Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23-7-99 passed in S. T. NO. 115/ 1999 by learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, khargone whereby convicted the appellant under S. 302 of the I. P. C. sentenced to undergo R. I. for life with fine of Rs. 250/-, in default whereof to undergo further S. I. of three months. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 6-1-1999 in the evening at 5. 00 p. m. deceased Dhansingh came down inside the well situated in his field for the purposes of cleaning the foot valve of irrigation pipe, at that moment appellant threw heavy stones which hit on his head and deceased dhansingh fell in the water. The depth of wate in the well was not more than 4-5 feet. Appellant threw some more heavy and small stones, hitting the person of the deceased. The incident was witnessed by son of the deceased who was standing in the field situated nearby and doing irrigation work. He raised alarm and also ran towards his house and disclosed about the incident to sister jheena and other witnesses. They all reached on the well and extricated the deceased on a cot. He was put in the vehicle for taking to hospital but died. The FIR was lodged by the appellant himself in the police station on the same day at 9. 30 p. m. The police reached on the spot and prepared inquest (Ex. P. 1) and spot map (Ex. P. 2 ). On disclosure statement made by the appellant, in total seven stones were seized. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. V. K. Sharma (PW 5 ). Postmortem report is Ex. P. 9. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. ( 3. ) THE appellant refuted the charges, therefore, put to trial. He has not examined any witness in defence. Learned trial Court, finding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as shown hereinabove. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, it emerged that conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of eye witness Phoolsingh (PW 3) son of deceased. He has not examined any witness in defence. Learned trial Court, finding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as shown hereinabove. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, it emerged that conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of eye witness Phoolsingh (PW 3) son of deceased. Conduct of the appellant, duly admissible as per provision under S. 8 of the Evidence act but the confessional part of the FIR lodged by the appellant is not admissible being hit by provisions of Sec. 24 of the evidence Act but rest of the facts mentioned in the FIR regarding motive, presence of body of deceased inside the well, presence of eye witness Phoolsingh (PW 3) in nearby field doing irrigation work are admissible and rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court. See Supreme Court judgment passed in case of Bherusingh v. State of Rajasthan ( (1994)2 SC 467): (1995 AIR SCW 2126) and Sukka v. State of M. P. passed by learned Division bench of this High Court ( (1998) 1 MPLJ 139 ) : (1998crilj 3118 ). ( 5. ) BEFORE the trial Court as well as this court homicidal death of deceased dhansingh has not been disputed by the counsel for appellant, even otherwise in view of the evidence of Dr. V. K. Sharma (PW 5)who proved postmortem report (Ex. P. 9), the homicidal death of the deceased is fully proved. Dr. Sharma (PW 5) found as many as 11 external injuries on the person of the deceased all over the body and on internal examination he found extra dural haemorrhage with depressed fracture of the skull and damage to brain membrane, fractures of fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth rib including depressed fracture corresponding to the injury number seven on chest caused by hard and blunt object. He also found laceration in liver as well as fracture of nasal bone. In the opinion of Dr. Sharma, mode of death was syncope due to injury to liver and shock and haemorrhage because of bleeding from the injuries. He has also opined that even after excluding the injury to liver, other injuries on skull and chest were also sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross examination, nothing substantial has come to corrode the testimony of Dr. Sharma. ( 6. He has also opined that even after excluding the injury to liver, other injuries on skull and chest were also sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross examination, nothing substantial has come to corrode the testimony of Dr. Sharma. ( 6. ) EYE witness Phoolsingh (PW 3) has deposed that on the date of incident in the evening between 5 and 6 p. m. he was irrigating wheat crop in the field. His house was situated at the distance of 150 feet from the place of incident. In adjacent field appellant jagdish was irrigating soyabean crop. His father deceased Dhansingh went inside the well to remove mud and small pieces of stones choking foot valve connected with the pipe of irrigation electric motor. At that moment appellant reached near the well and threw stones inside the well. By the time he reached to ask the appellant as to why he was throwing stones, appellant ran away. He saw inside the well that his father sustained injuries and same were bleeding. He immediately raised alarm and also rushed towards the house and disclosed about the incident to his sister Jheena. He also informed Dhyansingh, Ramsingh, bheemsingh, Gyansingh and Heeralal. They all reached along with his mother at the well and extricated deceased from the well, he was not in a condition to speak. He was brought on a cot at the house and died before putting him in a vehicle for taking to hospital. The further say of this witness is that in the morning, on the date of incident, appellant took irrigation pipe through his field which was objected by deceased dhansingh and one month prior to the date of incident some hens of appellant died because of eating urea mixed wheat sown in the crop of the field of deceased and he complained this fact to his father on which father told him to keep his hens in control. This child witness aged about 11 years has undergone a very detailed and piercing cross examination but nothing substantial has come to disbelieve his testimony as eye witness. He specifically denied about tutoring by any Advocate in para 14 of the cross examination. He was examined in Court after about seven months from the date of incident. He has been contradicted with his case diary statement (Ex. He specifically denied about tutoring by any Advocate in para 14 of the cross examination. He was examined in Court after about seven months from the date of incident. He has been contradicted with his case diary statement (Ex. D. 3) regarding going of his mother, sister-in-law Santubai, sister jheenabai for reaping pulse crop and going to the house as well as reaching of his sister on the well after hearing his cry, but in the considered opinion of this Court, these are all the omissions which does not amount to contradiction and minor, contradiction and omissions are bound to occur in the statement of any witness. Humanly it is not possible for any witness to give verbatim statement in Court, as given in police. The substratum of the statement of this witness phoolsingh is fully reliable. Inimical term between appellant arid deceased is also established on the basis of the contents of the fir regarding motive for the appellant to commit the crime and strained relation with the deceased, presence of dead body inside the well and preserice of eye witness phoolsingh in the nearby field as discussed hereinabove, on the basis of Supreme Court judgment passed in case of Bherusingh v. State of Rajasthan (1995 AIR SCW 2126) (supra ). ( 7. ) THE statement of eye witness phoolsingh is fully corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. V. K.-Sharma (PW 5) as well as statement of Ladkibai (PW 4) to whom phoolsingh disclosed about throwing of stone by the appellant, inside the well. ( 8. ) SHO R. C. Thakur (PW 9) has proved the FIR (Ex. P. 12) and recovery of stones from the well on disclosure statement made by the appellant vide Ex. P. 4, seizure of stones through seizure memo (Ex. P. 5 ). He has specifically stated that when he reached in the village in the night. (It is obvious that report was lodged by the appellant in the night at 9. 30 p. m. ). He deputed person for guarding the dead body. After registration of the FIR (Ex. P. 12), he arrested the appellant in the same night at 6-1-1999 at 9. 45 p. m. The witnesses Dyansingh (PW 1) and jamsingh (PW 2) have deposed about presence of the appellant in the police station. ( 9. 30 p. m. ). He deputed person for guarding the dead body. After registration of the FIR (Ex. P. 12), he arrested the appellant in the same night at 6-1-1999 at 9. 45 p. m. The witnesses Dyansingh (PW 1) and jamsingh (PW 2) have deposed about presence of the appellant in the police station. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that Dhyansingh (PW 1)and Jamsingh (PW 2) have, nowhere stated that they were informed by eye witness phoolsingh (PW 3) about throwing of stone by the appellant inside the well. This is true that Dhyansingh (PW 1) has stated that he overheard the cry of Phoolsingh asking for help, does not mean that deceased fell inside the well accidentally and thereafter a false case has been fastened on the appellant. ( 10. ) WE have gone through the statements of these witnesses and does not find substance in this argument, because injuries externally or internally found on the person of deceased by autopsy surgeon Dr. V. K. Sharma (PW 5) could have not been caused by accidental fall in the well. The depressed fracture on the skull, depressed fracture of several rib bones and internal injury to liver corresponding to the external injury could have not been caused by fall in a well where 4-5 feet water was available. In cross examination, part four, Dr. Sharma has stated that injuries could be caused by stones and lathi, the hard and blunt object but rupture of five rib bones and other number of injuries could not be caused by fall. Of perusal of the entire eye witness account as well as medical evidence, we are of the opinion that depressed fracture on the skull and rib bones could not be caused by fall and same were caused because of hitting of heavy object like stone. The appellant in his FIR (Ex. P. 12) has admitted the presence of phoolsingh near the well. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we do 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 for undergoing the remainder part of the jail sentence, on 29th April, 2009. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we do 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 for undergoing the remainder part of the jail sentence, on 29th April, 2009. On failure of the appellant to appear on a given date, the learned trial Court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against the appellant and notice to his surety, under intimation to this Court. Appeal dismissed.