was done to death. This fact by itself seems to somehow explain the motive of the assault and at the same time prima facie establishes the intention of the appellant to finish with his wife whom he suspected to maintain-illicit relations with other men. 8. On the other hand the extra-judicial confession which is said to have been made by the appellant to P.W.21 Dr. Anjani Borkar is also consistent not only with her deposition so far the early assault allegedly committed by him on Banabai, somewhere on or about 20-10-1987, is concerned but also with the appellant's purported admission before the said Dr. (Mrs.) Borkar when he was sent to her for medical examination after his arrest on 30-1-1989 to the effect that he had committed the murder of his wife about 5 days prior to that day. 9. It is true that the appellant has denied in his cross-examination that he made such statement to Dr. (Mrs) Borkar but the fact remains that the circumstance of such admission is shown recorded by her in the very certificate issued by her on that same day (Exhibit P.W.21/B) and nothing has been brought on evidence by the appellant either to discredit the testimony of 'the aforsaid witness in this regard or to make us believe that she had not spoken the truth in the matter and instead has just concocted or fabricated a false story about the purported admission made to her by the said appellant. Anyhow and even assuming that such testimony of Dr. Anyhow and even assuming that such testimony of Dr. (Mrs.) Borkar is to be appropriately dealt with some reservations it should not be also overlooked that the same, in the special context of the case, is to be deemed as constituting a material piece of relevant circumstantial evidence pointing out to the involvement of the accused in dastardly incident of the killing of his own wife. 10. As it was already observed above, the medical evidence ofP.W.17 Dr. Usgaonkar and the contents of the post-mortem examination conducted by him on the dead body of Banabai fully substantiate the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and directly connect these injuries with the modus operandi of the assault to which Banabai was allegedly subjected at the hands of the appellant, according to the version of their own son Chandrakant. 11. We have given an anxious thought on the manner of his deposition and minutely scanned his testimony before the Court by confronting it with the statement earlier recorded from him by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. We are of the firm view that tenor of his evidence should leave no doubt in our mind that he is sincere and forthcoming while speaking the truth in the matter and that no undue influence and external pressure or duress was worked upon him to say something which had not actually occurred before his own eyes. We must also bear in mind that Chandrakant is a minor child who inspite of that was able to give a story of the incident which is perfectly plausible and has substantially withstood the test of an intensive and extensive cross-examination to which he was subjected by the learned counsel for the accused. We therefore see no valid reasons to discard the testimony of this vital witness either on the strength of any inaccuracies in his deposition or on the ground of unreliability of such evidence given by him in spite of his tender age. 12. It is in this background that we must take into consideration the various submissions advanced by Shri P.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 13. 12. It is in this background that we must take into consideration the various submissions advanced by Shri P.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 13. It was firstly urged by the learned counsel that no witness among the several ones who have deposed before the Court had actually seen the appellant and the deceased together on the day of the incident and there is no reliable evidence on record with regard to the conduct and genus on the part of the appellant to commit the offence in which he was falsely implicated. 14. However, this submission of the learned counsel is obviously inadmissible and badly missing any factual foundation. A bare perusal of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses referred to by us above, namely, the narration of the incident given by P.W.18 Chandrakant coupled with the appellant's own suggestion to him that on that day Banabai was pushed down on the ground while they were on their way, negativates this very submission and establishes beyond any pail of doubt that both were actually together along with their minor son on that very morning and that thereafter the appellant forcibly led Banabai to the solitary place of a cashew grove where later on her dead body was found with several injuries on her forehead and other parts of her body. 15. The second submission of Shri Singh refers to the facts that there is no evidence that any weapon was actually used by the appellant to commit the alleged offence. Shri Singh insisted that the medical evidence is also not corroborating the proposition that the injuries found on the deceased's body were inflicted by any weapon namely by stones with which, according to the prosecution, namely the evidence of P.W.18 Chandrakant, Banabai was hit and hammered. 16. We are unable to agree with Shri Singh that the evidence on record does not disclose that the appellant used a weapon to commit the murder of Banabai. Nothing more far from the truth about this real position could have been averred by Shri Singh in this respect. The testimony of P.W.18 Chandrakant clearly refers to the use of stones by the appellant to assault his mother on the forehead and on the region of her chest between both the right and left shoulders. This evidence finds full corroboration on the medical evidence of P.W.I7 Dr. The testimony of P.W.18 Chandrakant clearly refers to the use of stones by the appellant to assault his mother on the forehead and on the region of her chest between both the right and left shoulders. This evidence finds full corroboration on the medical evidence of P.W.I7 Dr. Usgaonkar who has described the number, nature and location of the injuries both internal as well as external sustained by the deceased and has clearly stated that some of them, namely the ones on the head and chest, could have been caused by a blunt weapon; more particularly the stones shown to him and marked M.O.I. He has also spoken to the fact that fractures of the torax with lacerations of the lungs were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It thus follows that a complete link between the injuries shown by the deceased Banabai, the nature of the weapon purportedly used by the appellant to perpetrate the assault on his wife and the cause of death as certified by Dr. Usgaonkar has been established beyond any doubt or reservation. 17. It was next contended by Shri Singh that the evidence of the witnesses is not that reliable or sufficient to prove the physical participation of the accused in the murder of Banabai. In this respect we have already said how we feel about what we find more than enough either with regard to the eye witness Chandrakant or in respect of the other witnesses also who have all brought on record strong circumstantial evidence pointing out to the direct involvement of appellant in the assault on the deceased, besides the testimony of Dr. Anjani who has spoken of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant in her presence about the fact of his having committed the murder of Banabai. We are therefore inclined to firmly reject Shri Singh's plea that the scrutiny of the said evidence is not sufficient to prove that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who has done away with Banabai after having physically assaulted her with stones on the day of the incident. 18. We are therefore inclined to firmly reject Shri Singh's plea that the scrutiny of the said evidence is not sufficient to prove that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who has done away with Banabai after having physically assaulted her with stones on the day of the incident. 18. The alleged contradictions and/or inconsistencies, if any, while confronting the various statements of the prosecution witnesses, can be said at the most to concern with matters of detail only rather than with the substance of their testimony, being thus not likely to effect the very credibility .of these witnesses as well as of the case sought to be made out by them on the strength of their said evidence. 19. It was also urged by Shri Singh that the extra-judicial confession purported to have been made by the appellant to P.W.21 Dr. Anjani Borkar when the police sent him to her dispensary for medical examination is difficult to be believed or acted upon for the purpose of strengthening the case of the prosecution. Shri Singh argued that nowhere the appellant had acknowledged in clear terms that it was he who murdered his wife. The learned counsel contended that only when the appellant was asked as to why he was arrested it was then that the appellant disclosed that it was because of the killing of Banabai. This submission of Shri Singh cannot be subscribed by us. The record shows that Dr. (Mrs) Borkar not only stated on oath before this Court that such revelation was made by the appellant when the police sent him to her consulting room but also in her report she made a specific mention in this regard. The appellant was not able to rebut such statement or adduce cogent evidence to rule out the possibility of the appellant having so said to Dr. (Mrs.) Borkar. The appellant was not able to rebut such statement or adduce cogent evidence to rule out the possibility of the appellant having so said to Dr. (Mrs.) Borkar. Shri Singh's contention that it is unbelievable that the appellant might have made such confession is not at all convincing bearing in mind that very often in crimes of this nature, when a husband under the cloud of suspicion about the conjugal fidelity of his wife takes the extreme step to finisl1 with her life in despair, a sense of outrage and remorse follows the action and the assailant feels like bringing out the truth of the matter by passing it either to his friends or confidants and sometimes even to the police itself, after voluntarily surrendering to them. It is in this view that the testimony of Dr. Anjani Borkar should be looked into and/or construed on a high degree of probability so as to make a case for the prosecution against the appellant with regard to the violent death of Banabai. The learned counsel for the appellant has also, in all fairness, been unable to plead any ground or reason which would make the deposition of Dr. Anjani Borkar undeserving of any serious thought and consideration. 20. It was lastly contended by Shri Singh that even considering that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing to the light of the day the direct personal involvement of the appellant in the assault which caused the death of his wife, it would be still difficult for the prosecution to argue that this was a clear case of murder deliberately committed by the appellant with the actual intention of doing away with Banabai. Shri Singh urged that at the most the action of the appellant could be characterised as an offence of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder and coming within the purview of Section 304 Pan II of I.P.C. Shri Singh made a feeble attempt to find fault with the prosecution for the fact of the alleged weapons of the offence, namely the stones purportedly attached by the police from the site, having not been sent by the Investigating Officer to the Chemical Analyser. The learned counsel also submitted that the action of the appellant would more better fit within the parametres of an act which has occurred on the heat of the circumstances or on the spur of moment. The learned counsel also submitted that the action of the appellant would more better fit within the parametres of an act which has occurred on the heat of the circumstances or on the spur of moment. Shri Singh has placed reliance on a case of Sheo Prasad v. State of U.P.1 and also on another case of Bhageshwar v. State of U.P.2. 21. In both these cases it has been held when there is no intention to commit murder, when there is no enimity between the accused and the deceased and the assault took place on account of a trivial matter, when there is no evidence of malice, premeditation or preplainning, in short, when the occurrence took place on a spur of moment, a conviction under Section 302 is not justified and the accused can be convicted only for an offence under Sections 325 or 326 for an offence under Section 304 Part I or II of the I.P.C. 22. We have taken note and carefully considered these rulings cited by Shri Singh which arc both quite distinguishable on facts. We are however satisfied that the circumstances of this case eminently reveal that the action of the appellant cannot be said as having been carried out without premeditation or preplanning and on the contrary had happened just on the spur of moment. The evidence brought on record on the point of the previous strained relations between the appellant and the deceased and also about the alleged misbehaviour of the deceased Benabai which seems to have disturbed the mind of the appellant is to be deemed as a motivating force and the real cause of the whole incident which occurred just on the day the deceased decided to go to the police station to finalise the snapping of the relationship between her and her husband. 23. It in this context that We must understand the question of the intention on the part of the appellant to do away with Banabai by talking her to an isolated place where he exceuted his I dastardly plan far from anybody who could have obstructed him or come on the way of a satisfying his design. 24. 23. It in this context that We must understand the question of the intention on the part of the appellant to do away with Banabai by talking her to an isolated place where he exceuted his I dastardly plan far from anybody who could have obstructed him or come on the way of a satisfying his design. 24. Being so, the question of the accused having committed the action on the spur of moment docs not even arise and thus the very ratio of the rulings cited by Shri Singh is obviously not attracted in our case. 25. Shri Singh has also relied on another decision of Division Bench of this Court in Sukhdeo v. State ofMaharashtra3 which refers to a case wherein the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence. The Court then observed that considering the tendency of the witnesses to exaggerate, the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses appeared unreliable and in the absence of any material to locate the exact nature of the incident, the death could be the result of an apparent quarrel or consequent upon excitement which could have resulted in the type of brain injury noticed according to the medical evidence. As such the Court held that there was no justification to attribute death of the injured person to any of the acts allegedly committed by the accused. 26. Here again we are dealing with facts and therefore we have no reasons, as stated above, to discard the testimony of either the lone eye witness or of other witnesses who have consistently deposed in' such a manner so as to provide a complete set of links or a chain of circumstances leading to the inescapable conclusion that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who could have assaulted Banabai on the fateful day and inflict on her the injuries which were the necessary cause of her death. Hence again this ruling also is not going to take the case any further or serve any useful purpose to the appellant. 27. We thus find ourselves in agreement with Shri Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor, when he submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the minor son of the appellant and the deceased whose evidence is to be thoroughly accepted as genuine and trustworthy. 27. We thus find ourselves in agreement with Shri Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor, when he submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the minor son of the appellant and the deceased whose evidence is to be thoroughly accepted as genuine and trustworthy. We are also inclined' to concur with Shri Bhobe that the remaining circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession referred to above substantially corroborates the case set out by P.W.18 Chandrakant and as such the finding of guilt given by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant is entirely justified and correct. 28. It follows therefore that the appellant was notable to make any conclusive or cogent case for this Court to interfere with the Order of conviction and sentence adequately awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge and which is thus to be fully affirmed. In the result we see no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed. 1. (1989) 1 Crl.L.C. 359. 2. (1990) 1 Crl.L.C. 469. 3. (1990) 2 Crl. L.C.487.