Judgment Shashi Kant Sharma, J.- This Jail Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 112.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake (Jaipur District) whereby accused appellant Karnel Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to, further undergo six month’s RI. On 17.08.2004, Mr. S.S. Sunda filed power on behalf of appellant. 2. The brief facts essential for the disposal of this appeal are as under:- 3. Accused appellant Karnel Singh was a tenant of Abdul Latif PW. 2 in his house at Phulera where he was living all alone. Five or six days before the date of occurrence, mother of the accused also came there. Thereafter both of them were living in that house. In the morning of 24.04.1999, Abdul Latif saw that smoke was coming out from the room of Karnel Singh and front door of that room was closed. Abdul Latif knocked the door but none opened the same. Abdul Latif and other tenant Charly Jonathan had broken the doors. They saw that dead body of mother of Karnel Singh was lying on the floor of the room. She was in the pool of blood and accused appellant ran away from the back door of the house. Abdul Latif informed the police and lodged a written First Information Report Exhibit P-2. A case was registered by the police for the offence under Section 302, IPC. Accused Karnel Singh was arrested and his blood stained clothes were recovered and a knife and hammer (hathora) were also recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused. Clothes on the person of dead body of deceased Smt. Surendra Kaur were also taken and seized by the police. Post mortem on the body of deceased Smt. Surendra Kaur was conducted. Post mortem report Exhibit P-16 was prepared. After completion of investigation, police submitted challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shambhar Lake and wherefrom the case was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake and its turn the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC. Charge was read over to accused who, pleaded not guilty. Prosecution in support of its case, examined as many’ as 13 prosecution witnesses i.e., PW. 1 Raju, PW. Charge was read over to accused who, pleaded not guilty. Prosecution in support of its case, examined as many’ as 13 prosecution witnesses i.e., PW. 1 Raju, PW. 2 Abdul Latif , PW. 3 Charly Jonathan, PW. 4 Ramniwas, PW. 5 Mukesh Kumar, PW. 6 Abdul Kadir, PW. 7 Rajendra Singh, PW. 8 Mehar Singh, PW. 9 Ranjeet Singh, PW. 10 Surjeet Singh, PW. 11 Dr. Sitaram Meena, PW. 12 Gaurishankar and PW. 13 Kishal Lal. Accused appellant was examined under Section 313, CrPC. He did not produce any witness in his defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302, IPC as indicated hereinabove. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Vipul Jaiman has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Many of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. He has referred the statements of PW. 7 Rajendra Singh, PW. 8 Mehar Singh, PW. 9 Ranjeet Singh and PW. 10 Surjeet Singh and has submitted that all these four witnesses who were related to the accused and deceased have turned hostile. He has also submitted that important witness PW. 1 Raju has also turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story in toto. .5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and urged that prosecution has fully proved the guilt against the accused. It is further urged that most important witness in this case is PW. 6 Abdul Kadir who has fully corroborated the prosecution story and has seen the accused coming from the house at the time of occurrence. He has also seen that at that time clothes of accused Karnel Singh were found blood stained. He has also seen the dead body of deceased in the room. It is also urged that on the date of occurrence, the accused and deceased Smt. Surendra Kaur were living in that house. It is also proved that in the morning, smoke was coming out of that house. Abdul Latif PW. 2 and Charly Jonathan PW. 3 had broken the door of that room and saw the dead body of Smt. Surendra Kaur was lying and the accused was not in the room and PW. 6 Abdul Kadir saw the accused coming from that house and his clothes were found blood stained. Abdul Latif PW. 2 and Charly Jonathan PW. 3 had broken the door of that room and saw the dead body of Smt. Surendra Kaur was lying and the accused was not in the room and PW. 6 Abdul Kadir saw the accused coming from that house and his clothes were found blood stained. It is also argued on behalf of prosecution that clothes of accused and clothes of deceased and knife and hammer were seized and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and it is proved that group of the blood found on the clothes of deceased and on the clothes of accused and on the hammer and knife was same. It is further contended that hammer and knife were recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused appellant. It is also argued on behalf of prosecution that these incriminating circumstances have been put to him in the statement recorded under Section 313, .IPC and the accused appellant had not explained any of them. When the accused was asked in his statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC. What does he want to say he, said he has nothing to say. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the entire evidence on record. 7. In this matter, Abdul Latif PW. 2 has lodged FIR and has been examined as PW. 2. He is landlord of accused appellant and has deposed in his statement that accused Karnel Singh saw living in his house as a tenant. He further stated that in the morning at about 7AM he saw that smoke was coming out of the room of Karnel Singh. He knocked the door of that room but none responded. He has further deposed that Charly Jonathan also came there. He has also deposed that he and other persons had broken the door and saw that dead body of mother of appellant was lying in the room. He informed the police and the police came on the spot. He also deposed that he has submitted the report Exhibit P-2 to the police. He has also deposed that mother of Karnel Singh came only 5/6 days before the incident. One thing is very important in his statement that he has not been cross-examined on material facts. He informed the police and the police came on the spot. He also deposed that he has submitted the report Exhibit P-2 to the police. He has also deposed that mother of Karnel Singh came only 5/6 days before the incident. One thing is very important in his statement that he has not been cross-examined on material facts. It is also mentioned that when the incriminating circumstances, which had come in the statement of this witness were put to the accused in the statement under Section 313, CrPC he had not given any explanation. 8. Prosecution examined PW. 1 Raju. He was also supported the statement of Abdul Latif PW. 2 and stated that he saw that smoke was coming out from the room of Karnel Singh. Prosecution also examined PW. 3 Charly Jonathan, who had deposed that he knows accused Karnel Singh. He has also deposed that he and Karnel Singh both are living on rent in the same building and their landlord is Abdul Latif . He has also deposed that after breaking the door of the room of Karnel Singh he saw dead body of mother of accused was lying there. He also deposed that police has taken the clothes i.e., Salwar-Kurta of deceased and prepared a seizure memo Exhibit P-7 on which protion A to B are his signatures. He has also deposed that pants and shirt of accused were also seized for which seizure memo Exhibit P-8 was prepared. He has also deposed that police has seized hammer and knife and prepared seizure memo. 9. Prosecution also examined Ramniwas PW. 4 but he is a formal witness. Police also examined PW. 5 Mukesh Kumar, who is also a formal witness. He simply deposed that accused was arrested in his presence. 10. In this case, one very important witness is PW. 6 Abdul Kadir, who in his statement deposed that accused Karnel Singh was living in Ilahi Manjil in Phulera. He also deposed that he himself was also living in the same building as tenant. He deposed that on 24.04.1999 he heard the voice of landlord who was talking about fire. 10. In this case, one very important witness is PW. 6 Abdul Kadir, who in his statement deposed that accused Karnel Singh was living in Ilahi Manjil in Phulera. He also deposed that he himself was also living in the same building as tenant. He deposed that on 24.04.1999 he heard the voice of landlord who was talking about fire. He further deposed that at that time he saw Karnel Singh was going and clothes of Karnel Singh were in the blood and then he asked his landlord Abdul Latif , who stated that Karnel Singh has killed his mother and he saw that in the room of Karnel Singh dead body of mother of accused was lying there. 11. We have also read cross-examination of this witness but we do not find anything which may discredit the varacity of this witness. There is no reason to disbelieve this witness Abdul Kadir. No suggestion has been put in cross-examination after all why this witness is implicating accused falsely. In the statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC accused has said nothing why this witness or any other witnesses are implicating him falsely. 12. PW. 7 to PW. 10 are closely related to accused and deceased. PW. 7 Rajendra Singh is brother in law of accused Karnel Singh, PW. 8 Mehar Singh is father of the accused, PW. 9 Ranjeet Singh is step brother and son of deceased and PW. 10 Surjeet Singh is brother of deceased. In our view, none of these witnesses are important for the disposal of this appeal. Neither of them were the eye witness nor were present in Phulera on the date of occurrence. These witnesses were relating to the character and past conduct of the accused. All these four witnesses have turned hostile and had said nothing about bad character or past conduct of the accused. .13. PW. 11, Dr. Sitaram Meena who has done autopsy on the dead body of deceased Smt. Surendra Kaur has fully proved that there were as many as 15 injuries on the body of deceased, some of them were caused by sharp edged weapon and some of them were caused by blunt weapon and they were ante mortem in nature and many of the injures were on vital part of the body. He found many fractures on her body. The Doctor found following injuries on the person of deceased: 1. He found many fractures on her body. The Doctor found following injuries on the person of deceased: 1. Skull bone fractured, 2cm x1/2 cm x 2cm. Incised wound by sharp weapon. 2. Temporal bone fractured, 2cm x 1/2 cm x 2cm Incised wound by sharp weapon. 3. Left Temporal bone fractured, 2cm x1/2 cm x 3cm Incised wound by sharp weapon. 4. Left Parietal bone fractured, 3cm x1/2 cm2 x 4cm incised wound by sharp weapon. 5. Frontal bone 4cm x1/2cm x 4cm incised wound by sharp weapon. 6. Rt. Parietal bone 5cm x1cm x4cm lacerated wound by blunt weapon. 7. Left Parietal bone 4cm x1cm x3cm lacerated wound by blunt weapon 8. Incised wound 2cm x ½ cm x1/2 cm left cheek by sharp 9. Lacerated wound 4cm x ½ cm x 1/2 cm left thigh by blunt 10. Lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm x 2 cm left leg by blunt. 11. Lacerated wound 4cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm Rt. side of chest by blunt. 12. Incised wound 2cm x 1/2 cm x1/2 cm rt. hip by sharp. 13. Incised wound 2cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm left leg by sharp 14. Incised wound 2xm x1/2 cm x 1/2 cm rt. thighs by sharp. .15. Brain ruptured completely. 1. The above injuries are ante mortem in nature. 2. The duration of death is within 8 hrs. 3. The cause of death is shock due to brain heamorrhage. 14. We have also examined the statement of PW. 12 Gaurishankar, who has investigated this matter and also examined PW. 13 Kishan Lal, who has taken the articles from police station to FSL. 15. We have considered the entire evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW . 6 Abdul Kadir and the statements of Abdul Latif PW . 2 and Charly Jonathan PW . 3 and PW . 1 Raju. By the evidence on the record, prosecution has fully proved that accused appellant Karnel Singh was living all alone in the house of Abdul Latif in Phulera. Five/six days before the occurrence, her step mother came there to live with him and in the fateful morning, Abdul Kadir, Raju, Charly have seen that smoke was coming out of the room of Karnel Singh, they knocked the door of that room but none responded then door of the room was broken. Five/six days before the occurrence, her step mother came there to live with him and in the fateful morning, Abdul Kadir, Raju, Charly have seen that smoke was coming out of the room of Karnel Singh, they knocked the door of that room but none responded then door of the room was broken. They went inside the room and saw dead body of Smt. Surendra Kaur was lying on the floor and she was in the pool of blood. Many articles in the room were burning. It is also proved by the statement of PW . 6 Abdul Kadir that at that time accused Karnel Singh was coming from the side of house and his clothes were blood stained. It is also fully proved that hammer and knife were recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Karnel Singh and blood group found on Salwar and Kurta of the deceased and pants and shirt of the accused and knife and hammer was same. It is also clear that these incriminating circumstances were put to accused under Section 313, CrPC and he did not explain any of them. We are also of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve any of the witnesses, who had deposed against the accused. Prosectuion is also fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Sitaram Meena. We are also of the considered opinion that prosecution has fully proved that the accused Karnel Singh has committed the murder of his step mother Surendra Kaur by inflicting injuries as mentioned above. We are also of the view that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake has rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 302, IPC and has rightly sentenced him as mentioned above. We are also of the view that there is no substance in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.