JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer dated 23-3-1990 whereby he has held the accused appellant Bhugar Khan guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for murder of his wife Mst. Murbat and sentenced him to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and is default of payment of fine to under go one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The facts necessary to he noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that Kanwarsi Khan married his elder daughter Murbat, aged 23 years, to Bhugar Khan son of Ameen Khan of village Undo and his younger daughter Nathu to one Alam Khan alias Salam son of Ridmal Khan before two years of the date of the occurrence. It is alleged that Alain Khan and Ameen Khan were not on good terms and, therefore. the meeting of Murbat (deceased) with her sister Nathu was not liked by accused-appellant Bhugar Khan son of Ameen Khan and he used to beat Mst. Murbat whenever she used to go to meet her younger sister Nathu, who was residing at some distance from her 'Dhani'. When this message was conveyed to Kanwarsi Khan. he alongwith one Nizam Khan, came to village Undu on 16-9-89 to meet Mst. Murbat (deceased) and enquired from her as to what was the matter Whereupon Mst. Murbat informed her father Kanwarsi Khan that on account of her meeting with Nathu she is being beaten by her husband Bhugar Khan. who was present there. Bhugar Khan told his father-in-law that he (Kanwarsi Khan) must tell his daughter that she should not go to meet her sister Nathu otherwise he will kill her. On this, Kanwarsi Khan told his daughter Murbat not to go and meet her sister Nathu if it is not liked by her husband Bhugar Khan Kanwarsi Khan stayed there on that day, took his evening meals prepared by Murbat and in the midnight when they were sleeping, they heard the noise 'Oy Abba Oy Abba'. This waked him and Nizam as well and they went to the Chowk of the house At that point of time, Bhugar Khan was coming out of the kitchen-hut in which he was sleeping with his wife Mst. Murtab, and he was trying to run away. This waked him and Nizam as well and they went to the Chowk of the house At that point of time, Bhugar Khan was coming out of the kitchen-hut in which he was sleeping with his wife Mst. Murtab, and he was trying to run away. Kanwarsi Khan enquired from Bhugar Khan as to what has happened whereupon Bhugar Khan told him that he (Bhugar Khan) has killed his wife by strengulating or throttling her neck and after telling this Bhugar Khan ran away When Kanwarsi Khan saw inside the kitchenette, his daughter Murbat was lying dead. Ameen Khan also arrived there and in the morning he went and called some of the villagers. When Kanwarsi Khan wanted to go to the Police Station to report the matter, Ameen Khan told him not to go because his family members have been called In the evening, Bhikhe Khan, his brother, came there and told Kanwarsi Khan that when your daughter has been killed, why are you sitting here, you should go to Police Station to report the matter. He then went to the Police station in the evening of 17-9-89 and reported the matter to police station. Sheo in the night of 18-9-89 at 1:15 A M. The written report is marked as Ex P/6 and the Parcha FIR is Ex. P. 7. The port mortem of the dead body was conducted which is marked as Ex P wherein it has been recorded that Mst Murbat had died due to homicidal throttling. After investigation, the case was challenged in the Court of learned Barmer from where it was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmier. The learned Judge after trial convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 3. It was submitted by Mr. Singhi that there are no eye witnesses of the occurrence and the evidence of PW 9 Kanwarsi Khan and PW Nizam Khan is circumstantial. Both these witnesses reached near the kitchenette after the murder was over and Bhugar Khan was fleeing away from the place of the occurrence. It is alleged that it was at that time that extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before them and thereafter they found Murbat dead in the kitchenette. Thus, they have not seen the actual murder. It is alleged that it was at that time that extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before them and thereafter they found Murbat dead in the kitchenette. Thus, they have not seen the actual murder. It was claimed by Mr Singhi that actually, both these witnesses were not present at that time in village Undu. They both were in their own village at Phalsund In-fact, they reached village Undu only when they were sent for by the villagers. This fact is fully corroborated by the testimony of DW 1 Raza Mohd, who was sent to call them and PW 1 Mire Khan PW 2 Nathu, who is the younger sister of deceased Murbat, PW 3 Alam also who has stated that these two persons were not there on that day and, therefore, the presence of these two persons at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and once their presence at the place of the occurrence becomes doubtful, the evidence about making of extra judicial confession before them also goes away. The assertion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer that the accused was absconding cannot be sustained because the accused Bhugar Khan had gone to some other village to work as a labourer and he did not know about the death of his wife and, therefore, he was not traceable for some time. He went to do labour work before two months and ultimately when he was informed by PW 4 Bhinya Ram, he came to know about the death of his wife. This fact is further corroborated by the testimony of DW 2 Mohd. Khan. It was submitted by Mr. Singhi that no case is made out against the accused and, therefore, he should be acquitted 4. These submissions made by Mr. Singhi were stoutly opposed by the learned P.P. who has submitted that PW 9 Kanwarsi Khan and PW 11 Nizam Khan are the close relations of Mst Murbat (deceased) and accused Bhugar Khan and they are the last persons to falsely involve Bhugar Khan in the murder of Mst. Murbat. The close relations are the last persons to leave the real culprits and involve their close relations in such a heinous crime as murder. Even accused Bhugar Khan has not stated that he had any enmity with his father-in-law so as to involve him in the case of murder of his wife Mst Murbat. Murbat. The close relations are the last persons to leave the real culprits and involve their close relations in such a heinous crime as murder. Even accused Bhugar Khan has not stated that he had any enmity with his father-in-law so as to involve him in the case of murder of his wife Mst Murbat. The accused Bhugar Khan was last seen with his wife Mst Murbat by these two witnesses and he has stated the truth before them by admitting his guilt. That fact stands corroborated by the testimony of PW 5 Doctor B.L. Chopra, who has conducted the post mortem of Mst. Murbat and the testimony of PW 6 Sujana Ram SHO and PW 10 B R Nimawat Dy. S,P. who have prepared the inquest report of the deceased. PW 7 Gulab Singh and PW 8 Bhikhe Khan have stated that they were called from their village and, therefore, they came in the vehicle of Gulab Singh. Razze Khan came to call them and the said two witnesses did not come with them meaning thereby that Kanwarsi Khan and Nizam Khan were already there. PW 8 Bhikhe Khan was called to get the matter compromised but he advised his brother to go and report the matter to the police and they stayed there for protection of the dead body till the police arrived. It was claimed by the Public Prosecutor that of course the Doctor has tried to wriggle out of his statement which was given by him in his examination-in-chief and that he should be dealt with by the Court seriously but otherwise it is also clear from his testimony that it is a case of Strangulation/throttling and, therefore, cause of death stands substantiated by his testimony based on the post-mortem report Ex. P. 5. 5. We have heard at length Mr. Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant as also Mr. V R. Mehta, learned P.P. appearing for the State and have critically gone through the case file and have given our most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. 6. The entire case rests on the testimony of PW 9 Kanwarsi Khan and PW 11 Nizam Khan. Both of them have categorically stated that on receiving the news that Bhugar Khan used to beat Mst. 6. The entire case rests on the testimony of PW 9 Kanwarsi Khan and PW 11 Nizam Khan. Both of them have categorically stated that on receiving the news that Bhugar Khan used to beat Mst. Murbat, her daughter, because she used to visit her younger sister Nathu, they came to village Undu at the house of Murbat. Murbat told them that she is being beaten by her husband Bhugar Khan on account of her visit to younger sister Nathu. ft is alleged that Bhugar Khan was present there and he threatened that unless she stops visiting Nathu; he will kill her. Whereupon both these witnesses stated that they asked Murbat not to visit the house of Nathu, when it is not liked by her husband Bhugar Khan and she agreed not to visit Nathu in future. However, food was served to both these witnesses by Murbat in the evening and they slept there with the father of the accused in 'bakhal'. In the midnight intervening between 16th and 17th Sept. 89, Kanwarsi Khan heard the cry of his daughter Murbat Abba Oy Abba', whereupon both of them wake up and went to the 'chowk' of the house near kitchen-hut and saw Bhugar Khan coming out of the kitchen hut, where he was sleeping with his wife. When they enquired as to what has happened and why Murbat was crying, Bhugar Khan told them that he has killed his daughter by strangulating her neck and thereafter he ran away. Kanwarsi Khan as also Nizam Khan were stunned and, therefore, they could not go to report the matter to police in the night and in the morning, they tried to go but then the father of the accused Ameen Khan told them that they should not be go to report the matter to the police because his family members have been called, On this, they stayed there. He was fearing that if he left the place, the dead body of Murtab might be disposed of and so, he was waiting for the arrival of his family members and in the evening Bhikhe Khan and Gulab Singh came and it was on the advice of his brother Bhikhe Khan that Kanwarsi Khan reported the matter to the police in which he has narrated the entire incident as it has happened. Thus, the delay stands fully explained When it was asked from him as to why he stayed there in the night, he replied that he was stunned and was fearing something and, therefore, out of fear, he did not go to the police to report the matter and in the morning, he tried to go, but Ameen Khan told him that his family members have been called and, therefore, he should wait until his brother comes and when in the evening his brother Bhikhe Khan came there, he lodged the written report marked as Ex P/5 wherein the entire incident has been fully disclosed. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that while running away from the house, Bhugar Khan told Kanwarsi Khan that he had killed his daughter Murbat by strangulating/throttling and that fact stands fully proved from the report of the Doctor, who has reported that her right eye was open, tongue was protruding out through the open mouth and the entire body was swollen. PW 6 Sujana Ram and .PW 10 B R. Nimawat have proved Inquest memo Ex.P/9 in which the condition of the dead body of the deceased Murbat has been recorded by the police. Gulab Singh. PW 7, too has proved this memo in which it has been recorded that her left eye was closed and right eye was protruding out, the mouth was open, tongue was coming out, water was coming out of the nose and both ears were swollen. Thus, the post mortem report Ex P 5 which has been prepared by Dr. B.L. Chopra and the report of the condition of the dead body marked as Ex.P.9. which has been proved by aforesaid three witnesses categorically proves the condition of the dead body and the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that it was not an accidental death but was homicidal death stands proved. of course PW 5 Dr. B.L. Chopra has stated that he found that there was a fracture of the spinous-process of fourth vertebrae and ligaments were torn. There was also dislocation of fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae by which the flesh tissues were torn and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. of course PW 5 Dr. B.L. Chopra has stated that he found that there was a fracture of the spinous-process of fourth vertebrae and ligaments were torn. There was also dislocation of fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae by which the flesh tissues were torn and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has not been recorded in the post mortem report that these injuries were post mortem nor he has so stated about it when he was cross examined by the counsel for the accused at the initial stage but later, he changed his version and stated that these injuries were post mortem. If these injuries were post-mortem, he should have recorded this fact in the post mortem report and he ought not to have given the statement that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This clearly shows that he has tried to help the case of the accused for some oblique motive and, therefore, an enquiry should be initiated against him by the Director, Medical and Health Services as to why he has not recorded in the post-mortem report Ex.P 5 as to which of the injuries were post mortem and as to which of the injuries were ante mortem His statement that these injuries were ante mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death runs contrary to his later part of the statement wherein he has stated that these injuries had been caused after death and, therefore, to that extent, he cannot be believed. It is very unfortunate that on such an important aspect, the I Doctor has tried to change his testimony by giving contradictory statements. Be that as it may, still he was consistent in stating the fact that the death was the result of the strangulation and throttling of her neck and this fact stands fully borne out from the condition of the body of Murbat, whose tongue was protruding out. right eye was also protruding out, water was coming out of her nostrils and ears were swollen. Such condition of a dead body is found only when the death is caused on account of the strangulation or throttling. 7. It was submitted by Mr. Singhi that Kanwarsi Khan has stated that he removed the 'Chunri' from the face of his daughter and saw her face. Such condition of a dead body is found only when the death is caused on account of the strangulation or throttling. 7. It was submitted by Mr. Singhi that Kanwarsi Khan has stated that he removed the 'Chunri' from the face of his daughter and saw her face. It was not the accused who had put 'Chunri' on her face and, there. fore, who had put the 'Chunri' on her face has not been proved. 8. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr, Singhi, learned counsel for the accused Bhugar Khan, because a man who can throttle and kill his wife, can easily put a veil on her face. PW 11 Nizamkhan has also stated that only a little amount of face was visible out of 'Chunri'. Thus, there is no doubt about it that the accused had put the 'Chunri' on Murbat's face and it was because of this that that has to be removed and moreover, this is no circumstances which materially affects the merits of the case. It is definitely a case of homicidal death. PW 3 Alam has stated that Murbat visited his house on that very night to participate in function of 'Khairaat' and he left at her house. Thus, she was hale and hearty as per PW 3 Alam. Although, PW 2 Nathu and PW 3 Alam have stated that Bhugar Khan never objected Murbat to visit their house but that is not very material because such statements can be given by them now to help the brother-in-law. Moreover, if 'Bhugar Khan was aggrieved by the visit of Murbat to Alam alias Salam, he would have shown his anguish not to these persons but to his wife and, therefore, even if they say that he did not object to it, that cannot be believed because Kanwarsi Khan and Nizam Khan have categorically stated that Murbat told them that his visit to Nathu is being objected by Bhugar Khan and he has been beating her because of this and thus, to this extent. the statements of PW Nathu and PW 3 Alam alias Salam are not reliable Great strees has been laid on the fact that PW 4 Bhinya Ram has stated that accused had gone to earn his livelihood by doing labour elsewhere, whereas PW 1 Mire Khan has stated that he was working with him as shepherd. the statements of PW Nathu and PW 3 Alam alias Salam are not reliable Great strees has been laid on the fact that PW 4 Bhinya Ram has stated that accused had gone to earn his livelihood by doing labour elsewhere, whereas PW 1 Mire Khan has stated that he was working with him as shepherd. Such type of evidence is not worthy of credence. If the accused has been working some where else for the past about two months. his whereabouts must have been in the knowledge of his father and after the wife dies, her husband should have been immediately called and, therefore, he cannot remain absconding for eight days after the death of his wife. As such, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the accused was last seen with his wife Murbat and he ran away after making extra judicial confession before Kanwarsi Khan and Nizam Khan that he had killed his wife Murbat. It is nobody's case that the father-in-law has killed his daughter-in.law. There is no motive attributed to Nizamkhan and Kanwarsi Khan for falsely implicating Bhugar Khan. Rather both have categorically proved the motive for the murder of Mst. Murbat. 9. We are firmly of the view that the father of the deceased will be the last person to falsely 'Implicate his son-in-law in the murder of his daughter by leaving the real culprits and, therefore, the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer that it was the accused Bhugarkhan, who had killed his wife Mst. Murbat, stands fully proved for the reasons aforesaid, and, therefore, we are firmly of the opinion that the impugned judgment deserves to be sustained. Before leaving the case, we direct the Deputy Registrar (Judi.). Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur to send a copy of this judgment to the Director, Medical and Health Services for taking appropriate action against Dr. B.L. Chopra (PW 5) firstly for giving the false and contradictory evidence and secondly for not recording in the post mortem report as to which of the injuries were ante mortem and which of the injuries were post mortem 10. In the result, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. 11. The result of this appeal be conveyed to the Jail Authorities so-that the accused Bhugar Khan may serve out the sentence imposed against him.Appeal dismissed. *******