Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against his conviction under Section 302, IPC and awarding of life sentence to him alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,500/-by the trial Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner. 2. A prosecution was initiated on the basis of First Information Report which was recorded by the S.H.O. Police Station Bajju after receiving a telephone call that accused has committed a murder. The S.H.O. had gone to the place of occurrence where he recorded the statement of PW. 1 Smt. Roshani. According to First Informant PW. 1 Smt. Roshani she was sleeping alongwith her whole family comprising of her husband, a son of three years age, another son of the age of one year and her daughter Sushila aged 4 years. While they were sleeping, after about midnight she heard a noise of causing injury. When she work up, she saw that accused Hari Ram who was son of her husband’s elder brother was standing nearby the cot of deceased. He was holding Barchi in his hand. Accused appellant Hari Ram gave barchi blow on her husband Sant Ram. On account of the injuries inflicted by Hari Ram, Sant Ram succumbed to death. She reported this matter to Aashu Singh and Devi Singh who live nearby their Dhani. Thereafter, she went to the house of Ram Dhan, who is her elder brother-in-law, and narrated the entire story to him also. All of them came to Dhani where they found some gold and cash missing. On this report, police started investigation and charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Kolayat, who in turn, committed the case and after committal the case was ultimately assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Bikaner. 3. At the trial, prosecution examined eleven witness and Exhibited 27 documents. Charge was framed which was denied by the accused and he claimed trial. Principal witness in the trial was PW. 1 Roshani wife of Sant Ram, a natural habitant of the house. She says that while she was sleeping alongwith her family including the deceased, accused Hari Ram came and when she woke up after hearing some noise, she saw the accused hitting the deceased with barchi. Principal witness in the trial was PW. 1 Roshani wife of Sant Ram, a natural habitant of the house. She says that while she was sleeping alongwith her family including the deceased, accused Hari Ram came and when she woke up after hearing some noise, she saw the accused hitting the deceased with barchi. In her cross-examination, it has been suggested by the defence that she had illicit relations with the accused and, therefore, she had an intention to get rid of the deceased as he was a weak man. This defence could not convince the trial Court and the trial Court had not believed the defence version and relief upon the testimony of PW. 1 Smt. Roshani wherein she has deposed that the deceased was done to death by the injury inflicted by Hari Ram through barchi blow. The trial Court had also relied on another witness PW. 2 Santosh. Though Santosh is a child witness, she is daughter of the deceased and she had spoken almost in the same language in which PW. 1 Smt. Roshani, her mother, has spoken. Immediately after the occurrence PW. 1 Smt. Roshani had gone to Ram Dhan, elder brother of deceased, who speaks that she came to his house in night and told him that Hari Ram had caused death of Sant Ram by Barchi. 4. The trial Court after considering the case of the defence, came to the conclusion that the statement of PW. 1 Roshani is corroborated by the statements of PW. 2 Santosh, daughter of the deceased though a child witness and PW. 3 Ram Dhan, elder brother of the deceased to whom Roshani immediately after occurrence reported that Hari Ram caused the death. 5. Learned Counel for the appellant urged that PW. 1 Roshani is not a witness of truth. Deceased Sant Ram was a weak man and she was not happy with matrimonial relations. She had relations with many other persons and someone of them had caused the death of Sant Ram. Just to settle the score with the accused who belong to the family and might have protested to such illicit relationship she wanted to get rid of her husband as well as from the convict. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused also stressed that it was a dark night and the deceased was hit by barchi. Just to settle the score with the accused who belong to the family and might have protested to such illicit relationship she wanted to get rid of her husband as well as from the convict. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused also stressed that it was a dark night and the deceased was hit by barchi. There was no light available and it was very difficult for PW. 1 Roshani to even identify the assailant. The accused appellant has been falsely implicated. There is no cogent convincing corroboration available and in this background the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. If at all the suggestions of the defence is of any consequence them PW . 1 Roshani has been suggested that she had illicit relation with the accused appellant. This approach of the defence is without foundation from the record. Presence of PW . 1 Roshani at the place of occurrence is quite natural because she is wife of the deceased and the whole family was sleeping together. Her presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. From the line which has been opted by the defence for cross examination, no specific defence has been made out by virtue of which it can be concluded that PW . 1 Roshani was a witness on which reliance cannot be placed. We have gone through the cross-examination of this witness. In her cross-examination nothing substantial had been elucidated as contradiction from the previous statement. The tender of cross-examination failed to bring any such infirmity in the statement which can impugne the testimony of this witness. This witness has stood the test of cross-examination. Her testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination. It cannot be said that her story is unbelievable. Her presence was natural. The narration of facts is consistent. No contradiction has been brought in her cross-examination. Her statement has been corroborated by her daughter PW . 2 Sushila though a child witness, in material details. Immediately after the occurrence she had narrated the story to the elder brother of the deceased PW . 3 Ram Dhan has also corroborated to the testimony of PW . 1 Roshani. No contradiction has been brought in her cross-examination. Her statement has been corroborated by her daughter PW . 2 Sushila though a child witness, in material details. Immediately after the occurrence she had narrated the story to the elder brother of the deceased PW . 3 Ram Dhan has also corroborated to the testimony of PW . 1 Roshani. If the story of the prosecution in the aforesaid circumstances has been relidf upon by the trial Court, we think no infirmity has been done in accepting the prosecution case and convicting the accused appellant. The story as given out by the prosecution suffers from no such infirmity so as to warrant interfere. 8. In this background, the findings of the trial Court deserve to be accepted and approved. Consequently, the findings of conviction and sentence as given by the trial Court are affirmed. The prosecution case suffers from no infirmity. There is no force in this appeal. The appeal, is therefore, dismissed.