ONKARESHWAR BHATT, J. State of U. P. has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 20-12-1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 515 of 1982 by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly. By the impugned judgment accused respondent Ram Sewak was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I. P. C. 2. Consequent to issuance of non-bailable warrant accused respondent was arrested and had been sent to jail. Sri Samit Gopal was appointed as amicus curiae for arguing the case on behalf of the accused respondent. 3. Sri S. K. Pal, learned A. G. A. and Sri Samit Gopal, amicus curiae have been heard. 4. Deceased of the case was Surendra Pal Singh Chauhan. He lived in village Padera Police Station Fatehganj (East) District Bareilly. Kumari Vineeta P. W. 1 is daughter of the deceased. The accused also lived in village Padera and neighbour of the deceased. The deceased was a teacher in a school in village Khera Bajhera. On 13-2-1992 the deceased was returning from his school towards his village on a cycle. Km. Vineeta was accompanying the deceased and sitting on carrier of the cycle. At about 5 p. m. when they reached near the field of Leeladhar and Hori Lal Gangwar the accused emerged from wheat field of Leeladhar. The accused was armed with a lathi. The accused gave a lathi blow at the back side head of the deceased due to which the deceased as well as Vineeta fell down. Vineeta ran away and came to her house and returned back to the place of occurrence alongwith his maternal uncle Virendra Singh P. W. 2. They found that the deceased was lying having injuries on his head. They carried the deceased to his house and from there he was taken to Primary Health Center, Faridpur. On reaching the hospital the deceased breathed his last. Report of the occurrence was prepared by Virendra Singh at the hospital itself and the same was given at police station Faridpur where a case was registered at 7. 10 p. m. Post- mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased took place on 14-2-1992 at 3. 30 p. m. by Dr. Narsingh Bahadur. Following anti-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the top of head in middle. 10 p. m. Post- mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased took place on 14-2-1992 at 3. 30 p. m. by Dr. Narsingh Bahadur. Following anti-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the top of head in middle. (2) Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left side head 12 cm above left ear under the left temporal bone. (3) Lacerated wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the left side top of head 15 cm above left eye brow, parietal bone left fractured. (4) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left side back of head 10 cm behind and above left ear. (5) Lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm on the occipital region underneath, occipital bone fractured. 5. On internal examination temporal, parietal and occipital bones were found fractured. In opinion of the doctor death of the deceased could have been caused at 5 p. m. on 13-2-1992 as a result of lathi injuries. 6. Defence of the accused was that he was falsely implicated due to enmity of Virendra Singh P. W. 2. The accused further stated that on the date of occurrence he was attending his brothers wife at Faridpur hospital who had undergone operation of tubectomy. D. W. 1 Mohammad Mobin Khan had been examined in this regard. D. W. 2 Rudra Prakash had been examined to prove that Vineeta was not present in the school on 13th, 14th and 15th of February, 1992 and that she failed in the High School examination of 1992. 7. The trial Court doubted the presence of Vineeta at the time of occurrence. The trial Court also found that cycle was not found on the spot which cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. The trial Court also found that there was contradiction as to how the deceased was brought to his house. The trial Court also found that registration of the case at police station Faridpur and not at police station Fatehganj (East) cast doubt on the prosecution case. 8. The accused respondent Ram Sewak is single accused of the case. Km. The trial Court also found that there was contradiction as to how the deceased was brought to his house. The trial Court also found that registration of the case at police station Faridpur and not at police station Fatehganj (East) cast doubt on the prosecution case. 8. The accused respondent Ram Sewak is single accused of the case. Km. Vineeta P. W. 1 is solitary witness who has spoken about the incident in which her father had lost his life due to assault by lathi at the hands of the accused. The fact that the deceased had sustained lathi injuries, as noted above, cannot be disputed. The injuries were on the head of the deceased. According to the doctor death of the deceased had resulted due to hemorrhage and coma which was the result of ante mortem injuries. It has come in evidence of Vineeta P. W. 1 that on the date of occurrence she did not go to Shyam Sunder Kanya Inter College, Faridpur where she was studying in Class X. This fact has also been stated by D. W. 2 Rudra Prakash. Vineeta stated that she was taken by her father to his school at Khera Bajhera for the purposes of scholarship. She stated that she started alongwith her father at 9 a. m. and at about 4 p. m. they left the school for their village. It had come in evidence that on that date she did not sign any application for scholarship. The mere fact that she did not sign any application for scholarship by itself is not sufficient to doubt her presence at the time of occurrence. Since her father had asked her to accompany him for the purposes of scholarship she had gone with him to his school. It has been submitted that the evidence does not show as to where Vineeta remained during the day. However, no probe was made from the witness herself in this regard. The statement of Vineeta shows that she accompanied her father to his school and was returning back alongwith him at about 4 p. m. Only one lathi blow was given by the accused while the deceased and Vineeta were on cycle due to which both of them fell down. Whereafter Vineeta ran away from the place and came to her house. From the place of occurrence the house of the deceased is about half kilometer. Whereafter Vineeta ran away from the place and came to her house. From the place of occurrence the house of the deceased is about half kilometer. When Vineeta returned alongwith her maternal uncle Virendra Singh P. W. 2 the deceased was found in injured condition. Vineeta stated that while going to her house she did not raise any cry because no one was present near about and there were cultivatory fields near the place of occurrence. Tej Pal Singh, Sub Inspector P. W. 3 stated that there were fields and jungle near the place of occurrence. Vineeta stated that the deceased was brought to the house on a Dunlop while P. W. 2 Virendra Singh stated that he was brought on a cot. The description of Dunlop and cot is a minor discrepancy and is liable to be ignored. The prosecution case was that from the house deceased was carried to Primary Health Center Faridpur on a milk van and there is no inconsistency in this regard. The trial Court has observed that there is no oral or documentary evidence to show that cycle was found on the spot. However, no question in this regard was put to Vineeta P. W. 1, Virendra Singh P. W. 2 and Sub Inspector Tej Pal Singh P. W. 3. The place of occurrence is near a chak road. It might be that any passers-by would have taken away the cycle. In the absence of any probe regarding cycle no capital can be made by the defence and this fact itself does not belie the prosecution version that the deceased and Vineeta were not returning on cycle. 9. Virendra Singh P. W. 2 has stated that due to night and fear he did not go to police station Faridpur (East) for lodging the report. He stated that police station Faridpur is infront of the Primary Health Center, Faridpur. It has come in evidence that from village Padera both the police stations Fatehpur (East) and Faridpur are equi distant. P. W. 4 Subhash Chandra Sub Inspector has denied the suggestion that the First Information Report was lodged at police station Faridpur due to any external pressure or consultation. Since the police station Faridpur was infront of Primary Health Center Faridpur, lodging of the First Information Report at police station Faridpur cannot be said to be unusual. P. W. 4 Subhash Chandra Sub Inspector has denied the suggestion that the First Information Report was lodged at police station Faridpur due to any external pressure or consultation. Since the police station Faridpur was infront of Primary Health Center Faridpur, lodging of the First Information Report at police station Faridpur cannot be said to be unusual. This circumstance also does not cast any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. The Investigating Officer Tej Pal Singh P. W. 3 stated that at the Primary Health Center Faridpur he recorded the statement of Vineeta and Virendra Singh on 13-2- 1992. Vineeta stated that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after 8 or 9 days of the occurrence. This discrepancy is not very material for casting doubt on the sworn testimony of Vineeta. 10. The defence case that accused was present at Faridpur hospital for attending his brothers wife who had undergone operation of tubectomy is not worth reliance. A question was put to P. W. 2 Virendra Singh that Ram Prakash is the brother of the accused. The name of the wife of Ram Prakash was not asked. The statement of D. W. 1 Mohammad Mobin Khan shows that operation of one Ishwarwati had taken place. There is no evidence to show that Ishwarwati is the wife of Ram Prakash. In the above situation, the alleged plea of alibi of the accused is not at all reliable. It has been suggested to Virendra Singh that some burglary at the house of deceased had taken place about three months and about fifteen days prior to the occurrence. No report was lodged in this regard. Virendra Singh stated that since miscreant was not seen, no report was lodged. It appears that there was suspicion that the miscreant was accused. It has come in evidence that the deceased complained to M. P. who had sent a Sub Inspector at the House of the accused, who scolded the wife of the accused. Virendra Singh also stated that the accused had committed theft of wheel of machine of his uncle. Virendra Singh stated that since the accused was not apprehended, neither he was angry nor annoyed with him. The statement of Virendra Singh that some altercation took place in between the deceased and the accused about twenty days earlier is a hearsay statement, which is liable to be ignored. 11. Virendra Singh stated that since the accused was not apprehended, neither he was angry nor annoyed with him. The statement of Virendra Singh that some altercation took place in between the deceased and the accused about twenty days earlier is a hearsay statement, which is liable to be ignored. 11. The reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the presence of Vineeta is not cogent and consistent. Since the accused was neighbour of the deceased, she knew him from before. Her presence on the spot cannot be doubted. She has given complete narration of incident that it was the accused who gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased in her presence. The mere fact that she is the daughter of the deceased is not a factor which affects the credibility of the evidence. Her evidence finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence and her testimony inspires confidence. She can be classified in the category of wholly reliable witness. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the sworn testimony of Vineeta is sufficient for bringing home the guilt of the accused. 13. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and order of acquittal of the appellant is set aside. Accused- respondent Ram Sewak is convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. for committing the murder of Surendra Pal Singh by intentionally and knowingly causing his death by lathi. Ram Sewak accused respondent is accordingly sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded to him. 14. Sri Samit Gopal, amicus curiae, will get a sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) as his fees for his assistance which he has rendered as amicus curiae. Appeal allowed. .