JUDGMENT S. D. Anand, J.- Appellant Mukhtiar Singh and two others (Angrej Singh and Des Raj) were tried on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The last indicated two earned a verdict of exoneration of liability. However, appellant (Mukhtiar Singh) was convicted for the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to undergo imprisonment for life. While noticing that the appellant claims to be a poor person, the learned Trial Judge refrained from imposing any fine upon him. The prosecution allegations were as under: The first informant Mst.Harbans Kaur was married to Mukhtiar Singh son of Bhagwan Singh about 9-1/2 years ago (prior to 30.5.1996 when the FIR Exhibit PE/1 was lodged). A male child was born out of their union. Puran Singh, aged 48 years, who is elder brother of Mukhtiar Singh, also used to reside with Harbans Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh. Harbans Kaur developed illicit relations with Puran Singh after about three months of the marriage. On being cognizant of that illicit relationship between his wife and brother, Mukhtiar Singh left the house about 7-1/2 years ago. During the period intervening his leaving the house and 30.5.1996, Mukhtiar Singh had been to the place where Harbans Kaur and Puran Singh were residing and held out threats that he would teach both of them a lesson for that illicit relationship. 2. On 3.5.1996, at about 5.30 P.M., Mst.Harbans Kaur and her mother-in-law Smt.Piar Kaur were available at their residence; while Puran Singh was away to purchase medicine for self as he was suffering from diarrhea and fever. He was waiting for a bus at Jhinwarheri when Mukhtiar Singh and the two acquitted accused went over to the residence of Harbans Kaur and Puran Singh. Mukhtiar Singh was carrying a ‘gandasi’; while the other two above named were carrying a ‘ballam’ and ‘kulhari’ respectively. On approaching the scene, Mukhtiar Singh called upon Harbans Kaur to indicate the whereabouts of their child and Puran Singh. She informed him that she had no idea about the whereabouts of their son but that Puran singh was away to get medicine for self. At that point of time, Mukhtiar Singh announced that he would kill her. On approaching the scene, Mukhtiar Singh called upon Harbans Kaur to indicate the whereabouts of their child and Puran Singh. She informed him that she had no idea about the whereabouts of their son but that Puran singh was away to get medicine for self. At that point of time, Mukhtiar Singh announced that he would kill her. One of the acquitted accused interjected and told Mukhtiar Singh that there was enough time to do away with her and that Puran Singh should be taken care of in the first instance. Thereafter, the appellant and his two associates proceeded towards the bus stand of Jhinwarheri. Harbans Kaur and her mother-in-law Piar Kaur followed them out of fear. When they were at a distance of about one killa from bus stand Jhinwarheri and the distance intervening them and Mukhtiar Singh was about ½ killa, they spotted the appellant and his associates approaching Puran Singh. Mukhtiar Singh raised a lalkara informing his two associates of the identity of Puran Singh available over there and exhorted them to finish him off as he had developed illicit relations with Harbans Kaur and who (Puran Singh and Harbans Kaur) had been responsible for his (i.e. the appellant) ouster from the house. On hearing the above indicated exhortation, Piar Kaur gave a call to Puran Singh to run away or else he would be done away with. Puran Singh did try to flee from there but he was accosted by the appellant after he had covered a distance of approximately about half a killa. Des Raj and Angrej Singh (two acquitted accused) caused injuries to Puran Singh with a ballam and kulhari respectively; while Mukhtiar Singh caused injuries to Puran singh with the gandasi he was carrying with him. Puran Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 3. PW2 Police Photographer Dhari Rameshwar Dass had photographed the spot. He proved photographs Exhibits P7 to P13. PW3 Shri Bhagwan Dass, Patwari Halqa Jhginwarheri prepared a site plan (Exhibit PD) of the spot on 10.7.1996 on the pointing out of Piar Kaur and Harbans Kaur. PW4 Kartar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had recorded the formal FIR Exhibit PE/1, on receipt of ruqqa Exhibit PE. PW7 Constable Krishan Singh had delivered the special report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate. PW4 Kartar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had recorded the formal FIR Exhibit PE/1, on receipt of ruqqa Exhibit PE. PW7 Constable Krishan Singh had delivered the special report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate. The ocular testimony consists of the testimony of PW8 Mst.Piar Kaur (who is none-else or other than the mother of appellant Mukhtiar Singh and also deceased Puran Singh) and PW9 Mst.Harbans Kaur (estranged wife of Mukhtiar Singh) and PW10 Gurdip Singh. The first indicated owned the role attributed to her; while the other two ditched the prosecution plea. PW12 Gulab Singh, Sub Inspector, PW13 Randhir Singh, Sub Inspector and PW15 Harpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector are the Investigating Officers of the case. The testimony of other witnesses is formal in character. 4. Appellant Mukhtiar Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence on the following premise: “My mother is having some affair with my cousins i.e. The sons of her sister. She has turned out our father from the house. She turned out my father from the house when I was still a child. I started living with my father at Sunam about five months prior to this alleged occurrence. Police arrested me from Sunam. As I was living with my father and also some times visiting Jhinwarheri my father asked me to take care of his land at Sunam, therefore, I was living at Sunam with my father who is aged person. I was brought from Sunam and implicated in this case falsely. 5. The learned Trial Judge, on appraisal of the material obtaining on the file, convicted appellant Mukhtiar Singh but acquitted Angrej Singh and Des Raj. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that it was, in fact, a case of blind murder and the mother of the appellant had opted to depose against him because of her having had an affair with her cousins on account whereof she had been turned out of the house. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues with vehemence that the appellant has been framed falsely just because he had opted to cast his lot with his father who is estranged with former’s mother on account of her having an affair in continuity with the deceased who was none-else or other than an elder brother of the accused who (deceased) had not married. 8. We are not persuaded to find any merit in the plea. 8. We are not persuaded to find any merit in the plea. While appreciating the evidence, we cannot be oblivious of what has come to be universally expected as natural human conduct. Come what may, a mother is not expected to depose against her own son, even if the murdered man also happens to be her own offspring. Even if the plea raised by the appellant with regard to the personal character of PW8 – Mst. Piar Kaur is expected to be correct, for the sake of arguments, the mother in her would not falsely depose against her own son. It is a matter of common observation that when one offspring kills a sibling, the mother would try to protect the offender for the sake of love for the surviving child because she would be keen to retain the emotional remnant which had been left behind after the commission of crime. 9. In the present case, PW8 – Mst. Piar Kaur gave step-by-step presentation of the manner in which the impugned crime had been committed by the appellant. In the course of cross-examination, she clarified that she did not have cordial relations with her husband Bhagwan Singh because of latter’s step mother. In any case, the fact of her estrangement with her husband would not justify an inference that she would falsely accuse her own progeny of murder with the full notice that on conviction, he might be either hanged or sentenced for life or imprisonment for a long period of time. 10. Insofar as the testimony of PW9- Mst. Harbans Kaur is concerned, she is wife of the appellant. The fact of her illicit relationship with her Jeth deceased Puran Singh notwithstanding, there is nothing unnatural in her ditching the prosecution plea for the sake of her legally wedded husband i.e. Mukhtiar Singh-appellant. The obvious sentiment governing the mind would be to save whatever is presently available. The females in this continent are emotionally conditioned that way only. We do not find anything abnormal in her conduct and record that she appears to have been won over by the appellant. This inferential observation is also buttressed by the fact that she conceded having signed Ex.PE which is the first notification of the offence to the police. No other point has been argued. 11. We do not find anything abnormal in her conduct and record that she appears to have been won over by the appellant. This inferential observation is also buttressed by the fact that she conceded having signed Ex.PE which is the first notification of the offence to the police. No other point has been argued. 11. After having scanned the substance of the submissions and the reasoning put forth in support thereof by the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the pleas urged to obtain invalidation of the impugned finding of conviction are counterfeit. The finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge is relatable to the material obtaining on the file and is well reasoned. These observations converge to the only conclusion that the appeal deserves dismissal and it is so ordered accordingly. —————————