JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:---The appellant was tried for committing murder of his father Raghunath Rane. At the trial before the Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Sessions Case No. 39/1998, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge accepting the evidence by his judgment and order dated 9-11-1998 convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction in this appeal. 2. The prosecution against the appellant arises out of the incident that took place on 21-7-1997 at about 8.00 a.m. in the field of the victim Raghunath Rane situated within the limits of Jambhuldhaba which comes under Malkapur Police Station. The appellant is the son of deceased Raghunath and Parvatibai (P.W. 1). On the date of incident they were working in their field. Raghunath wanted to draw water from the well situated in the field by electric motor that was installed on the well. When the motor was started, Raghunath was collecting water in the ditch. That time the appellant came there and told his father Raghunath not to collect water in the ditch and that the pipe should not be connected with the motor installed on the well. Raghunath told the appellant that he might remove the pipe, but only after filling of the ditch with water. The appellant became angry and he took a spade that was lying by the side of the ditch and started giving blows with it on the head of Raghunath. Raghunath sustained bleeding injuries and he collapsed on the ground. He was immediately shifted on the bullock-cart to Rural Hospital, Malkapur. In fact the appellant had initially accompanied Parvatibai and victim Raghunath in the bullock-cart, but after having reached to the Octroi Post the appellant got down from the bullock-cart and he ran away. After Raghunath was admitted in the hospital, Doctor who examined him declared him dead. Information in respect of death of Raghunath was given to Malkapur Rural Police Station by the Hospital Authorities. 3. After Raghunath was admitted in the hospital, Doctor who examined him declared him dead. Information in respect of death of Raghunath was given to Malkapur Rural Police Station by the Hospital Authorities. 3. Police Sub-Inspector Raghunath Shankar Saindane (P.W. 4) who was attached to Malkapur Rural Police Station as P.S.I. then, on receiving information reached to Rural Hospital and after seeing that the victim Raghunath had died, recorded statement of Parvatibai vide Exhibit 17 and crime was registered vide Crime No. 68 of 1997 in Malkapur Rural Police Station. The matter was then investigated by P.S.I. Chandrakant Barawkar (P.W. 5). He visited the hospital and drew inquest panchanama and sent the dead body to the Cottage Hospital, Malkapur for conducting post-mortem. The appellant was arrested on the same day under arrest panchanama which is admitted by the defence. The clothes of the appellant which were found to be stained with blood, came to be seized by preparing separate seizure memo. The spot panchnama was also drawn and that time articles found on the spot were also seized on making panchnama. During the course of investigation P.S.I. Barawkar (P.W. 5) sent spade to the Medical Officer who had conducted postmortem examination for seeking his opinion in respect of the cause of injuries. The Dr. Vilas Navrange (P.W. 3) was the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the victim and submitted the post mortem report Exhibit 25. In his evidence he has stated in detail about the external injuries which he noted on the body of the deceased, which have been described with clarity in Column No. 17 of the post-mortem report-Exhibit. He found in all five lacerated injuries situated on the head of the deceased. There were multiple fractures on frontal temporal and occipital bones. On internal examination he noticed Haematoma on left side of parietal area of skull valutmultiple fractures of frontal temporal and occipital bones. There were multiple lacerations of brain on right frontal lobe, temporal lobe and occipital lobe. Brain matter had come out through fracture of skull bones. All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature. According to him internal injuries were caused due to blows given on the head and they were corresponding to the external Injuries No. 1 to 5. The cause of death is due to haemorrhagic plus neurogenic shock due to injuries to vital organ i.e. brain. All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature. According to him internal injuries were caused due to blows given on the head and they were corresponding to the external Injuries No. 1 to 5. The cause of death is due to haemorrhagic plus neurogenic shock due to injuries to vital organ i.e. brain. According to him the Injuries Nos. 1 to 5 were cumulatively sufficient to cause death of the victim in ordinary course of nature. When the spade was referred to him for opinion, after examining the same he gave his opinion vide Exhibit that the injuries could be caused by handle or even the blade of the spade. After receiving the report of Chemical Analyser, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur who in due course committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. At the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of denial. It was suggested to the prosecution witness by the defence that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of fall on stones. The learned Sessions Judge, accepting the evidence of witnesses Parvatibai and that of Amol (P.W. 2) who claimed to be eye-witness to the incident and also the medical evidence and circumstantial evidence as to the finding of blood on the clothes of the accused, reached to the conclusion that the victim was done to death by the appellant and consequently the appellant was found guilty for offence of committing murder under section 302 and he was accordingly sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and also fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months. 5. We have heard Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Loney, learned A.P.P. for the State. Before we consider the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant, we state few facts about which there in no controversy. It is not disputed that on the day when the occurrence took place Raghunath was working in the field. His wife Parvatibai and the grandson Amol (P.W. 2) and also the appellant were in the field at that time. It is not disputed further that deceased Raghunath sustained injuries, on his head, which were later on noted and identified by Medical Officer-Dr. Vilas Navrange (P.W. 3). We have already referred to the medical evidence of Dr. His wife Parvatibai and the grandson Amol (P.W. 2) and also the appellant were in the field at that time. It is not disputed further that deceased Raghunath sustained injuries, on his head, which were later on noted and identified by Medical Officer-Dr. Vilas Navrange (P.W. 3). We have already referred to the medical evidence of Dr. Vilas Navrange while dealing with the prosecution, his evidence went unchallenged, so far as it relates to factum of injuries sustained by deceased Raghunath and the cause of death. In this context it is also significant to note that Dr. Vilas Navrange in his cross-examination has totally ruled out the possibility of the injuries being caused due to fall on the ground. He has categorically stated that it is not possible that in a single fall the five injuries found in this case can be caused. Therefore, having regard to the medical evidence and the fact that the victim sustained severe injuries on his head, corresponding to which there was internal damage and it was to the extent that the brain matter had come out through the fracture of the skull bones. There is no hesitation in holding that the victim Raghunath died homicidal death. It is crystal clear from the evidence on record that the death of Raghunath was due to injuries he sustained and that the injuries would have been caused by spade that came to be seized in this case during the course of the investigation. 6. As regards the involvement of the appellant in assaulting the victim Raghunath, the prosecution has placed reliance on the ocular testimony of witness Parvatibai and Amol. We have already said that the presence of both these witnesses at the time when incident took place in the field is not disputed and at the same time it is borne out by the other evidence on record. The witness Parvatibai has stated in her evidence before the Court that while she was in the field her husband told her that he would store water from the well by starting electric motor and she accordingly switched on the motor. But then her grandson Amol gave a call to her saying that the appellant who happened to be the father of Amol had assaulted Raghunath. But then her grandson Amol gave a call to her saying that the appellant who happened to be the father of Amol had assaulted Raghunath. She therefore, rushed out of the house and according to her in her presence the appellant gave three blows of the spade on the head of her husband Raghunath. She snatched the spade from the hands of the appellant and threw it away near the firewood heap and that time the witness Amol ran away from there and called some one for help. 7. Witness-Amol, in his evidence has categorically stated that when he returned after answering the call of nature his grandfather who was fitting the pipe in the ditch for filling water, his father disturbed the position of the pipe and when his grandfather asked his father not to disturb and when his grandfather asked him to switch on the electric motor, he gave call to his grand mother i.e. witness-Parvatibai and asked her to switch on motor. Accordingly Parvatibai switched on the motor. The ditch was then filled with water and his grandfather started collecting earth nearing the ditch and at that time his father i.e. the appellant who was sitting in the bullockcart holding the spade came there and gave five blows on the head of his grandfather. Grandfather then collapsed on the ground. He further stated that grandfather was removed by bullockcart to the hospital. This evidence of witness Amol corroborates the version of Parvatibai. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out admission by witness Parvatibai in her cross-examination wherein she has stated that "When I came out of the house, my husband was already lying on the ground. In my presence no quarrel took place and no verbal exchange took place". The learned Counsel submitted with vehemence that this admission by witness Parvatibai totally falsifies her claim that in her presence the appellant assaulted the victim with the spade. He also referred to the evidence of witness Amol from where he has pointed out that his evidence if considered, having regard to the omissions, certainly goes to show that witness Parvatibai was not present at the time when the assault was made. He also submitted that witness Amol being a child witness his evidence will have to be appreciated with care and caution. He also submitted that witness Amol being a child witness his evidence will have to be appreciated with care and caution. We do not think that having regard to the whole evidence of witness Parvatibai the admission she has given in cross-examination, her presence at the time of occurrence was doubtful. It is significant to note that certain suggestions were given to witnesses Parvatibai and that too after the said admission was elicited in her cross-examination. She has stoutly denied the suggestions saying "It is not true to say that I am deposing falsely that in my presence the accused gave three blows of spade on the head of my husband." In my opinion the suggestion which has been stoutly denied by the witness, consequently lends assurance to what she has stated in her examination-in-chief about the occurrence which took place in her presence. In addition to that her presence at the time of occurrence, in the field is borne out on the evidence on record. It is also, not the case of the prosecution that whatsoever assault on the victim Raghunath was made, was only till the time he collapsed on the ground. Therefore, it is likely that the witness Parvatibai must have witnessed the assault on the victim by the accused after the victim fell down on receiving the blows at the hands of the appellant. 9. There is another clinching evidence supporting the prosecution version of witness-Parvatibai as regards her claim to have witnessed the incident of assault. It is admitted that Parvatibai's statement was recorded vide Exhibit 17 by P.S.I., who reached the hospital after receiving the information from the hospital authorities that the victim had died. It was on the basis of that report (Exhibit 17), made by Parvatibai that the offence has been registered. It is pertinent to note that in the report Exhibit 17, the witness Parvatibai has categorically stated regarding the fact that the appellant assaulted her husband with the spade giving blows on the head of her husband. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the present of the witness Parvatibai at the time of occurrence is doubtful. The witness Parvatibai is mother of appellant. In the nature of things, no mother would give false evidence against her son. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the present of the witness Parvatibai at the time of occurrence is doubtful. The witness Parvatibai is mother of appellant. In the nature of things, no mother would give false evidence against her son. Nothing is brought in her evidence, to show that she had any reason to depose falsely against appellant. Therefore, her evidence inspires confidence. 10. The witness Amol in his evidence has categorically stated about the presence of witness Parvatibai whom he called to switch on the motor and then when the assault was made by his father on his grandfather-Raghunath. He categorically stated that his grandmother rushed to the spot and switched off the motor. The learned Counsel for the appellant in cross-examination of this witness brought omission as regards the factum of presence of witness Parvatibai at the time when the appellant assaulted the victim. This witness claimed that he had stated before police that in presence of his grandmother, the appellant gave three blows of spade, but this witness could not assign any reason why this fact is not recorded by the police in his statement. The learned Counsel giving much emphasis on this omission submitted that claim of witness Parvatibai that she witnesses the incident is falsified. We have already dealt with the evidence of witness Parvatibai and considering here entire evidence we have found that whatever she claimed in her evidence and more particularly as to witnessing the incident of assault, sounds natural. Therefore, this omission in the evidence of witness Amol is of no consequence, so far as the credibility of this witness is concerned. This witness was cross-examined by defence in detail. But what we have found that on material particulars regarding the factum of assault by victim, the claim of this witness has remained unshaken. The presence of this witness at the time of occurrence is not disputed, it is true that his witness Amol being a child witness, his evidence has to be considered with greater care and caution. We do not find any material brought in the cross-examination of this witness at least indicating that he gave the evidence on account of tutoring him by anyone. His evidence inspires confidence. We have no hesitation in mind that the witness Amol has given truthful evidence before the Court. We do not find any material brought in the cross-examination of this witness at least indicating that he gave the evidence on account of tutoring him by anyone. His evidence inspires confidence. We have no hesitation in mind that the witness Amol has given truthful evidence before the Court. It is again pertinent to note that witness Amol gave evidence against his father. In the nature of things no son would give false evidence against his father. This itself is sufficient to accept his evidence. That apart his evidence lends assurance to the attending circumstances in the case. The medical evidence on record corroborates the version of witness Amol. 11. The seizure of clothes of the accused is admitted and also proved through the evidence of witness Parvatibai. The witness Parvatibai identified the clothes of the deceased as well as that of the accused. The report of the Chemical Analyser Exhibit 7 is admitted by the defence. As per this report human blood is detected on the clothes of the appellant. The blood detected on the clothes of the deceased is of "A" group. No explanation is given by the appellant as to finding of human blood on his clothes. On the other hand the report of Chemical Analyser is admitted by the appellant. In our opinion this circumstance of finding human blood on the clothes of the accused is a circumstance incriminating in nature. 12. The spade article 5 was found on the place of occurrence and it was seized when the spot panchanama Exhibit 20 was made. It is pertinent to note that as per the Chemical Analyser's Report Exhibit 7, the blood detected on this spade was of Group "A". We have already pointed out that the blood of the deceased was of "A" group. This finding of blood of the same group on the weapon namely the spade, undoubtedly goes to show that the spade article 5 was the weapon of the assault and the witness-Parvatibai has identified the same. 13. So, considering the evidence of eye-witness coupled with the circumstances which stood proved, it is established that the deceased was done to death by the appellant as a result of assaulting him with the spade at the time of occurrence. Having regard to the serious nature of the injuries inflicted, it goes without saying that the intention was to commit the murder. Having regard to the serious nature of the injuries inflicted, it goes without saying that the intention was to commit the murder. The medical evidence also shows that internal injuries which were corresponding to external injuries, were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the appellant was rightly found guilty for offence of committing murder of his father. The trial Court has committed no error in holding the appellant guilty for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months. We do not find that there is any reason to interfere in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The appeal, therefore, merits no consideration, same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----