JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---Heard Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Smt. Jog, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-6-1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 16/1998 whereby appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of rupees one thousand, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The material particulars of the prosecution case, in nutshell, are as follows: 3. Deceased Pandurang Laxman Gaigole was father-in-law of the accused and on the day of incident, he was staying with the accused. On 30-3-1997 at about 4 p.m. the accused told his wife P.W. 1 Nalinibai that her father, i.e. deceased Pandurang should leave the house. On 30-3-1997 the family members of the accused, i.e. his wife P.W. 1 Nalinibai, his sons and deceased Pandurang after they had their meal, went to bed. At about 4 a.m. P.W. 1 Nalinibai, heard the shouts raised by her father, who was saying "Balya (name of one of the sons of accused), your father is beating me". On hearing these shouts, P.W. 1 Nalinibai came out of the house in the Court yard and saw the accused, who was sitting on the chest of deceased Pandurang and inflicting injuries by means of a Sura (knife) on the person of her father. P.W. 1 Nalinibai shouted for help. The son of the accused intervened and tried to separate the accused from the grand-father. On hearing hue and cry, P.W. 3 Raju Parkhe, who was residing next to the house of the accused, also rushed to the spot of incident and witnessed giving of blow by accused by means of a knife on the person of deceased Pandurang. 4. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant, states that P.W. 1 Nalinibai and P.W. 2 Kailash are daughter and grand-son of deceased Pandurang and, therefore, they are interested witnesses and hence, their testimony needs to be scrutinised with great care and caution. It is submitted that there is a material omission in the evidence of P.W. 1 Nalinibai. 4. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant, states that P.W. 1 Nalinibai and P.W. 2 Kailash are daughter and grand-son of deceased Pandurang and, therefore, they are interested witnesses and hence, their testimony needs to be scrutinised with great care and caution. It is submitted that there is a material omission in the evidence of P.W. 1 Nalinibai. She has stated in her substantive evidence in the Court that when she heard the shouts raised by deceased Pandurang, she came out of the house in the Court yard and saw the accused, who was sitting on the chest of her father. However, she could not assign any reason why this fact is not finding place in her Police statement. It is contended that this omission is a material omission and goes to the root of the ocular testimony of this witness and adversely affects the same. It is further contended that this shows that this witness is suppressing truth and creates doubt about the prosecution case. 5. Shri Daga further states that it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that at the relevant time, they had seen a scuffle between the accused and deceased, which indicates that the accused was not the aggressor. Otherwise, accused could have conflicted injuries on the person of deceased, who at the relevant time, according to the prosecution, was asleep and scuffle could not have taken place. It is submitted that deceased wanted to assault the accused and, therefore, scuffle had taken place between them and during the said scuffle, deceased caused injuries on the person of accused. It is contended that the trial Court completely ignored this aspect of the matter and wrongly held that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that in the instant case prosecution has failed to explain the injuries caused to the accused and, therefore, suppressed the genesis of the quarrel. Therefore, accused is entitled to get benefit in this regard. 6. Learned Counsel Shri Daga states that even if it is presumed that the appellant/accused has caused harm, the appellant exercised right of private defence and in the scuffle, injuries were caused to the accused as well as deceased. Therefore, accused is entitled to get benefit in this regard. 6. Learned Counsel Shri Daga states that even if it is presumed that the appellant/accused has caused harm, the appellant exercised right of private defence and in the scuffle, injuries were caused to the accused as well as deceased. It is contended that in the instant case, there is no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of deceased Pandurang and, therefore, conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. It is submitted that findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are unjust and not sustainable in law. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in (Machindra Babu Salve v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1997 Cri.L.J. 486. 7. On the other hand, Smt. Jog, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. It is contended that there are as many as three witnesses to the incident, namely, P.W. 1 Nalinibai, P.W. 2 Kailash and P.W. 3 Raju. The version of these three witnesses is consistent and corroborates the material particulars of the prosecution case. P.W. 3 Raju is an independent witness and corroborates the prosecution story, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence. It is submitted that the trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses rightly held that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence of murder against accused and the trial Court is justified in recording finding of conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the learned respective Counsel for the parties and considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. P.W. 1 Nalinibai in her examination-in-chief has stated that her sons and father had their meal and after that, they went to bead on 30-3-1997. At about 4 a.m. she heard shouts of her father for help. After hearing the shouts, she came out of the house in the Court yard and saw accused inflicting blows by means of a knife on the person of the deceased. She has also stated in her examination-in-chief that her son intervened in order to separate accused and deceased. At about 4 a.m. she heard shouts of her father for help. After hearing the shouts, she came out of the house in the Court yard and saw accused inflicting blows by means of a knife on the person of the deceased. She has also stated in her examination-in-chief that her son intervened in order to separate accused and deceased. After the incident in question, she had taken her father (deceased) to the Hospital, where he died. The first information report is lodged by this witness almost immediately after the incident in question and in the said report, she has given all the material particulars of the prosecution case. Since first information report is lodged without lapse of time by P.W. 1 Nalinibai, possibility of concoction and fabrication, in our opinion, is ruled out. The material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by the witness in the first information report stand completely corroborated by the ocular testimony of this witness. 9. We do not find any material contradiction or omission in the evidence of P.W. 1 Nalinibai. The omission, which occurred as pointed out to us by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in respect of the fact that this witness did not mention in her statement before the police that at the relevant time, she saw the accused sitting on the chest of her father (deceased), in our view, is not a material omission in order to discredit her entire testimony. We cannot lose sight of the fact that P.W. 1 Nalinibai is wife of the accused and daughter of the deceased. For her, both are near and dear and it is totally inconceivable that wife would falsely implicate her own husband for the murder of her own father, if somebody else would have committed the crime and allow that person to go scot free. We can see how painful and disturbing it must be for P.W. 1 Nalinibai to tell the truth to the police in her first information report and in her evidence, which was adduced before the Court about the incident in question. However, this witness had a course to disclose the truth not only in her report, but in her ocular testimony, which corroborates the material particulars of the prosecution case mentioned in the first information report. However, this witness had a course to disclose the truth not only in her report, but in her ocular testimony, which corroborates the material particulars of the prosecution case mentioned in the first information report. In the instant case, we cannot even remotely imagine that P.W. 1 Nalinibai would falsely implicate her own husband in crime in question. 10. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 Nalinibai that on the day prior to the incident, her husband/accused insisted that her father (deceased), who was staying with them at the relevant time, should leave the house. It has also come in the evidence that the accused was habituated to liquor and family members of the accused including his wife P.W. 1 Nalinibai were objecting him on this count. It is no doubt true that defence has given some suggestions to this witness, thereby indicating that Nalinibai, her son and father had beaten accused on the day earlier to the incident and, therefore, deceased had an axe to grind against the accused and hence, assaulted the accused by a knife, which has resulted in causing injuries to the accused. All these suggestions are totally denied by this witness. The defence's version that the deceased was the aggressor and wanted to assault the accused with a knife and in the scuffle, accused sustained injury is not only improbable, but the same is even inconceivable. In the instant case, the medical evidence is otherwise. The injuries sustained by the deceased are three in number, i.e. two incised wound and one stab wound. The stab wound was on the chest of the deceased and death is caused due to this stab wound. As against this, the accused sustained minor injuries, i.e. some contusions and abrasions. It is difficult to accept that if the deceased had a knife and wanted to inflict injuries on the accused, there ought to have been at least some incised or stab injury, may be minor in nature. However, the injuries which are found on the person of the accused completely rule out the theory canvassed by the defence. Even otherwise, as observed by us hereinabove, it is extremely difficult even to think that P.W. 1 Nalinibai being wife of the accused, would falsely implicate the accused in the crime in question. However, the injuries which are found on the person of the accused completely rule out the theory canvassed by the defence. Even otherwise, as observed by us hereinabove, it is extremely difficult even to think that P.W. 1 Nalinibai being wife of the accused, would falsely implicate the accused in the crime in question. We cannot ignore the fact that P.W. 1 Nalinibai, who at the relevant time was in the house, is the most natural witness and ocular testimony of this witness is truthful and corroborates material particulars of the prosecution case. 11. P.W. 2 Kailash is the younger son of the accused and in the examination-in-chief he has stated that at about 4 a.m. he also heard the shouts raised by his grand father, who was saying that "your father is beating me". After hearing those shouts, this witness came out of house in the Court yard and saw his father inflicting blows by Sura (knife) on the person of his grand father. He had also seen his elder brother, who was already present on the spot and was trying to separate the accused and deceased. This witness also tried to separate them. It is no doubt true that it has come in the cross- examination of this witness that at the relevant time, there was a scuffle going on between his father and grand father. However, this fact does not establish that the deceased was either the assailant or aggressor. This witness in the cross-examination only answered the question put to him by the defence by saying that scuffle was going on between his father and grand father. This solitary circumstance, in our considered view, is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was either the assailant or the aggressor. Similarly, it was suggested to this witness in the cross-examination that deceased had assaulted the accused. All these suggestions are completely denied by this witness. We cannot forget that this witness Kailash is the grand-son of the deceased and son of the accused and there is no occasion at all for him to falsely implicate his own father for the murder of his grand-father. We can imagine the plight of this young boy, who has a courage to tell the truth even at the cost of losing his father. We can imagine the plight of this young boy, who has a courage to tell the truth even at the cost of losing his father. There are no contradictions or omissions in his evidence and we have no hesitation to accept the testimony of this witness, which corroborates the prosecution case put forth in the first information report as well as unfolded by P.W. 1 Nalinibai in her evidence. 12. P.W. 3 Raju is an independent and natural witness. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that he heard the call given by the wife of the accused and, therefore, he rushed to the spot and saw accused inflicting blows by means of a knife on the person of the deceased. He has also stated that son of the accused was also there, who was trying to separate the injured. This witness also intervened in the quarrel and separated the accused, who ran away from the spot thereafter. There are no omissions or contradictions in the evidence of this witness. It has come in the cross-examination of this witness that he had seen only one blow given by the accused on the person of the deceased. The learned Counsel for the accused wanted to make capital out of this situation and canvassed before us that since there were three injuries on the person of the deceased, the version of this witness is inconsistent in this regard since this witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he had seen only one blow given by the accused. This discrepancy, in our opinion, is extremely minor. The entire evidence of this witness cannot be brushed aside on the basis of such minor discrepancy. The evidence of this witness completely corroborates the prosecution case in all material particulars. 13. The testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Santosh Sarda (P.W. 4). Dr. Sarda had conducted post-mortem examination and noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased : 1. Incised wound 2 x 1 cm. muscle deep obliquely placed anterio medically left arm near about 6 cm. below the left shoulder, edges are everted, margin sharp regular spindal shape injury, bleeding present. 2. Incised wound 2 x ½ inches muscle deep obliquely placed on left thigh anteriorly 5 cm. about the left knee. 3. Incised wound 2 x 1 cm. muscle deep obliquely placed anterio medically left arm near about 6 cm. below the left shoulder, edges are everted, margin sharp regular spindal shape injury, bleeding present. 2. Incised wound 2 x ½ inches muscle deep obliquely placed on left thigh anteriorly 5 cm. about the left knee. 3. Stab injury right side of chest surface injury spindal shape, incised edge is posed right side of lung, located on right side of chest, third inter costal space, 1 cm. away from the trum. Sizes 5 x ½ cm. and ½ to 1 cm. in deep, width 7 cm., third rib was cut obliquely placed inward and backward towards the vertibral column under line lung was cut. Edges were reverted, margin regular sharp. Incised wound injury goes tappering, shown in the figure drawn on the right side of Column No. 17, bleeding was present, inflammation was present, third rib was fracture." P.W. 4 Dr. Sarda has also stated that all these injuries were anti mortem and opined that death of Pandurang occurred due to shock, as a result of injury to lung and severe haemorrhage. He has also seen the weapon of offence and on examination of the weapon, this witness has opined that injuries 1 to 3 found on the person of the deceased were possible by the weapon of offence. This witness also examined the accused and noticed minor injuries i.e. three abrasions and one contusion. This witness has opined that all these injuries are simple injuries. 14. The medical evidence, in our opinion corroborates the prosecution case and does not lend any support to the theory propagated by the defence. On the other hand, the nature of injuries suffered by the accused, in our view, rules out the possibility of any assault by means of a knife committed by the deceased as suggested by the defence. The injuries, which were suffered by the accused, are not at all possible by the knife though Doctor has stated in the cross-examination that such injuries are possible, if they are caused by the blunt side of the knife. If the deceased was an aggressor and wanted to inflict injuries by means of a knife, then there was no justification or occasion for him to inflict injuries by the blunt side of the weapon. If the deceased was an aggressor and wanted to inflict injuries by means of a knife, then there was no justification or occasion for him to inflict injuries by the blunt side of the weapon. The theory propagated by the defence in our view, is not only imaginary, but the same is improbable and therefore, same cannot be accepted. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to hold that the deceased was an aggressor and at the relevant time, wanted to inflict injuries on the accused and therefore, accused exercised right of private defence. It is inconceivable that father in law would try to eliminate his own son in law and destroy the entire life of his own daughter and grand children. The story of private defence canvassed by the defence, in our view, is inherently improbable and, therefore cannot be accepted. 15. The judgment of this Court in Machindra Babu Salve v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 Cri.L.J. 486 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, which are entirely different than those in that case, is of no help to the defence. The learned Judges of this Court in the facts and circumstances of that case, in para (16) of the judgment, have observed thus :-- "16 We may also mention that the defence version of the incident is more probable than that of the prosecution. We have narrated the manner in which the incident took place according to the prosecution in para 2. We would however, like to add that Harishchandra P.W. 8 the son of the deceased and the other two eye-witnesses have not assigned any motive for the incident. On the other hand, the defence version of the incident spells out a reason for Harishchandra and Rama Salve launching an aggression on Uttam and others. The defence case is that the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra were inimical to the appellant and others because they were cultivating the land of one Sajan between whom and the deceased there was civil litigation. The defence suggestion is that on account of this fact while on the date and time of the incident given out by the prosecution, Uttam and others were returning from the market, the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra assaulted them. The defence suggestion is that on account of this fact while on the date and time of the incident given out by the prosecution, Uttam and others were returning from the market, the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra assaulted them. Rama Salve had a crow-bar in his hand with which he assaulted Uttam. In self defence Uttam assaulted Rama Salve with a knife and a crow-bar." Their Lordships in the above referred case, in view of the facts and circumstances of the said case, came to the conclusion that version of the defence was more probable than that of the prosecution and also gave reasons for coming to such conclusion. However, in the instant case, we have already held that version of the defence is inherently improbable and, therefore, ratio laid down in Machindra Babu Salve's case in our opinion, does not support the defence. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the finding of conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----