M. C. JAIN, J. The appellant is Satyadeo Pasi who has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 23-11-1995 passed by Sri K. N. Sinha, the then I Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1995. The deceased Abhimanyu aged about 2 years was the own son of the appellant. 2. The appellant being in Jail, Sri Samit Gopal was appointed Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal. We have heard him and Sri G. S. Bisariya, learned A. G. A. from the side of State in opposition. 3. The incident occurred on 5-3-94 at about 3 P. M. in village Parasauni, P. S. Jhagaha, District Gorakhpur. The appellant was married to the informant Smt. Malti PW 1 about 3 years before the incident. The deceased was born out of their wedlock. However, he suspected the fidelity of his wife and used to express doubt about the fatherhood of the deceased. There used to be quarrels and bickerings between the couple and about 15 days before the incident, he had turned her out with the deceased with the result that she was residing at the house of her parents in village Parasauni. However, on the day of incident at about 12 O clock in the noon, the appellant reached at her parents house on cycle and after sometime took the deceased Abhimanyu on a cycle for having a round of the village. He took him near a pond where he parked the cycle nearby and picked the boy by his throat and threw him in the pond with the result that Abhimanyu died. An alarm was raised, but he made his escape good. At that time, Smt. Maltis uncle and brother Rajendra PW 2 were tending the sugarcane crop in the nearby field. The dead- body of the boy was taken out from the pond. On the report being lodged by Smt. Malti PW 1 on 5-3- 1994 at 5. 15 P. M. , a case was registered and investigation followed. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was about 15 km. 4. The post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 6-3-1994 at 4 P. M. by Dr. D. P. Verma PW 5. The deceased was aged about 2 years and about one day had passed since he died. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was about 15 km. 4. The post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 6-3-1994 at 4 P. M. by Dr. D. P. Verma PW 5. The deceased was aged about 2 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injury was found on his person: 1. Traumatic swelling on right side posterior lateral side head 6 cm in diameter, earth particles present in hairs and eyebrows. 5. On being put to trial, the appellant pleaded false implication, though he admitted that he was married to Malti and that Abhimanyu was his son. He also admitted that Malti had gone to her parents with Abhimanyu. The remaining part of the prosecution story was denied by him and, according to him, he was in his village on the day of incident and never visited the house of the parents of his wife Smt. Malti. 6. The prosecution in all examined six witnesses, out of whom, Malti PW 1 was the mother of the deceased (not an eye-witness ). She proved the motive against the appellant. The eyewitness examined was Rajendra PW 2 (brother of Malti ). Bans Bahadur PW 4 had scribed the chik F. I. R. , whereas Dr. D. P. Verma PW 5 had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased. S. K. Singh PW 3 and Radhey Shyam Shukla PW 6 were the Investigating Officers of the case. 7. It has come in the testimony of Smt. Malti PW 1 that she had first been married to one Jay Chandra of Badhalganj with whom she lived for two years. Jay Chandra then kicked her out on the ground that she was dark skinned. HE married with another lady. It has also been stated by her that appellant Satyadeo Pasi had an earlier wife who had died. It was thereafter that the second marriage was performed with her. He had a son from first wife who was alive. It appears that there was significant age difference also between the appellant Satyadeo Pasi and Smt. Malti PW 1. She gave her age as about 20 years on 27-5- 1995 when her evidence was recorded. Appellant Satyadeo Pasi has given his age as about 40 years in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 18-10-1995. 8. It appears that there was significant age difference also between the appellant Satyadeo Pasi and Smt. Malti PW 1. She gave her age as about 20 years on 27-5- 1995 when her evidence was recorded. Appellant Satyadeo Pasi has given his age as about 40 years in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 18-10-1995. 8. Anyway, the argument of learned amicus curiae for the appellant is that he had no motive to commit the murder of Abhimanyu in the manner alleged by the prosecution. We have been taken through the statement of Smt. Malti PW 1 that when Abhimanyu was born customary songs were sung. The appellant used to play with the boy and to give milk and bread to him. It has been reasoned that it shows that he had great affection for the boy and as such there could be no question of his doubting the fidelity of his wife or the fatherhood of the boy. So, he could have no reason for murdering him. The argument is not convincing. It appears that immediately after the deceased was born, there was no room for doubt that he had fathered him. Abhimanyu was born through Smt. Malti after about two years of her marriage with him. Seeds of doubt sprouted in the mind of the appellant regarding the fidelity of Smt. Malti and about his having not fathered the boy later on. It is established by the testimony of Smt. Malti PW 1 here. If that after sometime he started quarreling with her and stopped paying for the milk and feeding of the boy, saying that he was not his father. He used to quarrel with her and say that Abhimanyu was not his son. He had turned her out of his house with Abhimanyu 15 days before the incident. Judged in the background of this scenario, the appellant had strong motive to put Abhimanyu to death. 9. Learned amicus curiae then raised the argument on another premise that when Smt. Malti had come out of his house with the son to live with her parents, the appellant ceased to have any grudge against her and would not have thought of murdering the child. This argument again is built on artificial angle of vision. 9. Learned amicus curiae then raised the argument on another premise that when Smt. Malti had come out of his house with the son to live with her parents, the appellant ceased to have any grudge against her and would not have thought of murdering the child. This argument again is built on artificial angle of vision. He suspected the fidelity of Smt. Malti that during her marriage with him she had continued illicit relations with someone else, giving birth to Abhimanyu. He, therefore, wanted to render her life most miserable. Goaded by the sense of insult and infidelity of his wife of which he was confident in his mind, he conceived the design to remove the source of her pleasure, strength (viz. the boy Abhimanyu) and her future hope. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the line of reasoning suggested by the learned amicus curiae. 10. Another submission of learned amicus curiae is that when the appellant and Smt. Malti PW 1 had strained terms, so much so that the latter had left her house with the boy to live with her parents, she would not entertain him at the house of her parents and would not give the child to him on the pretext that he wanted to take a round of the village. It may be pointed out in this regard that the appellant and Smt. Malti still continued to be the husband and wife. Everything had not come to an end between them. After a quarrel, she had been turned out by him from his house and she had started living with her parents for the last only about 15 days. When the appellant visited the house of her parents, she might have thought that on good sense prevailing upon him he was repenting for the past. He had realised his mistake and had come to her with a gesture to reconcile the situation to lead amicable life with her in times to come. It was for this reason that when he reached the house of her parents on the fateful day at about 12 O clock by bicycle, he was provided lunch there being treated as son-in-law of that family. There is nothing unusual that out of affection she permitted him to take the boy on cycle for a round of the village. It was for this reason that when he reached the house of her parents on the fateful day at about 12 O clock by bicycle, he was provided lunch there being treated as son-in-law of that family. There is nothing unusual that out of affection she permitted him to take the boy on cycle for a round of the village. The appellant had concealed his anterior hate by his external gesture and mien of cordiality. 11. It has then been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the only eye-witness of the incident is Smt. Maltis brother Rajendra PW 2. No doubt, he is an interested witness but that does not mean that he should be disbelieved. He was plausibly present at the spot at the fateful time. He and his uncle Tirathraj were digging earth in their sugarcane field. The site plan shows the sugarcane field of Tirathraj nearby Pokhari in which the boy Abhimanyu had been thrown by the appellant. He and Tirathraj even chased him but he managed to make his escape good. We see nothing to discredit the testimony of this witness, though he is the brother of the deceased. His testimony reconciles with the medical evidence also. Traumatic swelling on the right side posterior lateral of the head of the deceased was found. Earth particles were present in the hairs and eyebrows of the deceased which could be possible on his having been thrown from a distance in the pond. It was this witness who had taken out the dead-body of the boy from the pond. Thereafter he had gone to the house where his sister was. When no other witness was around at the time of incident, the prosecution could not be supposed to manufacture artificial evidence. 12. The learned amicus curiae then took a sentence from the evidence of Smt. Malti PW 1 that when she had reached at the Pokhari, the appellant Satyadeo Pasi was present there. We are sure that she happened to say so by slip of tongue under the stress of cross-examination. She is an illiterate lady coming from the rustic fragment of village society. The said slip made by her in her statement is accidental. Truth of the matter is that immediately after this crime of throwing the boy in the pond, the accused appellant had run away on the bicycle as deposed by Rajendra PW 2. She is an illiterate lady coming from the rustic fragment of village society. The said slip made by her in her statement is accidental. Truth of the matter is that immediately after this crime of throwing the boy in the pond, the accused appellant had run away on the bicycle as deposed by Rajendra PW 2. There was no question of his being present there by the time Smt. Malti arrived. 13. The arguments of learned amicus curiae being considered in the light of evidence and relevant circumstances, we do not locate any merit in the appeal. It is established to the hilt that the appellant murdered his own son Abhimanyu, a boy of tender age of two years only, extinguishing the budding flower. He translated his suspicion that he has not fathered him by murdering him. He had rightly been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. 14. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The accused appellant Satyadeo Pasi, who is in jail, shall serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed against him. 15. Sri Samit Gopal, Advocate who argued the appeal as amicus curiae shall get Rs. 1000 as his fee. 16. Let a copy of this judgement along with record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months from the date of receipt. Appeal dismissed. .