Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak , J.-This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar in Sessions Case No. 31/1999 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. .2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rising to the present case are that a written report Exhibit P/18 was submitted before PW.11 Sattar Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Nawa by PW. 6 Idan on 09.06.1999 with the averments that in the morning i.e. at about 7 AM accused Shaktidan started beating his wife at his house so she ran away from there and reached to the house of Idan PW.6, the younger brother of the accused. The mother of the accused, namely, Smt. Ugam Kanwar also followed her and she also reached to the house of Idan which was near the house of the accused. Smt. Ugam Kanwar, the deceased, advised his son accused Shaktidan that he should not quarrel with his wife. On hearing this, accused caught hold of his mother and dragged her out from the house and took .her in front of the temple of Karni Mata (deity), where he throttled her neck, on account of which she died. 3. On this report, which was received by PW. 11 Sattar Khan, he thought it proper to conduct preliminary investigation. He called the photographer and then prepared Fard Exhibit P/3. He also inspected the site and prepared an Inspection Note ExhibitP/1. On the back of Exhibit P/1 Fard Surat Hall Lass was prepared and that is Exhibit P/19. Fard Panchayatnama was also prepared, which is Exhibit P/2. The dead body was taken to Govt. Hospital, Nawa, where postmortem of the dead body was conducted by PW. 14 Dr. Satyendracharya Swami. The postmortem report is Exhibit P/5. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over vide Exhibit P/20 through Fard Supadaginama of the dead body of deceased Exhibit P/22 to PW.6 Idan. Thereafter, he reached to Police Station Nawa and submitted a written report (Exhibit P/18) given to him by PW.6 Idan before the SHO, Police Station, Nawa PW.13 Ishwar Singh, who registered case No. 61/1999 under Section 302 IPC. 4. Thereafter, he reached to Police Station Nawa and submitted a written report (Exhibit P/18) given to him by PW.6 Idan before the SHO, Police Station, Nawa PW.13 Ishwar Singh, who registered case No. 61/1999 under Section 302 IPC. 4. A regular FIR was chalked on the basis of above report Exhibit P/21. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by PW.13 Ishwar Singh. He recorded statements of the witness of the case. The accused was arrested through Arrest Memo Exhibit P/4 in presence of the witnesses. After usual investigation, a chargesheet was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawa under Sections 302 & 323 IPC on 19.07.1999. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, after hearing both the sides on charge, framed charges under Sections. 302 & 323 of IPC on 112.1999. Accused denied the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 5. In support of case, prosecution has examined PW.1 Hamir Singh, PW.2 Kishorilal, PW.3 Pushpa Kanwar (the wife of the accused), PW.4 Shambhoo Singh, PW.5 Saroj Kanwar (wife of PW.6 Idan), PW. 6 Idan, PW.7 Kishore Singh, PW.8 Madno Ram, PW.9 Jogendra Singh, PW. 10 Girdharilal, PW.11 Sattar Khan, PW. 12 Santosh, PW.13 Ishwar Singh and PW.14 Dr. Satyendracharya Swami. In documentary evidence, prosecution has placed reliance on Exhibit P/1 to Exhibit P/22. After completion of the trial, statement of the accused was recorded on 012.2001 his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, accused has denied the charges against him and stated that there was enmity of the accused with PW.4 Shambhoo Singh. He has admitted that he was arrested in the case and what was written in the arrest memo Exhibit P/4 was denied. 6. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, while acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 323 of the IPC, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2002 in Sessions Case No. 31/1999, the accused has preferred this jail appeal. Since the accused was not represented by an advocate, this Court appointed Amicus Curiae to conduct the case on his behalf and to assist the Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2002 in Sessions Case No. 31/1999, the accused has preferred this jail appeal. Since the accused was not represented by an advocate, this Court appointed Amicus Curiae to conduct the case on his behalf and to assist the Court. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae has contended that the witnesses, said to be the eye witnesses, have turned hostile and they have not supported the version of the prosecution. It has further been contended that PW.4 Shambhoo Singh, who is alleged to be an eye witness, is not a reliable witness for the reason of enmity as there were criminal cases lodged against him by the accused. He next contended that the statement of PW.1 Hamir Singh cannot be taken into consideration because he was only a witness of Fard Panchayatnama of dead body and he has in fact exaggerated his version and thereby tried to involve the accused appellant. .8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the accused has committed murder of his old blind mother without any rhyme or reason and the act of accused does not require any lenient view in the matter. .10. We have considered the rival submissions made before us. 11. In this case, it is to be seen that as to whether findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on proper appreciation of evidence, since it is a matter in which accused is said to have committed the murder of his mother by throttling her neck, and the witnesses are mostly his family members and most of them have turned hostile. The prosecution case depends mainly on the evidence of PW1 Hamir Singh, PW. 4 Shambhoo Singh, PW. 14 Dr. Styendracharya Swami (who conducted the postmortem of dead body of deceased Smt. Ugam Kanwar) and the Investigating Officer Ishwar Singh. .12. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, reached to the conclusion that the statement of PW. 1 Hamir Singh was reliable one and the statement of PW. 4 Shambhoo Singh also inspires confidence. The learned trial Court also reached to the conclusion that since the wife of .accused Smt. Pushpa Kanwar has turned hostile, the allegation that she was beaten by her husband, as a result of which simple injuries were caused to her, could not be proved. 13. 4 Shambhoo Singh also inspires confidence. The learned trial Court also reached to the conclusion that since the wife of .accused Smt. Pushpa Kanwar has turned hostile, the allegation that she was beaten by her husband, as a result of which simple injuries were caused to her, could not be proved. 13. PW.1 Hamir Singh, who was a witness for the purposes of Panchyatnama of the deadbody, in his statement has stated that Panchyatnama of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in his presence, accused Shaktidan was also sitting there and at that time he had an axe in his hand. He further stated that the daughter of the accused had come to the village after the incident and stated that accused was beating her mother, as such he reached at the spot and found the dead body lying in Oran of the temple. The witness has further stated that he made inquiries from the wife of the accused as to in what manner the incident had taken place, who in turn replied that accused had throttled the neck of his own mother and stated that she too was beaten by the accused, as a result of which head injury was sustained by her. The main attack on the testimony of this witness is that in fact he is only a witness of Fard Panchyatnama and has not seen the incident, therefore, his statement should not be relied upon. 14. We have considered the above submissions. There is no doubt that this witness was with regard to Panchyatnama of the dead body but at the same time there appears no reason why he will tell a lie. He is a resident of the village, which is near to the place of incident. This witness knows the entire family members of the accused and the testimony of this witness has not been impeached in the cross examination. Statement of PW. 4 Shambhoo Singh indicates that this witness has seen the occurrence. The witness says that while coming from Railway Station on the day of incident after leaving his relations, he heard noise coming from Karni Mata Temple and on reaching there found that Shaktidan and his wife were quarreling. Thereafter, accused took his mother out from the house of PW.6 Idan Singh forcibly in front of the Oran of the temple and there he started beating her. Thereafter, accused took his mother out from the house of PW.6 Idan Singh forcibly in front of the Oran of the temple and there he started beating her. She fell down on the ground. The accused thereafter throttled her neck. The witness in the cross examination has stated that the wife of accused Shaktidan and Madho Ram were also there. The witness has said that on account of some dispute an FIR was lodged wherein his name was falsely implicated by the accused. This witness denied that he lodged a criminal case against the accused. The witness has clearly stated that he has seen the accused beating his mother and he had also seen the accused throttling the neck of his mother. .15. The learned Amicus Curiae attacked the testimony of this witness on the ground that the statement of this witness was recorded at a belated stage after 9 days. Exhibit D/1, the statement recorded by police, mentions the date of recording of statement as 12.06.1999 whereas the incident had taken place on 09.06.1999, therefore, it appears that the delay caused was only of 3 days. In our view, if some delay was caused in recording of statement by the police, then it cannot be treated to be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of this witness in the absence of cogent reasons. PW . 14 Dr. Satendracharya Swami in his statement has stated that he conducted postmortem of the dead body of deceased on 10.06.1999 while he was posted as Senior Medical Officer. This witness has also stated that he also medically examined Smt. Pushpa Kanwar-wife of accused, and prepared Exhibit P/6 in relation to the injury sustained by her. This witness found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased Ugam Kanwar. 1. Crescentic scratches by finger nails all around neck, more below lower jaw on both side multiple. 2. Bruises on right side near just below lower jaw 5x2 cm 3. A bruise on left side of neck 3 x 2 size on middle part. 16. According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia and vocal inhibition due to sudden pressure upon neck arresting respiration and circulation. Injuries found on the dead body were ante-mortem in nature and cannot be said to be of the nature which may be termed as self inflicted injuries. 17. 16. According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia and vocal inhibition due to sudden pressure upon neck arresting respiration and circulation. Injuries found on the dead body were ante-mortem in nature and cannot be said to be of the nature which may be termed as self inflicted injuries. 17. In the present matter, if the statements of Dr. PW .14 Satyendracharya, PW .1 Hamir Singh & PW 4 Shambhoo Singh and also the fact that PW . 6 Idan, who is brother of deceased has lodged the written report Exhibit P/18 before PW . 11 Sattar Khan; wherein the manner in which the incident had taken place has been stated, are taken into consideration, the same amply proves the prosecution case. 18. PW. 11 Sattar Khan has stated that on the day of incident the witness was posted as ASI at Police Station, Nawa and on receiving a telephonic information regarding the incident he reduced the same into writing in the Rojnamcha of the Police Station. Thereafter, the witness reached at the spot and there PW6 Idan-brother of the deceased (sic) presented a written report, which bears his endorsement and also the signature of PW. 6 Idan Singh, the witness thereafter conducted usual investigation at the spot. On the report of PW. 6 complainant, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered at the Police Station by SHO. Though the complainant has denied the fact of his submitting written report of the incident to PW.11 Sattar Khan but at the same time admits his signatures on it. His explanation for his signatures on the written report Exhibit P/18 is that the police got his signatures on some blank papers in the police station Nawa and also in the hospital. The explanation offered by this witness appears to be far away from truth and is not tenable that PW. 6 Idan Singh did not lodge the written report of the incident Exhibit P/18 before PW. 11 Sattar Khan . The contention that the statement of PW. 4 Shambhoo Singh should not be relied upon on account of enmity with the accused, in our humble opinion, taking into consideration the material available on record, showing truthness in the statement of PW4 Shambhoo Singh coupled with other evidence of PW.14 Dr. Satyendracharya, PW. 1 Hamir Singh and PW. 11 Sattar Khan, cannot be accepted. 19. 4 Shambhoo Singh should not be relied upon on account of enmity with the accused, in our humble opinion, taking into consideration the material available on record, showing truthness in the statement of PW4 Shambhoo Singh coupled with other evidence of PW.14 Dr. Satyendracharya, PW. 1 Hamir Singh and PW. 11 Sattar Khan, cannot be accepted. 19. In view of the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence recorded before it and the same requires no interference by this Court whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No. 31/1999 under Section 302 IPC. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court dated 16.01.2002 requires to be confirmed. 20. Accordingly, the appeal of accused appellant is hereby dismissed and the judgment and order dated 17.01.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar in Sessions Case No. 31/1999 is hereby confirmed.