R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) BY this criminal appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 5. 4. 2005 in Sessions Case no. 67/2003, arising out of FIR No. 1005/2002, under Section 302/324 IPC, police Station, Nangloi whereby the learned Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. Accordingly, by his order dated 8. 4. 2005, the learned Judge sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of fine, six months' RI for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also ri for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as have been set down in the judgment under challenge, are that on 18. 11. 2002 at about 9,15 a. m. at RZA-336, Nihal vihar, Nangloi, the appellant herein assaulted his wife, Mrs. Rita, with scissor which injury resulted in the death of Rita. It is further the case of the Prosecution that the accused during this act also caused injuries with scissor on the person of his daughter, Miss Nitu. ( 3 ) THE Prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses. PW-1, Miss Nitu, is the daughter of the deceased and the accused-appellant. She has deposed to the effect that she along with the appellant and her mother, Rita, younger sister, Renu and brother, Rahul, lived together in Nihal Vihar. The accused-appellant was a tailor by profession. On 18. 11. 2002, when all the family members were present in the house, the accused-appellant, who was not very successful in his business/profession, took to gambling which left Om Prakash, the maternal uncle of this witness, to help the family run the household. This witness goes on to say that the said arrangement could not go on for long, as such Rita along with this witness, her son and younger daughter went to live with the brother of Rita at Ambala. The accused-appellant continued to harass Rita on which she decided to come back to Delhi in August, 2003. This witness also states that there were constant quarrels between the appellant and Rita on account of lack of provisions. The accused-appellant continued to harass Rita on which she decided to come back to Delhi in August, 2003. This witness also states that there were constant quarrels between the appellant and Rita on account of lack of provisions. She has described the residential accommodation as being one room over the basement with kitchen, latrine and bath room and one shop situated towards the road. The shop in the basement ordinarily remained closed. On 18. 11. 2002, while the entire family was present in the room of the house, Rita was kneading atta (flour) in a bowl. The accused shouted at Rita as why she was kneading flour in a bowl, to which Rita replied that the quantity of the flour was not enough for her to knead in a larger utensil and that the appellant should bring more flour which can be prepared in a larger utensil. This reply infuriated the appellant who got hold of a scissor from the shop, came back and thrust the same into the stomach of Smt. Rita. Rita shouted for help upon which this witness, her brother and sister tried to intervene. In the process, this witness was also injured by the scissor on the her left arm by the accused. Rita ran outside the house to save herself but the accused-appellant followed her with the scissor. Rita fell down outside the house. At that time, Jasvinder came and he along with this witness took Rita to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where she was declared dead. Miss Nitu goes on to depose that the Police came to the hospital and made preliminary inquiry from her and then she went to her house. The Police came to the house and there her statement, Ex. PW-1/a was recorded. Thereafter, she goes on to narrate the steps taken by the Police in furtherance to the investigation and as also the seizure of blood and clothes etc. from the spot. In Court this witness identified the weapon of offence as also the clothes seized. This witness has also stated that a few days prior to 18. 11. 2002 she had seen a gainti/pick-axe lying in the house. On inquiring from her father, she was told that this would be used to perform a sacrifice. On further inquiry, the appellant told Nitu that her mother would be sacrificed. This gainti was also identified by this witness as Ex. P-10. 11. 2002 she had seen a gainti/pick-axe lying in the house. On inquiring from her father, she was told that this would be used to perform a sacrifice. On further inquiry, the appellant told Nitu that her mother would be sacrificed. This gainti was also identified by this witness as Ex. P-10. ( 4 ) PW-2, Miss Renu, is the second daughter of the accused-appellant. She was examined in court on 9. 9. 2003 and has supported the version of pw-1 on all material aspects. PW-5, Jasvinder Singh has deposed to the effect that the appellant resided in his neighbourhood and that Rita, her two daughters and her son lived along with the appellant. On 18. 11. 2002 while this witness was present in his house at around 9. 15 a. m. , he heard shrieks. He came out of his hose and noticed that Rita was lying wounded outside her house. She was saying that "mujhe bacha lo, mere bachhon ko bacha lo". He has stated that Miss Nitu was also found sitting near her mother and that Nitu was also injured on her arm. The witness has deposed to the effect that he took Rita and Nitu to the Hospital where the Doctor examined Rita and declared her dead. Nitu remained in the Hospital while this witness returned from the Hospital. This witness had seen Rita lying outside the house. ( 5 ) PW-6, Rakesh Kumar Sondhi, corroborates the version of PW-5 on all material aspects. PW-4, Shyam Sunder, and PW-7, Om Prakash, brother of Rita, identified the body. PW-9, Dr. Annu Vijayant Goel, CMO in Sanjay gandhi Hospital, testified that on 18. 11. 2002 at about 10. 30 a. m. Rita was brought to the Hospital by Jasvinder with the alleged history of assault. The patient was examined who was unconscious and not obedient to command. The patient was declared 'brought dead'. MLC, Ex. PW-9/a, was prepared and signed by this witness. PW-9 also examined Miss Nitu. She had suffered simple injury caused by a sharp object. The MLC in this regard is Ex. PW-9/b prepared and signed by this witness. The other witnesses are witnesses of procedure which aspect has not been challenged before us. The patient was declared 'brought dead'. MLC, Ex. PW-9/a, was prepared and signed by this witness. PW-9 also examined Miss Nitu. She had suffered simple injury caused by a sharp object. The MLC in this regard is Ex. PW-9/b prepared and signed by this witness. The other witnesses are witnesses of procedure which aspect has not been challenged before us. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has argued that the Prosecution has not been able to prove that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were by the scissor said to have been recovered and produced in the court. He submitted that no finger prints of the accused were obtained. He also submitted that no independent witness was joined while the scissor was recovered. Counsel argued that in the MLC, the appellant is not named as the assailant. He further challenged the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as being that of minors who were incapable of making a statement on oath. ( 7 ) WE have carefully examined the record of the case and given our attention to the statements, in particular, the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. From the statements of these two witnesses, there is nothing that should suggest that the witnesses were inimical towards their father or had improved their versions or in any manner are not trustworthy. The fact that the MLC does not reflect the name of the assailant, is hardly of any consequence since the FIR names the appellant as being the assailant. This is a contemporaneous document which finds sufficient corroboration from the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6. The weapon of offence which was recovered and seized from the spot of occurrence, no doubt, has not been sent to match the finger prints but that is hardly of any consequence in view of the graphic description of the incidence narrated by PW-1 and PW-2. We find no reason to disbelieve these, two witnesses who are daughters of the accused-appellant and mature enough to depose responsibly. ( 8 ) THE submission of learned counsel for the appellant, that the MLC does not mention the name of the accused as a result goes to show that PW-1 and PW-2 have created a fantacy after due deliberation, can hardly stand the test of reason. ( 8 ) THE submission of learned counsel for the appellant, that the MLC does not mention the name of the accused as a result goes to show that PW-1 and PW-2 have created a fantacy after due deliberation, can hardly stand the test of reason. PW-1, at the time the MLC was recorded, may not have known that her mother had died and, therefore, would have, in all probabilities, wanted to protect her father, but soon thereafter having been told about the death of her mother, found no reason to hold back the real assailant. We are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and reject the same. A reappraisal of the material available before us, in particular the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 corroborated by the medical evidence as also by PW-5 and PW-6, we have no hesitation in holding that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court suffers from no infirmity. The judgment under challenge is, therefore, upheld and the appeal dismissed.