Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in S. T. No. 255/98 decided on 26. 7. 99. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 302 of ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/ on two counts for committing murder of Hiraya and Rajrani @ radharani by the impugned judgment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 6. 10. 98 at about 3oclock in the noon at Mahamai field, village Odi, when deceased hiraya, his wife Rajrani and son Ramlakhan were cutting the grass near the medh of their field after phoughing it, appellant Ramsiya, the real brother of deceased Hiraya, came there with lathi and abused Hiraya complaining why he ploughed the medh of his field. Deceased Hiraya denied to have ploughed medh of appellants field, which led to an altercation between deceased Hiraya and the appellant. Thereupon, appellant wielded lathi blow on the scalp of Hiraya and other repeated lathi blows on his body. As a result, hiraya fell down and sustained injuries with profused bleeding. His wife Rajrani @ Radharani and son Ramlakhan rushed to rescue him, but appellant gave lathi blows to Rajrani as well. She also fell down and sustained various injuries. Appellant also tried to assault Ramlakhan, the son of Hiraya, but he somehow managed to escape, reached the village and narrated the incident to Rajaram patel, Baldev Patel, Shobhalal and others. By the time they came to the place of occurrence, both Hiraya and his wife Rajrani had succumbed to their injuries. ( 4. ) THE FIR of the incident was lodged by Ramlakhan, the son of deceased at Police Station Sarvai, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. Merg intimation was also recorded at his instance and merg inquest reports were prepared. The dead bodies of deceased Hiraiya and rajrani @ Radharani were sent for postmortem examination. Spot map was prepared. Blood stained and plain earth were seized from the spot. The lathi used in the commission of offence was also seized at the instance of appellant. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 5. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 6. Spot map was prepared. Blood stained and plain earth were seized from the spot. The lathi used in the commission of offence was also seized at the instance of appellant. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 5. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 6. ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his brother Hiraya and his wife Rajrani @ Radharani and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the order his of conviction and sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge erroneously convicted the appellant on the basis of unreliable, inconsistent and sole testimony of Ramlakhan (P. W-3) and failed to appreciate that the aforesaid witness was not present on the scene of occurrence. ( 8. ) WE have perused the entire evidence on record. ( 9. ) IT is clearly borne out from the medical evidence of dr. S. D. Mishra (P. W-1) that both the deceased persons, namely, hiraya and his wife Rajrani @ Radharani (hereinafter to be referred as deceased by their respective names) met homicidal death. Dr. S. D. Mishra (P. W-1), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Hiraya, found following antemortem injuries on his body: (i) Lacerated wound 4cm x 3cm x bony deep at right parietal region of scalp, obliquely situated. Underlying the wound right parietal bone fractured and right parietal lobe of brain with its meninges teared. Clotted blood inside the brain present. (ii) Lacerated wound 5cm x 3cm x bony deep at right side of occipital region of scalp. Underlying the wound occipital bone fractured and occipital lobe of brain with its meninges teared. Clotted blood inside the brain present. (iii) Lacerated wound 4cm x 2cm x bony deep at right maxillary region of face. Under the wound right maxillary bone fractured. Clotted blood present at the wound. (iv) Lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm x 1cm at right cheek. Blood clot present at wounds. (v) Lacerated wound:-3 m x 2cm x 1cm at right ear pinna. ( 10. ) ACCORDING to Dr. Under the wound right maxillary bone fractured. Clotted blood present at the wound. (iv) Lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm x 1cm at right cheek. Blood clot present at wounds. (v) Lacerated wound:-3 m x 2cm x 1cm at right ear pinna. ( 10. ) ACCORDING to Dr. S. D. Mishra (P. W-1), the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and deceased hiraya died due to coma as a result of injury to the brain. ( 11. ) THE postmortem on the dead body of deceased rajrani @ Radharani was also conducted by Dr. S. D. Mishra (P. W-1) and the following antemortem injuries were found on her body: 1. "lacerated wounds 10cm x 3cm x bony deep at left occipito-parietal region of scalp. Underlying the wound both occipital and parietal bone left side fractured and brain left parietal lobe and occipital lobe with its meninges has been teared. Clotted blood present at the wound. Obliquely situated. 2. Lacerated wound 9cm x 3cm x bony deep at left parietal region of scalp. Under the wound of left parietal bone has been fractured. Left parietal lobe of brain with its meninges under the wound has been teared and coming out from the wounds. Clotted blood present at wounds. It is situated below the injury no. 1 and obliquely placed. 3. Lacerated wounds 2cm x 2cm x 1 cm at right side of nose. Blood clot present. ( 12. ) IN the opinion of Dr. S. D. Mishra (P. W.-1), the aforesaid injuries of deceased Rajrani @ Radharani were caused by hard and blunt object and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and deceased Rajrani died due to coma as a result of injury to brain. ( 13. ) THERE are no reasons to disagree with the aforesaid medical evidence. In view of the aforesaid medical evidence, it is upheld that death of both Hiraya and his wife Rajrani was homicidal in nature. ( 14. ) THE next question that arises is whether appellant intentionally caused the death of both Hiraya and his wife Rajrani ? ( 15. ) THERE are no reasons to disagree with the aforesaid medical evidence. In view of the aforesaid medical evidence, it is upheld that death of both Hiraya and his wife Rajrani was homicidal in nature. ( 14. ) THE next question that arises is whether appellant intentionally caused the death of both Hiraya and his wife Rajrani ? ( 15. ) THE conviction of the appellant is founded mainly on the testimony of Ramlakhan (P. W.-3), the son of deceased Hiraya and Rajrani, who was also cutting the grass in the field alongwith his parents at the time of occurrence. P. W.-3 Ramlakhan categorically deposed in his evidence that appellant came with a lathi and wielded lathi blows to his father and mother leading to their death; when appellant tried to assault Ramlakhan (P. W.-3) he ran away from the spot and narrated the incident to Dau Patel and others and lodged the FIR (Ex. P-6 ). ( 16. ) ALTHOUGH, P. W.-3 Ramlakhan was swayed in his cross-examination and deposed that he was informed of the incident by Dau and a suggestion was made from the defence side by recalling him for further cross-examination that he was not present at the place of occurrence and he had gone to village mahoi, but when he was declared hostile and cross-examined by public Prosecutor, Ramlakhan (P. W.-3) again clearly admitted that appellant had raised an objection as to why his father had ploughed his medh, entered into an altercation and thereafter appellant had assaulted his father Hiraya and his mother Rajrani. He also admitted that he had reported the matter to the Police. ( 17. ) UPON close scrutiny of the evidence of P. W-3 ramlakhan, it appears that he made a shift from his statement only at the suggestion of the defence, otherwise he remained firm in his testimony that appellant assaulted his parents in his presence. This fact is also fortified by the contents of the FIR (Ex. P-6)admittedly lodged by him. In view of clear and categorical admission made by P. W-3 Ramlakhan in his evidence that appellant assaulted his mother and father before him, his presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. It is also well settled, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1991 supreme Court Pg. It is also well settled, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1991 supreme Court Pg. 1853, that the evidence of a hostile witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off from the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent the version of such witness is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. ( 18. ) THE fact, that P. W-3 Ramlakhan was present and witnessed the occurrence of deadly assault on his parents by the appellant, is not only corroborated from the FIR (Ex. P-6) lodged by him, but also corroborated from the testimony of Dau @ Saligram (P. W-4) and Rajaram (P. W-5) to whom P. W-3 Ramlakhan had narrated the incident. The evidence of such witnesses to whom the incident is narrated soon after the incident, is admissible as corroborative evidence under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. It would be profitable to refer to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1985 (4) Supreme Court Cases page 212 smt. Chander Kala Vs. Ramkishan and Another para 9 in this behalf. ( 19. ) MOREOVER, there are no reasons why son of the deceased would twice depose against the appellant that he had assaulted his mother and father in his presence. It does not appeal to reason that P. W-3 Ramlakhan would falsely implicate the appellant, who is his real uncle, merely because of alleged land dispute and would save the real assailant of his father and mother. ( 20. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, the statement made by p. W-3 Ramlakhan that the incident took place in his presence when he was cutting the grass alongwith his parents at the field and the appellant assaulted both his mother and father by lathi is found to be acceptable and trustworthy. ( 21. ) THE citation referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, as reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court page 3471 (Alil Mollah Vs. State of West Bengal), being distinguishable on facts is of no avail to the appellant in the instant case. ( 22. ( 21. ) THE citation referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, as reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court page 3471 (Alil Mollah Vs. State of West Bengal), being distinguishable on facts is of no avail to the appellant in the instant case. ( 22. ) THE plea taken by the appellant that somebody else killed the deceased persons at the instance of village Patel out of enmity in order of grab the land of the appellant and his brother (deceased), is also not found established from the record. ( 23. ) IT was thus rightly held by the trial court on the basis of testimony of Ramlakhan (P. W.-3) coupled with other corroborative evidence that appellant caused the death of Hiraya and his wife Rajrani by assaulting them with lathi. It is also clearly borne out from the medical evidence that injuries caused on the vital parts of the body of deceased persons were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, it was also quite evident that the appellant intentionally caused the death of both hiraya and his wife Rajrani @ Radharani. ( 24. ) IN the wake of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Hiraya and rajrani. ( 25. ) THE conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of ipc as recorded by the trial court for committing murder of Hiraya and Rajrani and the life sentence with fine of Rs. 2,000/-awarded to him on two counts do not warrant any interference in appeal. ( 26. ) APPEAL being bereft of any merit is dismissed. ( 27. ) THE conviction of the appellant and the sentences passed on him under Section 302 of IPC are affirmed.