JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Devi Lal has been convicted for having caused murder of his wife Vidhya and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs.200/- as fine. Appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal. 2. On 2.9.1987 appellant's father Dhanna Ram lodged FIR at the Police Station Lalgarh stating that his son Devi Lal, the appellant who was a Opium and Drug Addict and his wife Vidhya used to desist him from these habits on which he used to quarrel with her. Three days prior to the lodging of the report he had gone to his Maternal Grandfather's house after having a quarrel with his wife. On 1st Sept.1987 at about 10-11 a.m. Devi Lal's maternal uncle Birbal brought Devi Lal home. In the evening after taking meal members of the family including Devi Lal's mother, and his three daughters, two sons had retired to bed at about 9.00 p.m. At about 11-11.30 p.m. in the night Dhanna Ram Devi Lal's father heard some noise and woke up, he again heard some noise and tried to get up from the Cot on which he was sleeping. When Dhappa, Pushpa and Sulochana came weeping and say that their mother was killed by their father. Devi Lal came out with a (Ghota) in his hand threatening the inmates of the house that if anyone raised alarm he would kill him also. He went away from the place. Dhanna Ram went in and saw that Devi Lal's wife Vidhya was lying injured in the head and was not in a position to speak. 3. On the aforesaid report being lodged, investigation was undertaken and ultimately the appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. At the trial appellant's daughter Pushpa was examined as PW-1. She deposed that on the fateful night she along with her two sisters, two brothers, grandmother and grandfather were sleeping in the house, her mother and her father the appellant were sleeping in the Courtyard when they heard some noise, the three sisters went inside and saw that appellant was standing near the head of their mother with a wooden Ghota in his hand. He said that if they raised alarm he will kill them also and the appellant went away. They saw their mother dead and raised alarm and people collected at the spot. He said that if they raised alarm he will kill them also and the appellant went away. They saw their mother dead and raised alarm and people collected at the spot. She also deposed that the appellant was opium addict and because his wife did not give him money for opium he used to quarrel with her. Surja Ram PW-6 is the father-in-law of appellant Devi Lal and father of deceased Vidhya. He deposed that Devilal had come to him in the night of the incident and confessed to him that he had killed his daughter Vidhya. PW-7 Dhanna Ram father of appellant reiterated his FIR story. All these statements were recorded in 1988. PW-1 Pushpa statement was recorded on 7.5.1988, PW-6 Surja Ram's statement was recorded on 17.8.88 and PW-7 Dhanna Ram's statement was also recorded on 17.8.1988. Proceedings of 19.4.1990 shows that on 17.4.1990 the appellant's father PW-7 Dhanna Ram died. Evidence in the case was complete by then and the case was at the stage of arguments. On l9.5.1990, an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved on behalf of the appellant for examining Kailash, Sulochana, Birbal and Dayalaram as also re-calling PW Pushpa and Surja ram. On 23.7.1990 by detailed order this application was rejected by the Sessions Court clearly holding that there was no case for re-calling PW-1 Pushpa as she had been subjected to a detailed cross-examination and similarly there was no case for re-calling PW-6 Surja Ram. As regards other witnesses, the prayer was rejected on the ground that the accused person could examine them as defence witness if he so choses. The case then was fixed for arguments again. On 16.4.1991 again an application for re-calling Birbal, Surja Ram and Smt. Pushpa was moved on behalf of the appellant on the ground that these witnesses had given certain affidavits in the light of which they needed to be re-examined. On 2.5.1991 the Sessions Court in a routine manner without stating any reasons allowed the application and directed re-calling of these witnesses. On re-call it became obvious that the witnesses had joined hands with the accused-appellant. In the statement recorded on 20.7.1991 PW-1 Pushpa resiled from earlier statement and tried to exonerate her father the appellant Devilal. She went to extent of saying that earlier statement was given on a threat from SHO. On re-call it became obvious that the witnesses had joined hands with the accused-appellant. In the statement recorded on 20.7.1991 PW-1 Pushpa resiled from earlier statement and tried to exonerate her father the appellant Devilal. She went to extent of saying that earlier statement was given on a threat from SHO. However, she admitted to the questions of Public Prosecutor that her affidavit was got signed from her without telling her about the contents. She categorically admitted in answer to the questions of the Public Prosecutor that the matter had been compromised between her father the appellant and the complainants and because of that she has changed her statement. PW-6 Surja Ram appellant's father-in-law also changed his statement when he was re-called and examined on 2.8.1991. PW-7 Dhanna Ram father of the appellant had died by the time, the matter was compromised. He could not, therefore, be re-called and his statement remained intact. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that after the witnesses had resided from their statements, nothing remained against the appellant and he deserved to be acquitted. It was also contended that the appellant had given only one blow with a wooden instrument which is not a normal weapon used by anyone for committing murder. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the case fell, at the most within the scope of Section 304 part 2 of the IPC and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the entire evidence, we do not find the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant convincing. There is cogent evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. His own father has lodged a FIR and has given a statement before the Court clearly against him. His own daughter had spoken the truth before the Court and only because in the changed circumstances, she tried to retract from her stand, it is not necessary that her evidence cannot be assessed and relied upon especially when she admitted to a compromise between the parties under which she was changing her statement. His own daughter had spoken the truth before the Court and only because in the changed circumstances, she tried to retract from her stand, it is not necessary that her evidence cannot be assessed and relied upon especially when she admitted to a compromise between the parties under which she was changing her statement. It is quite understandable that relations faced with the problem of financially supporting the family were trying to resile from their original stand to facilitate acquittal of the accused-appellant, but it is not necessary for the Court to fall prey to such efforts on the part of the near relations of the appellant. In the first place the Session Court should not have re-considered the prayer for re-calling the witnesses when the prayer was once rejected and there were no fresh circumstances warranting such a course to be taken. After all, re-call of a witness is not a normal routine matter and the Court has to apply its mind and pass a judicial order on such application with proper application of mind and for cogent reasons. In this case the Sessions Court has fallen prey to an obvious attempt to over-reach the Court by re-examining the witnesses to wipe-out their earlier testimony. It is a clear abuse of the process of the Court. 7. So far as the question of the offence falling under Section 304 Part 2 of IPC, the injury on the deceased would not support the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. There were as many as four injuries on the head of the deceased. They were as under:- 1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1 /3" bone deep antero-posterior in direction, Right frontoparietal area of scalp. 2. Lacerated wound 2" x 1 /4" bone deep upper and outer part of right eye ball. 3. Bruise with swelling 3" x 2" right temporal and parofid area. 4. Fracture of right temporal, right maxillary bone and outer part of right orbit bone. Two last molar teeth right upper side are loosened due to fracture of maxillary bone. Right temporal bone fracture pieces are displaced and pressed inside towards brain. Laceration of right middle meningeal artery. 8. These injuries clearly suggest intention to cause death. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any force in the appeal. It dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******