JUDGMENT Mr. M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. - The appellant, Chandrapal Singh, his wife Smt. Dulari and their son Udaivir Singh were arraigned before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh for the murder of Charan Singh, father of the appellant. The learned Judge, while recording an order of acquittal in favour of the other two, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal at his instance. 2. The case for the prosecution is that on November 25, 1981, at or about 8 a.m. when Charan Singh was sitting in the courtyard of his house, the appellant came there, armed with a Gandasa, along with his wife and son and inflicted blows on his neck with the Gandasa as a consequence, whereof, he fell down dead instantaneously. Smt. Asharfi Devi (P.W.1), wife of the deceased and Smt. Shankuntala Devi (P.W.2) wife of Megh Singh, another son of the deceased who were inside the house at that time, raised alarm and the appellant fled away. 3. Within a few hours thereafter, an information about the incident was lodged with the Chandaus police station by Smt. Asharfi Devi and on the basis thereof a case was registered against the three accused. S.I. Atar Singh (P.W.4) took up investigation of the case and came to the house of Charan Singh. He held inquest upon the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He (P.W.4) seized blood stained earth from the courtyard and examined witnesses. On completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that he had been falsely implicated. 5. In support of its case the prosecution examined four witnesses but no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. 6. That the deceased was murdered inside his house on the fateful day stands conclusively proved by overwhelming evidence on record. In fact this part of the prosecution case was not even challenged by the appellant. Apart from the evidence of P.W. and P.W.2 on the point, there is the evidence of S.I. Atar Singh P.W.4, who claimed to have seen Charan Singh lying dead in the courtyard. Dr. In fact this part of the prosecution case was not even challenged by the appellant. Apart from the evidence of P.W. and P.W.2 on the point, there is the evidence of S.I. Atar Singh P.W.4, who claimed to have seen Charan Singh lying dead in the courtyard. Dr. Pradeep (P.W.3), who held post-mortem examination on the dead body, found the following injuries on his person : (1) Incised wound 8" X " X mendible bone deep on left side upto left mastoid region. (2) Incised wound 4" X 1" X muscle deep on back and above part of right side of neck. (3) Incised wound 8" X 5" X complete cut of neck from front and left side at the level of 4th, 5th and 6th cervical vertebra which are fractured into small, pieces and neck is attached with a tag of skin on the back. All the muscles were cut. 7. According to the doctor, the death was due to shock and haeorrhage as a result of the injuries described by him. He opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further opined that the injuries might have been caused by some heavy cutting weapon like Gandasa. The nature, number and location of the injuries one ringly prove that whoever caused the injuries is guilty of the offence of murder. 8. The next end most important question is who is the author of the crime. To prove this part of its case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Smt. Asharfi Devi (P.W.1) and Smt. Shankuntala Devi (P.W. 2). Having regard to the fact that the death of the victim took place inside his courtyard and they were members of his family, P.W. and P.W.2 were the most probable witnesses. Their evidence, which could not be shaken in cross-examination at all, unmistakably proves that the appellant suddenly came there with a Gandasa and assaulted'his father on the neck. In sharp of truth of P.W.1's evidence is furnished by the fact that a mother deposes against a son. We would be, therefore, justified in finding the appellant guilty, relying solely upon the evidence of P.W.1. In sharp of truth of P.W.1's evidence is furnished by the fact that a mother deposes against a son. We would be, therefore, justified in finding the appellant guilty, relying solely upon the evidence of P.W.1. However, apart from the evidence of the mother, we also got the evidence of the sister-in-law of the appellant, she has fully corroborated the testimony of P.W. I noting carefully and thorough the evidence of the above witnesses, we have so hesitation in concluding that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. The appert is, therefore, dismissed. Let the appellant be informed of the result of the appeal through the Superintendent of the Jail, where he now detained.