JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Kangra in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1990, Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1990, dated 18th April/1991 Accused Ram Singh has been convicted under sections 302 and 380, Indian Penal Code He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000 in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years (under section 302, Indian Penal Code). For offence under section 380, Indian Penal Code, he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly is that accused Ram Singh murdered his father Anup Singh and committed theft of golden ring and pandle valuing Rs. 6,000 belonging to Smt. Kamla Devi, during the night of 30th/31st March, 1990 in village Amlela where the deceased was residing with his wife and daughter. The accused came to the house and demanded money from deceased Anup Singh. The deceased refused to give money as a result of which the accused started beating him, Smt. Raj Devi (PW 2) and Maya Devi (PW 4) attempted to intervene but they were also given beatings by the accused He also threatened to kill them as a result of which these ladies felt scared and concealed themselves in a nearby field. They saw the accused taking the deceased inside the house. They approached the Chowkidar and Lambardar during the night for help but failed to obtain it since these persons were also afraid of the accused who, according to them, had already committed murders previously. 3. In the early morning of 31st March, 1990 these ladies called the Lambardar who accompanied them to their house and opened the door. None was found there. Burnt quilt was found on the cot with blood stains. The Kundas of two trunks were also found broken. Blood was seen in the room and when Smt. Raj Devi (PW 2) searched the trunks, she found one ring and pandle chain of gold belonging to her daughter-in- law Smt. Kamla Devi, missing. None was found there. Burnt quilt was found on the cot with blood stains. The Kundas of two trunks were also found broken. Blood was seen in the room and when Smt. Raj Devi (PW 2) searched the trunks, she found one ring and pandle chain of gold belonging to her daughter-in- law Smt. Kamla Devi, missing. On the day of incident, Smt, Kamla Devi had gone to her parents and Rajinder (PW 11), another son of the deceased, was away in connection with his employment. Lambardar Hira Singh (PW 6) deputed Chowkidar with Maya Devi to inform the police telephonically from Nagrota Surian, but they returned to the village since the telephone was not in working order. 4. Lachhman Dass (PW 1) had come to the house of the deceased. He informed that the dead body of the deceased had been left by the accused at his house during the previous night saying that the deceased was not well. However, the accused left his house early in the morning on the pretext of easing himself and did not return thereafter. Thereafter, Maya Devi, Chowkidar, Lambardar Hira Singh and Amar Singh proceeded to Police Station, Haripur. On the way they came across H. C. Mohar Singh who was on patrol duty. Statement of Maya Devi (Ext PW 4/A) was recorded by H. C Mohar Singh. It was sent through Constable Mohinder Singh for the registration of case. H C. Mohar Singh came to the house of the deceased and. stayed there till the arrival of Station House Officer. 5. The investigation was started by Station House Officer. He went to the house of Lachhman Dass (PW 1). Inquest report (Ext. PW 10/A) was prepared Articles like wrist watch, pair of shoes with blood stains, quilt bed-sheet, pillow etc. were taken into possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested on 25th May, 1990 from Rai Singh Nagar Jail in District Ganga Nagar of Rajasthan. On his inter- rogation, the accused stated that he had sold the ornaments to a goldsmith of Jassur. These were recovered from the goldsmith in the presence of witnesses. On completion of investigation, the accused was prosecuted before the trial Court which convicted and sentenced him as already noticed above. 6. On his inter- rogation, the accused stated that he had sold the ornaments to a goldsmith of Jassur. These were recovered from the goldsmith in the presence of witnesses. On completion of investigation, the accused was prosecuted before the trial Court which convicted and sentenced him as already noticed above. 6. In order to convict the accused, the trial Court found that the deceased was living in his house alongwith Raj Devi (PW 2) and Maya Devi (PW 4) on 30th March, 1990. The accused was also present in the house. Deceased Anup Singh was father of the accused and Raj Devi (PW 2) and Maya Devi (PW 4) are his nearest relations coming forward to prove the case of the prosecution by giving ocular account of the incident, motive for the commission of crime. The trial Court depended on their testimony to the fullest extent and in addition, depended on the evidence of Lachhman Dass (PW 1) and recoveries of the articles. 7. Shri Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the accused, assailed the findings of the trial Court He contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the accused satisfactorily, there fore, the judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused acquitted of the charge. 8. Shri M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and vehemently urged that the trial Court has recorded the findings after marshalling the evidence on record. There is no justification to set aside these findings since they are based on exact appraisal of the evidence, the learned Counsel for the State contended. 9. After scrutinising the evidence, it is noticeable that Raj Devi (PVV 2) and Maya Devi (PW 4) have given an eye-witness account of the incident. They say that on 30th March, 1990, the accused came to the house at about 8.00 p. m. He demanded money from the deceased who refused to give the same. The accused started beating the deceased and when they intervened, they were also given beatings. The accused also threatened to kill them and in order to save themselves, they took shelter in the adjoining fields The accused not only gave beatings to the deceased but also lifted his body on his shoulder. The accused started beating the deceased and when they intervened, they were also given beatings. The accused also threatened to kill them and in order to save themselves, they took shelter in the adjoining fields The accused not only gave beatings to the deceased but also lifted his body on his shoulder. They went to the house of Chowkidar and Lambardar Hira Singh during the night but these people refused to accompany them by saying that the accused had previously committed two-three murders. They remained in the field throughout the night and in the morning, Lambardar Hira Singh (PW 6) and Chowkidar were brought to the house and the occurrence was stated to them. Lambardar Hira Singh deputed Chowkidar with Maya Devi to telephone the police from Nagrota Surian. As the telephone was not in working order, they returned to the village where Lambardar Hira Singh (PW 6), Lachh-man Dass (PW 1) were present. The door was opened but the deceased was not found inside. Kundas of two trunks were found broken and on search one ring and pandle of gold were found missing. Blood was noticed in the room. One burnt quilt was also found stained with blood. 10. Lachhman Dass (PW 1) and Lambardar Hira Singh (PW 6) have also supported the version given by these two witnesses. Lachhman Dass (PW 1) states that he was sleeping in the Verandah of his house when the accused started calling his son Budhi Singh. He responded and asked the accused to come to his house. He was told by the accused that his father was unwell and he had brought him from Jawali Hospital in a taxi and since the taxi-driver had refused to go further, he needed a man so that he could take the deceased to his house. He could not arrange any person but asked the accused to bring his father to his house for rest since the deceased was known to him. He prepared bed for the deceased where he was placed by the accused who also sat on the cot. Accused left the place early in the morning on the pretext bf easing himself but did not return. He asked his wife to prepare tea for the deceased. He got water for the deceased so that he could wash himself before taking tea. Accused left the place early in the morning on the pretext bf easing himself but did not return. He asked his wife to prepare tea for the deceased. He got water for the deceased so that he could wash himself before taking tea. When Anup Singh did not respond to his calls, he removed the quilt and found several injuries on the person of the deceased. He was dead. He left for Amlela and narrated the entire incident to Raj Devi (PW 2). 11. Parmodh Singh (PW 3) is another witness of the prosecution. He has been declared hostile since he failed to support the prosecution case. However, he has admitted that the accused gave the statement (Ext. PW 3/A) in pursuance of which the ornaments were recovered and he signed the same. What he has denied, is his presence at the house of the deceased and that he was taking liquor which was objected by the accused and the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that he felt offended and pushed the deceased as a result of which head injury was sustained by the- deceased. He has denied that he was having illicit relations with Maya Devi. 12. Smt. Kamla Devi (PW 5) has identified the ornaments. These were given to her by her mother-in-law Raj Devi (PW 2) on her marriage. She was taken to Jassur by the police to identify the ornaments which were taken into possession vide memo (Ext. PW 5/A). 13. Suresh Kumar (PW 7) is the owner of the shop where the accused had given these ornaments against Rs 3,000. He states that the accused stated that he needed the money since his wife was sick and was to be taken to the hospital at Chandigarh He prepared a document (Ext PW 7/A) in this behalf and affixed revenue stamp on it. The accused also appended his signatures on this document. Other witnesses on this aspect are Dharam Singh (PW 8) and Vinod Kumar (PW 9). 14. Dr. S K Kapoor (PW 20) conducted the postmortem examination. His observations can be quoted thus : "External appearance. A thinly built male adult wearing grey Kurta and pyjama and white undershirt and a black coat. rigor mortis was present. Postmortem staining was present. Injuries. 1. Clean lacerated wound, right supra orbital margin, one and half inches long with raged margins and underlying bone visible. 2. His observations can be quoted thus : "External appearance. A thinly built male adult wearing grey Kurta and pyjama and white undershirt and a black coat. rigor mortis was present. Postmortem staining was present. Injuries. 1. Clean lacerated wound, right supra orbital margin, one and half inches long with raged margins and underlying bone visible. 2. Clean lacerated wound, left supra orbital region starting about middle extending backward over frontal and parietal bone about three and a half inches long and half inch wide with irregular margins, tissues tags can be seen. Underlying bones exposed. 3. Multiple bruises over the face, left scalp both arms, both legs. Black eyes both sides. No marks of ligature over the neck. No other wound was present over the rest of the trunk. Cranium and spinal cord. 1. Multiple bruises over bald scalp on right side. 2. Clean lacerated wound, right supra orbital margin about one and a half inches long, irregular margins, bone exposed. 3. About three and a half inches long clean lacerated wound over left supra orbital margin about half inch broad, bone deep. Margins were irregular. Tissue tags can be seen. Underlying frontal parietal bones were fractured. The wound extends back to the parietal bone. Haematoma over left scalp, dark red blood came out from haematoma. Thorax. Walls, ribs and cartilages Small bruises over thorax. Pleaurae : Congested. Larynx and Trachea : Congested. Right lung : Congested. Left lung : Congested. Pericardium heart large vessels : No abnormality detected. Abdomen. Walls. — Small multiple bruises over abdomen were present. Peritoneum : Normal. Mouth, larynx, oesophagus : Semi digested food present. No other smell etc. was present. Small intestines and their : contents : Congested. Large intestines and their : contents : No abnormality was detected. Liver : Congested. Spleen : Congested. Kidney : Congested. Bladder : : Empty. Organs of generation, external and internal. Pubic hair white, rest normal. Muscles, bones and joints. Multiple bruises, bluish in colour at places and bluish red present over arm, both sides, leg both sides. No fracture was present. Opinion. In my opinion all the wounds are ante-mortem in nature. Death occurred due to head injury, blood loss leading to hypovolumic shock and failure of vital organs." 15. Pubic hair white, rest normal. Muscles, bones and joints. Multiple bruises, bluish in colour at places and bluish red present over arm, both sides, leg both sides. No fracture was present. Opinion. In my opinion all the wounds are ante-mortem in nature. Death occurred due to head injury, blood loss leading to hypovolumic shock and failure of vital organs." 15. The case of the accused is that on 30th March, 1990 when he me to his house from Jawali, he saw Parmodh Singh (PW 3) sitting and consuming liquor in the house. When he objected to it, his mother and sister sided with Parmodh Singh and started rebuking him. The deceased did not like Parmodh Singhs drinking there. Parmodh Singh pushed the ceased forcibly as a result of which the deceased struck against the corner of "Palang" in the room and sustained the injuries. He rushed to s village doctor but he was not found there. When he came to his use, the deceased was not there and he was told by his mother that Parmodh Singh had taken away the deceased on the tractor. He was threatened by Smt. Raj Devi (PW 2) and Maya Devi (PW 4) that they would implicate him in this case as a result of which he left his house for Rajasthan 16. From the evidence extracted above, we have found that prosecution case has been established by Raj Devi (PW 2) and Maya Devi (PW 4). they have given eye-witness account of the incident quite convincingly, there is no justification to discard their statements simply because they happen to be related to the deceased. As a matter of fact, these witnesses could be present at the house at the relevant time. Accused has admitted his presence in the house on 30th March, 1990. He has also admitted the presence of these two witnesses there. He has also admitted his apprehension by the police on 25th May, 1990 from Rai Singh Nagar Jail Ganga Nagar District of Rajasthan. The prosecution case has further en proved by Lachhman Dass (PW 1) and Lambardar Hira Singh (PW 6) These are independent witnesses and there is no reason to dis believe them. Parmodh Singh (PW 3) has of course turned hostile, but essential part of the prosecution case has been admitted by him. He has denied that part of the prosecution case which involves and embarrasses him. Parmodh Singh (PW 3) has of course turned hostile, but essential part of the prosecution case has been admitted by him. He has denied that part of the prosecution case which involves and embarrasses him. 17. The medical evidence has proved the injuries sustained by the deceased. It demonstrates that the defence of the accused is palpably erroneous. The deceased could not have sustained these injuries by a single push at the instance of Parmodh Singh as claimed by the accused. His motive was to extract money from the deceased who had deposited the same in the bank after the sale of his landed property. The offence under section 380, Indian Penal Code relating to ornaments is also proved against him by the prosecution. 18. From the examination of the matter, it can safely be said that it is the accused who is responsible for the commission of the crime. The prosecution has established the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. We see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the case does not fall under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at the most, it would be covered by section 30411. Indian Penal Code, if we look to the nature and number of injuries found on the person of the deceased who was beaten brutally by none other than his own son for extracting money from him. No other point was argued by the learned Counsel for the parties. 20. The result, therefore, is that there is no substance in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.