Judgment PALSHIKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed on 6th March, 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar insessions case No. 82/93 convicting the accused Mahendra Singh under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing a homicidal death of his wife Surjeet Kaur. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case giving rise to the present appeal stated briefly is as under. ( 3 ) THE first information report was lodged on 27-6-93 in Police Station Gharsana by one Baldev Singh s/o Darshan Singh at about 11-30 a. m. that at 8-00 in the morning, he was informed that Surjeet Kaur has been killed by Mahendra Singh and he has therefore, come to lodge the report. It was alleged in the first information report that in the night at about 1-00 Oclock. Mahendra Singh stabbed his wife resulting in her death. The motive for assaulting was alleged to be the misconduct of Surjeet Kaur. Investigation was undertaken on the basis of this first information report and ultimately, the accused was prosecuted for murder of his wife. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and on appreciation of this evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and sentenced the accused for imprisonment for life as aforesaid. ( 4 ) SHRI Mridul Jain, learned counsel for the accused assailed the judgment on several grounds. It was the contention of the learned counsel that the first information report was lodged belatedly, there are discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses and there is no independent evidence recorded by the prosecution to warrant the inference of irresistible guilt attributable to the accused from the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence of murder nor there is any evidence of any intention to kill present on behalf of the accused and consequently, no conviction could be recorded u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment was supported by the learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of the record and the eye-witnesses testimony of two persons who are closely related to the accused. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, this evidence was enough to record conviction as is done by the learned Sessions Judge. The judgment was supported by the learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of the record and the eye-witnesses testimony of two persons who are closely related to the accused. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, this evidence was enough to record conviction as is done by the learned Sessions Judge. We have appreciated this contention on re-appreciation of the evidence as is laid down by the prosecution. ( 5 ) PW. 1 Baldev Singh lodged the first information report after he leant from Jeet Singh and Jaspal Kaur daughter and son-in-law of deceased Sujeet Kaur and the accused. He has proved the first information report. He also proves the spot map and the "panchanama" of the dead body which was recorded in his presence. He thus, proves the death of Surjeet Kaur. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 is Jaspal Kaur who was eye-witness of the gory incident and is daughter of deceased. She has deposed that she was sleeping in the night of 26th June, 1993 when she was woken up by a noise of hitting, she saw that her father was hitting her mother with a sword (Kripan), she therefore, tried to stop the accused in which process she herself was injured. The testimony of this witness is a sterling quality. She has given a perfect description and what has transpired and withstood the cross-examination. There is no reason whatever revealed by the cross-examination to doubt her testimony. She has very clearly deposed that she was awakened in the night between 12-00 and 1-00 p. m. and along with her other brothers and sisters were also awakened. She then states that she saw her mother being beaten by her father with a sword and she therefore, tried to save her mother in which process her hand was also injured by the father. She then left the house with her brothers and sisters to the house of Jeet Singh. She then told Jeet Singh the entire incident and then Jeet Singh returned to the house of the accused with these children. She then stated that on return, Jeet Singh asked Sukhi, another daughter of the deceased and accused to call the mother who was lying injured on the bed when the accused said that the mother will never speak and the mother was at that time dead. She then stated that on return, Jeet Singh asked Sukhi, another daughter of the deceased and accused to call the mother who was lying injured on the bed when the accused said that the mother will never speak and the mother was at that time dead. It will be seen from the further evidence that this witness is fully corroborated on all material particulars by other witnesses examined by the prosecution. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 Ramjan Khan is another neighbour of the accused and the deceased. In the night Jeet Singh informed him that Mahendra Singh killed his wife and has also injured his daughter, therefore, the witness accompanied Jeet Singh and others to the house of the victim along with the daughters of the victim. The witness then states as under :the witness thus, corroborates independently the testimony of P. W. 2 Jaspal Kaur. The cross-examination of this witness is wholly inconsequential. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 is another daughter of the victim and the accused who had the misfortune of witnessing of her father murdering her mother. This girl has deposed that :she then stated that they went to the house of Jeet Singh, after some time, returned with other people. When she was told to call her mother, she deposed as follows : ( 9 ) THE cross-examination of this witness is also inconsequential and very honestly admits that she was afraid and ran away with her sisters. She thus fully corroborates the statement of P. W. 2 Jaspal Kaur who was the other eye-witness. The testimony of these two witnesses is duly corroborated by testimony of P. W. 5 Jeet Singh on all material particulars to state what has been deposed by this witness is only repeating what has been stated by other witnesses. Suffice it to say on re-appreciation of the entire evidence of this witness that he stated what has been seen by him and has honestly corroborated the eye-witnesses who are daughters of the victim and the accused. To the similar effect is the evidence of P. W. 6 Jeet Singh s/o Bhilasingh, son-in-law of the deceased and the accused. He deposes that he was told by Jaspal Kaur that the father has killed the mother, that she was injured while saving the mother. He thus, corroborates the statement of Jaspal Kaur. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 Dr. He deposes that he was told by Jaspal Kaur that the father has killed the mother, that she was injured while saving the mother. He thus, corroborates the statement of Jaspal Kaur. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 Dr. Rajesh Chandra who proves the homicidal death of Surjeet Kaur and states that the death was caused due to serious injury on the body of the deceased. The testimony of this witness is not challenged. PW. 9 is the Photographer who proves the photographs of the dead body. P. W. 10 is the constable who proves the Malkhana Entries and P. W. 11 is the Investigating Officer who proves the investigation. A total appreciation of these witnesses thus, reveals that Surjeet Kaur met homicidal death at the hands of her husband, which killing was duly witnessed by the daughters of the deceased and the accused. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of these witnesses. There is no reason to believe that they are falsely implicating the accused person. It is impossible to believe that daughters would implicate their father for the murder of their mother, if factually they have not seen. The order of conviction is, therefore, correct and requires no interference. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.