JUDGMENT : The appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction under section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of 1000/-; in default of payment whereof to undergo further SI for six months, passed by learned XI ASJ, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 191/1993, judgment dated 24-3-1994. 2. According to the prosecution case, complainant Vijaysingh and appellant are the real brothers. The appellant is the elder brother of complainant Vijaysingh. They were residing in Bengali Colony, Kanadia Road, Indore and their houses were situated adjacent to each other. On 14-1-1993 Vijaysingh had gone on his duty in P.W.D Department, Section Number One, Indore. On the same day, at about 3.00 pm appellant had some sort of verbal altercation and hurling of abuse with deceased Kavitabai. During the course of verbal altercation, appellant picked up a big stone and hit at the face of Kavitabai because of which she was badly injured. At that moment, her son Gajju (PW.4) was present there. Upon hearing clamor, Premsingh (PW.6) and Sapande (PW.15) reached over there and they saw deceased in an injured condition. Wife of Premsingh was also present. They saw serious injuries on forehead and skull of the deceased who was lying unconscious. At that very moment wife of the appellant went to call Vijaysingh, her brother-in-law, the complainant and reached at the place where Vijaysingh was working at about 3.30 p.m. She made a complaint to Vijaysingh that on account of dispute over cement, deceased Kavita was speaking too much and she returned back at their house with Vijaysingh where in the Courtyard his wife was lying unconscious in injured condition. Vijaysingh made the deceased to drink water, at that time blood was oozing from the mouth and her teeth were broken. Deceased Kavita told him that she was assaulted with stone by the appellant. Vijaysingh took his wife in autorickshaw for police station, but she succumbed to the injuries on the way. Vijaysingh lodged the report in the police station (Ex.P.2) and Kavita was taken to the M.Y. Hospital where on examination, declared dead by the Doctor. Police reached on the spot, prepared the spot map and also effected seizure of blood stained earth, controlled earth, broken bangles, stone, broken teeth, blood stained clothes and viscera of Kavitabai. Vijaysingh lodged the report in the police station (Ex.P.2) and Kavita was taken to the M.Y. Hospital where on examination, declared dead by the Doctor. Police reached on the spot, prepared the spot map and also effected seizure of blood stained earth, controlled earth, broken bangles, stone, broken teeth, blood stained clothes and viscera of Kavitabai. Police also seized from the possession of the appellant his black coat, shirt and pant. All these articles were sent to FSL for examination. After necessary investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code . 3. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. According to him, he was not in the house at the time of incident and deceased was a quarrelsome lady often having quarrel with neighbours. On the date of incident because of some verbal altercation the persons of the said locality tried to assault him and she fell down and sustained injuries on her person. The appellant has not examined any witness in defence. The learned trial Court, found the appellant guilty, convicted him for the offence as mentioned hereinabove. 4. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the presence of child witness Gajju (PW.4) is not proved by the prosecution and FIR is not the genuine piece of document because its author Vijaysingh has stated that his signature was taken in the hospital. The learned counsel has submitted that the testimony of child witness Gajju is not reliable and appellant is entitled for acquittal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for State has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. He has also submitted that incident occurred at the door step of the appellant as well as the deceased. Complainant Vijaysingh and appellant are the real brother. There is no reason for witness to speak against the appellant. The presence of Gajju (PW.4), the son of the deceased was natural because the incident occurred in their Courtyard and child witness has given true picture of the incident. The version of the child witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the statement of Vijaysingh and other witnesses. 6. The presence of Gajju (PW.4), the son of the deceased was natural because the incident occurred in their Courtyard and child witness has given true picture of the incident. The version of the child witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the statement of Vijaysingh and other witnesses. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in this appeal and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. 7. The conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of eye witness son of the deceased Gajju (PW.4) and other circumstantial evidence, coupled with statement of Vijaysingh (PW.2) before whom deceased disclosed that she was assaulted by her brother-in-law (Jeth); appellant Ajaysingh. 8. Gajju (PW.4) was a child witness, but in his statement there is absolutely nothing which may fragile his testimony. His deposition has been recorded in question-answer form and he gave relevant and to the point answer. He has specifically stated that appellant assaulted her mother by stone. He was calling the appellant as Chotte Dada. He had shown the places of the body where deceased sustained injury and also stated that at the time of incident his presence and presence of one Annu. After the incident, on arrival of his father Vijaysingh (PW.2) he disclosed to him that his mother Kavita was assaulted by Chotte Dada/appellant by stone. In cross-examination, a leading question was put to this witness that he was tutored by his father, but he denied this fact. In cross examination, nothing has come for discarding the testimony of this witness. The Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, 2002(1) SCC 622 , while dealing the issue of appreciation of evidence of child witness, has observed as under :- "Merely because a witness is child his evidence is not always liable to be rejected--Where trial Court found testimony of child witness to be reliable and such witness stood the test of searching cross-examination and even otherwise his evidence was supported by a number of other circumstances which had been proved by prosecution, held, High Court erred in disbelieving evidence of such witness". 9. 9. In the instant case, statement of child witness is fully corroborated by Vijaysingh (PW.2) who has specifically stated that his sister-in-law Bhagwantibai came to him at his work place and told him about quarrel picked up by the deceased on account of taking of cement by her. He came along with her at their house and saw his wife lying unconscious having injuries on her person. He made her to drink water and after drinking water she regained consciousness and disclosed that she was assaulted with stone by her brother-in-law (Jeth) Ajaysingh. He accepted lodging of report (Ex.P.2) in police station. He was cross examined in detail and denied the defence suggestion about false implication of appellant as well as assaulting of the deceased by persons of that locality. He admitted that he signed on the report at M.Y. Hospital, but on careful perusal of his whole statement he does not appear to be a got up witness. He appears to be natural witness and merely because of this reason, his testimony cannot be thrown over the board. There is no doubt that he lodged the report and signed on the same. The signature might have been taken by the police in hospital which will not make much difference looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and especially in view of the statement of child witness Gajju (PW.4) as well as the medical evidence of Dr. Suresh Kumar Mundada (PW.11) who found following injuries on her person :- (1) Depression with multiple lacerated wounds with multiple contused abrasions present in 9 cm x 7 cm, vertical area present on left upper part of the face (peri orbital area), size of lacerated wound are varying from 3.5 cm in length to 0.3 cm, width from 2 cm to 0.3 cm & depth from skin deep to bone deep. Eye ball pressed inside. Underneath this, frontal, temporal, zygomatic bones fractured (communited type). (2) Multiple lacerated wound with multiple contused abrasion present on right part of forehead extending upwards from right supra orbital ridge below, in area 6 cm x 8 cm transverse, maximum length of lacerated wound being 3.5 cm to minimum 1.0 cm, width from 3 cm to 0.5 cm, depth skin deep to bone deep. (2) Multiple lacerated wound with multiple contused abrasion present on right part of forehead extending upwards from right supra orbital ridge below, in area 6 cm x 8 cm transverse, maximum length of lacerated wound being 3.5 cm to minimum 1.0 cm, width from 3 cm to 0.5 cm, depth skin deep to bone deep. (3) Multiple lacerated wound with multiple contusion of chin in vertical 10 cm x 6 cm area, on right zygomatic area and area near to right eye, size of lacerated wound varying from 2 cm to 0.5 cm in length, 0.5 cm to 0.3 in width and skin deep to bone deep in depth. (4) Multiple lacerated wounds with multiple contused abrasion in 4 cm diameter area present just below right eye back in face and left maxillary area, size varying from 3 cm to 1 cm in length, 0.5 cm to 0.3 cm in width, all are skin deep. (5) Lacerated wound with multiple contused abrasions present on nose. Size of lacerated wound being 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm x cartilage deep , vertical in direction. (6) Lacerated wounds with Contusion and abrasion over lip 2.3 cm x 6 cm oblique. Length of lacerated wound varying from 2.5 cm to 0.5 cm width from 1.0 cm to 0.3 cm and depth from skin deep to whole thickness of the lip. Internally irregular fracture of the underlying bone extending from albeolar margin to hard palate region. Upper central incisor teeth are subluxoted and are mobile. Bleeding evident at gum margin. (7) Multiple lacerated wounds with multiple contused abrasions present on left part of lower lip 2.0 cm x whole thickness of lower lip to 0.3 cm deep. Internally albiolar margin at chin level of right premolar tooth is fractured, teeth are loosened, mobile. (8) Lacerated wound with contused abrasion 2 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep. 3 cm lateral to mid line on left side mandible. Vertical oblique in direction. (9) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm present on left shoulder anterior aspect, red in colour, transverse oblique. (10) Contusion abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm, vertically present on right upper arm lower 1/3, postero lateral aspect. (11) Contusion abrasion 5 cm x 4.0 cm, vertically oblique, lower 1/3 right thigh lateral aspect. (12) Two contusion abrasions present on right knee anterior aspect lower part in 3 cm x 2 cm vertically oblique area. (10) Contusion abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm, vertically present on right upper arm lower 1/3, postero lateral aspect. (11) Contusion abrasion 5 cm x 4.0 cm, vertically oblique, lower 1/3 right thigh lateral aspect. (12) Two contusion abrasions present on right knee anterior aspect lower part in 3 cm x 2 cm vertically oblique area. Scalp - Skull :- Haematoma present on right fronto temporal region. (right) 16 cm x 7 cm segital area, red in colour. Right temporelis muscle echimosed. Multiple fractures in back of skull in anterior and middle cranial fossa in 8 cm x 15 cm transverse area of all lacerated wound margin are irregular and contused, red and underneath echymosis present, soft tissues are full of blood. Opinion :- Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries as described. Death was within 12 to 36 hours since post-mortem examination. 10. Vijaysingh (PW.2) has specifically stated in para four that when he reached at his house he was told by Premsingh, his wife and his two children about beating with his wife by the appellant. Premsingh (PW.6) has not stated that he disclosed the name of the appellant as author of injuries to his wife but he said that when Vijaysingh asked him he told him that ask to her children. This shows that Premsingh did not want to speak, but according to him children of the deceased i.e Gajju (PW.4) was present at the time of incident. 11. Sapande (PW.15) was the eye witness of the incident who turned hostile. Even then his testimony can be used because he supported the part of the prosecution case regarding verbal altercation between appellant and the deceased. In para one he has stated specifically that he was having his shop near the house of appellant Ajaysingh and witness Vijaysingh and there was verbal altercation between appellant and his sister-in-law, the wife of younger brother i.e Vijaysingh. 12. The rest witnesses are the formal witnesses regarding search, seizure, inquest, spot map, etc. 13. In para one he has stated specifically that he was having his shop near the house of appellant Ajaysingh and witness Vijaysingh and there was verbal altercation between appellant and his sister-in-law, the wife of younger brother i.e Vijaysingh. 12. The rest witnesses are the formal witnesses regarding search, seizure, inquest, spot map, etc. 13. The learned counsel for appellant cited Supreme Court judgment rendered in case of Sarupsingh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2452 and argued that the offence under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code would be made out against the appellant because he was not having any intention and the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone i.e about one and a half years. This Court has perused this judgment and found that same has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Sarupsingh (supra), the appellant dealt only single blow whereas in the case at hand more than 25 injuries were found on the person of the deceased and her head was almost all crushed. 14. Looking to the number and nature of injuries, it cannot be said that appellant was not having intention to commit murder and was having only knowledge that injury caused by him at the most would be likely to cause death. The sentence to the period already undergone i.e. about one and a half years could not be a proper and reasonable sentence and it is trite law that Court must be cautious and careful while imposing the sentence. Object of law is to protect the society and deter the criminal would be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Court must impose proper sentence commensurate with the gravity of crime. In the instant case, the way in which the appellant has assaulted the deceased, causing several injuries and looking to the nature of injuries externally and internally, clearly establishes of his acting in cruel manner with his younger daughter-in-law, wife of younger brother. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any substance in this appeal. Therefore, same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court on 10th September, 2007 and the trial Court is directed to remand him to jail custody for serving out the remainder part of the jail sentence. Therefore, same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court on 10th September, 2007 and the trial Court is directed to remand him to jail custody for serving out the remainder part of the jail sentence. On failure of the appellant to appear on a given date before the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to take suitable legal action against him as well as his surety, under intimation to this Court. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court immediately.