JUDGMENT 1. The sole appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No. 5/93. The charge against the appellant was that he committed murder of his wife Smt. Shyamali at about 8.10 p.m. On May 28, 1993 in the room which was in his possession as a tenant in Govind Nagar, Amer Road, Jaipur. He was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- vide judgment dated, March 19, 1994. In default of payment of fine, he was awarded three month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case are extensively set out in the impugned judgment of the trial Court and they indicate that at the time of incident, the informant Amit Chaudhary who was seeing television in his house, heard cries coming from downward of his house. He, immediately rushed there and found the appellant's wife was lying on the floor and the appellant was string her with some article of iron. The room where the occurrence took place was in possession of the appellant as a tenant. Other tenants, namely, Virendra Soni and Man Singh also came there. They tried to prevent the appellant from striking to his wife, but he did not pay any heed on their request on the contrary, turned violently towards them. The appellant thereafter, went on the roof of the house and started throwing stones on them. Some one informed the Police at Police Station, Brahmpuri, about the incident on telephone and the police came at the scene of occurrence. PW. 9 Shri Om Prakash Saini, Dy. S.P Amer Circle, also arrived at the spot on getting wireless message from the S.H.O., Brahmpuri. A. written report of the incident (Ex.P 1) was given to Police by the informant Amit Choudhary at 9.25 p.m. The S.H.O., after receiving the report, went to the police station for registration of the case where crime No. 128/93 under section 302 IPC was registered at 9.35 p.m. on the same night. After registration of the case, usual investigation was made by the Dy. S.P Shri Om Prakash Saini. The appellant Haridas was arrested in the night of incident itself vide Ex.P 5. After registration of the case, usual investigation was made by the Dy. S.P Shri Om Prakash Saini. The appellant Haridas was arrested in the night of incident itself vide Ex.P 5. Inquest report (Ex.P2) of the dead body was prepared in the night and thereafter, the body was made over for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by PW. 10 Dr. Vivekanand, Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur vide post-mortem examination report Ex.P 14. On examination, he found the following injuries on the dead body : 1. Lacerated would 3x1.5 cm. x muscle deep on left knee cap. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on area 1 cm. above injury No. 1. 3. Incised wound 8 cm. x 2 cm x muscle deep on posterior- lateral aspect of right fore arm middle ⅓ tailing medially and downwards placed obliquely. 4. Multiple incised wounds varying in size from 4 x 8 cm x muscle deep placed over right arm lateral aspect right elbow joint laterally and anteriorly right hand dorsal aspect, right thumb and right ring finger dorsal aspect. 5. Incised wound 2.5 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on right maler region of face placed obliquely telling downwards and laterally. 6. Multiple incised wounds varying in size from 4 cm x 1.5 muscle deep to 1 x 1/4 cm x skin deep placed over posterior aspect of left fore arm upper ⅓ telling downward, left thumb dorso medial aspect, Lt. index finger dorsal aspect, dorsum of left hand 7. 3 abrasions of size 9 cm. x 1/4 cm, 3 x 1.4 cm and 1 x 1/4 cm on Rt. thigh lower 1 /3rd posterior lateral aspect. 8. Multiple abrasions varying in size from 33 cm x 1.5 cm to 1 x 1/4 cm. placed obliquely and vertical from right mamary region to let aliae region and on front of chest. 9. Incised wound 9 cm x 5 cm x cavity deep loops of intestine lying outside with multiple cuts which are through and through on direction area below it shows partially attached pieces of 9th and 10th rib after they are cut. placed obliquely and vertical from right mamary region to let aliae region and on front of chest. 9. Incised wound 9 cm x 5 cm x cavity deep loops of intestine lying outside with multiple cuts which are through and through on direction area below it shows partially attached pieces of 9th and 10th rib after they are cut. Further the underlying lever tissues of right lobe of liver is badly crashed along/crushing of left log also whole are is full of clotted blood right side of diaphragm covering lever also shows multiple cuts and inner surface of lower part of sternum shows haematoma on right side of sternum whole area of abdominal cavity around this wound at its inner surface is showing haematoma. The stomach is lying separately outside body oblique its cut ends at both ends and it is cut at its lesser curvature in about 24 cm in length at lesser curvature. The part being elastic cannot be measured exactly, it is empty. 10. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on right side oack on chest placed obliquely in lower 1 /3rd. 11. Incised wound 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. x skin deep on area 5 cm. below injury No. 10 on right side back. 3. The Doctor opined the cause of death of the deceased Shyamali as the shock brought out as a result of the injuries mentioned above, specially injuries to inside organs of her body-lever. Intestine and stomach. Injury No. 9 by itself was sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of nature. After usual investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge and from where it was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City for trial. 4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The plea of the accused in his statement Under section 313 Cr.P.C., was of denial. No defence witness was examined. After completion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strongly contended that the report Ex.P 1 is hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. as it was submitted before the Police after commencement of the investigation. No defence witness was examined. After completion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strongly contended that the report Ex.P 1 is hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. as it was submitted before the Police after commencement of the investigation. Learned counsel contended that telephonic message in the instant case was the First Information Report (FIR) and on the basis of that report, the Police had started investigation. Learned counsel also contended that except PW. 1 Amit Choudhary, other two eye-witnesses, namely, PW. 2 Man Singh and PW. 11 Virendra Singh have not supported the prosecution case and the testimony of PW. 1 Amit Choudhary is not of sterling worth to maintain conviction of the appellant. Learned counsel further contended that PW. 1 Amit Choudhary has tried to improve his statement in the trial court by introducing the knife to be a weapon of offence. Then, it was submitted that the weapon of offence was neither produced in the Court nor it was shown to the Doctor to elucidate from him that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the said weapon. Lastly, it was contended that no Serologist report has been brought on record to connect the knife with the crime. 6. We considered the above submissions minutely and carefully. We also went through the entire record and judgment under challenge in the appeal. On our analytical consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel we find that none of them has any substance and the conviction of the appellant is well founded. 7. There is no dispute before us that at the relevant time, the appellant was living in lower portion of the house of the informant Amit Choudhary and his father Arun Kumar Choudhary. It was also not disputed before us that the appellant's wife Smt. Shyamali was assaulted in the room which was in the occupation of the appellants a tenant and that he died on account of the injuries sustained by her. The incident had taken place at 8.10 or 8.15 p.m. on 28.5.93. It was also not disputed before us that the appellant's wife Smt. Shyamali was assaulted in the room which was in the occupation of the appellants a tenant and that he died on account of the injuries sustained by her. The incident had taken place at 8.10 or 8.15 p.m. on 28.5.93. The police was intimated about the incident on telephone and when it reached at the scene of occurrence, report Ex.P 1 was submitted before it at 9.25 p.m. The report contains a full account of the incident and it was made by the eye-witness Amit Choudhary. The informant/complainant Amit Choudhary (PW. 1) has fully supported the prosecution version and the fact of his witnessing the incident. He has deposed that he climbed down from upper portion of the house after hearing shrieks and went near the room which was in occupation of the appellant and found that appellant's wife was lying on the floor and he was striking her with a weapon. The evidence of this witness is quite natural, consistent and firm and we find no ground to suspect on his testimony. The witness was having no animosity or malice against the appellant to falsely implicate him for the murder of his own wife. We find no substance in the criticism that the evidence of this witness is rendered unbelievable as he introduced a knife in his statement before the trial court. The incident had taken place at 8.10 or 8.15 in the night. It is true that in the report, the witness did not state specifically that the weapon was a knife from which the appellant was striking to his wife. We cannot over look that after the incident, the injuries of the deceased must have been seen by the witness and a knife, as a weapon of offence, was recovered by the Police on the disclosure of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, at the trial stage, if the witness states that the weapon of offence was a knife, his testimony does not stand shattered in any manner by this fact. The testimony of this witness also stands corroborated by the FIR which was immediately made to the Police when there was no occasion to concoct a false story to implicate the appellant. The medical evidence also supports his statement. 8. RW. The testimony of this witness also stands corroborated by the FIR which was immediately made to the Police when there was no occasion to concoct a false story to implicate the appellant. The medical evidence also supports his statement. 8. RW. 2 Man Singh, though, has corroborated the commission of the incident in the room and also the presence of the informant PW. 1 Ami Choudhary, but denied to identify the assailant. Apparently, this part of his statement was false and contrary to his Police statement (Ex.P 2) from which he was contradicted. 9. PW. 11 Virendra Kumar Soni, another tenant in the same house, has supported a apart of the story i.e. upto the stage of commission of the offence at the time and place of the incident. We are unable to subscribe to the argument of the learned counsel that because PW. 2 Man Singh and PW. 3 Virendra Kumar Soni, the eye-witnesses of the incident, did not support the prosecution version implicating the appellant, his conviction on the sole testimony of PW. 1 is not safe or justified. 10. The statement of PW. 1-Amit Choudhary further stands corroborated from the evidence of Dy.S.P- Om Prakash Soni who had reached at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident on getting wireless message. When he reached at the scene of occurrence, he found the appellant on the roof of the house from where he was throwing stones on the persons who had assembled there. We are also not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel that the report Ex.R 1 is hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. PW. 4 Constable Babu Lal has stated that information was received on telephone that one person was assaulting to his wife in a house in Govind Nagar Colony and thereupon, he and the SHO Jeewan Singh alongwith other Constables came at the spot. In cross-examination he further cleared that on telephone the person did not give the name of the assailant or the name of the victim woman. From his statement it is clear that the telephonic message was quite vague and the police also did not treat the said message as FIR. In the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the report Ex.P 1 is not hit by Section 162 Cr.RC. 11. From his statement it is clear that the telephonic message was quite vague and the police also did not treat the said message as FIR. In the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the report Ex.P 1 is not hit by Section 162 Cr.RC. 11. The weapon of offence was not produced in the Court as it was sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and it was not received back when the statement of witnesses were recorded, in any case, when the ocular evidence of the eye-witness Amit Choudhary is found trustworthy, non-production of the weapon of offence does not make the prosecution case untrustworthy. Similarly, non-production of Serologist's report does not discredit the ocular evidence. 12. Thus, we are of the confirmed view that the learned trial court committed no error in recording conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC. We are satisfied that the offence under section 302 is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******