Judgment :- S.P. Davare, J. 1. By this appeal, the appellant (original accused No. 1) has assailed the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2007 in Sessions Case No. 256/2005 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-3 at Aurangabad, convicting him for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for committing murder of his wife Mandabai. 2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that the appellant (original accused No.1) married deceased Mandabai about 8 years back who was sister of complainant Bhagwan Usare (P.W.1). Out of the said wedlock, a son namely Kamlesh (P.W. 2), about 8 years (at the time of incident), was born. It is alleged that after the marriage the appellant and deceased Mandabai resided in Aurangabad and appellant used to work as electrician. Thereafter, they shifted to Nasik Devalali Camp for residence and used to reside with the sister of the appellant namely Latabai Pathade (original accused No. 2 -acquitted). However, it is alleged that, the appellant used to insist upon deceased Mandabai to bring amount of Rs.80,000/-from her father for starting his own business and used to assault her due to non fulfillment of said demand. The complainant [ Bhagwan (P.W.1)] came to know about the illtreatment to his sister i.e. deceased Mandabai and therefore, brought her, appellant and their son Kamlesh to Aurangabad for residence and acquired rented premises at Aurangabad, for them. 3. It is further alleged that on 30.8.2005 at about 7.30 a.m. one Popatrao Dhatbale informed complainant Bhagwan (P.W. 1) that Mandabai was lying in the house in dead condition. Therefore, complainant Bhagwan (P.W.1), his brother and parents went there and found that Mandabai was lying in the room in unconscious condition and her son Kamlesh (P.W.2) was sitting near her and was crying. Hence, complainant Bhagwan made inquiry with Kamlesh that what had happened and thereupon P.W. 2 Kamlesh informed to P.W. 1 Bhagwan that a quarrel took place between accused/ appellant Vasant and Mandabai in the intervening night between 29.8.2005 to 30.08.2005 and thereafter they slept without taking food. Hence, complainant Bhagwan made inquiry with Kamlesh that what had happened and thereupon P.W. 2 Kamlesh informed to P.W. 1 Bhagwan that a quarrel took place between accused/ appellant Vasant and Mandabai in the intervening night between 29.8.2005 to 30.08.2005 and thereafter they slept without taking food. Thereafter, he suddenly heard the shouts of his mother Mandabai and woke up and saw that the appellant -Vasant was holding grinding stone in his hand and he inflicted blow thereof on the head of Mandabai and therefore, she fell down and became unconscious and thereafter, the appellant ran away. Blood was oozing from the head injury of Mandabai. Thereafter, P.W. 1 Bhagwan lodged report immediately on 30.8.2005 with Police Station M.I.D.C., Cidco and offence was registered under section 302 of I.P.C. 4. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the accused No. 2 Latabai i.e. sister of accused No. 1/ appellant herein and appellant conspired with each other and subjected Mandabai to illtreatement. After completion of investigation, investigating agency filed the chargesheet against both the accused and thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge came to be framed against the appellant/ accused No. 1 and his sister accused No. 2 Latabai under sections 498-A, 302, 120-B r/w. 34 of I.P.C. On 14.2.2006 at Exh. 4 but both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and faced the trial in Sessions Case No. 256/2005 wherein the accused No. 2 Latabai was acquitted regarding the charges, but the accused No. 1 i.e. appellant herein was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant (original accused No. 1) has preferred the present appeal and impugned the said judgment and prayed to quash and set aside the same. 6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses as mentioned below. (1). P.W. 1 Bhagwan Bhaurao Usare alias Babasaheb i.e. complainant at Exh. 9 who proved the F.I.R. dated 30.8.2005 on record at Exh. 10. [Moreover, inquest panchanama dated 30.8.2005 is marked at Exh.11 since admitted by appellant.] (2). 6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses as mentioned below. (1). P.W. 1 Bhagwan Bhaurao Usare alias Babasaheb i.e. complainant at Exh. 9 who proved the F.I.R. dated 30.8.2005 on record at Exh. 10. [Moreover, inquest panchanama dated 30.8.2005 is marked at Exh.11 since admitted by appellant.] (2). P.W. 2 Kamlesh Vasant Zinjurde, son of the deceased and appellant herein, child witness as well as an eye witness; (3). P.W. 3 Popatrao Ghatbale was the informer to P.W. 1 Bhagwan and panch to spot panchanama who produced the spot panchanama at Exh. 16; (4). P.W.4 Dr. Kailash Zine - Medical Officer/ doctor -who proved the P.M. notes dated 30.8.2005 at Exh. 19; (5). P.W.5 Bhaurao Trimbak Kusare, father of deceased Nandabai; (6). P.W.6 Bhanudas Wamanrao, panch to the panchanama of seizure of clothes of deceased Nandabai and he proved the said panchanama at Exh. 25; (7). P.W.7 Ashabai Rakhamaji Misal, neighbourer; (8). P.W.8 Sajjanrao Chagan Devkhede - landlord of the room of the appellant; (9). P.W.9 P.I. Shaikh Mohammad Imam, Investigating officer, who proved forwarding letter at Exh. 29 and also forwarding letter Exh. 30; and (10). P.W. 10 Jivan Ramdasrao Motegaonkar who took the dead body of Mandabai to Ghati Hospital for post mortem on 30.8.2005 and also seized the clothes of the deceased under seizure panchanama at Exh. 25. 7. The statement of the appellant/ accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. to which he gave usual answers (It is false) (I do not know). As regards the question No. 38 put to him," why witness Kamlesh is deposing against him", the apellant accused replied that "he is deposing as per the say of complainant Bhagwan". Moreover as regards question No. 43 put to appellant/ accused that "Do you want to state anything about the case", the appellant accused stated that "he has been implicated in the case falsely by the complainant" and nothing beyond that. 8. While connecting the appellant/ accused with the alleged crime of murder of his wife Mandabai, the learned Judge mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2 Kamlesh, P.W. 3 Popatrao, P.W. 5 Bhaurao and P.W. 8 Sajjanrao Devkhade and discussed the said aspect in paragraph Nos. 11 to 20 of the judgment. Moreover, the learned Judge also discussed the medical evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. 11 to 20 of the judgment. Moreover, the learned Judge also discussed the medical evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Kailash Jine and P.M. notes (Exh. 19) in para 21 of the judgment. 9. Heard the respective counsel for the parties who took us through the entire evidence and the impugned judgment. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the alleged incident took place during the intervening night between 29.8.2005 and 30.8.2005, but the statement of child witness i.e. P.W. 2 Kamlesh was recorded after delay of about 6 days i.e. on 6.9.2005 and the prosecution has not explained the said delay and therefore, submitted that the testimony of P.W. 2 Kamlesh is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the learned counsel relied upon the ruling reported at 1997 ALL M.R. (Cri) 518, The State of Maharashtra Vs. Wafati Babu Quereshi and others (Vishnu Sahai and A.S.Venkatachala Moorthy, JJ.), wherein it is laid down that:- There is common infirmity in the statements of all the three eye-witnesses which renders it unsafe for us to accept them. That is, that although the incident took place on 16.1.1982, all the three eyewitnesses were interrogated belatedly under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. : Aayeshabi and Saberabi on 22.1.1982 and M.A. Gani on 1.2.1982. The Apex Court, in large number of decisions out of which reference need only be made to one viz. G.B.Patil V. State of Maharashtra (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. paras 15, 18) has deprecated the practice of recording statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. after an inordinate delay. In the said decision it has laid down that such delay may give rise to the inference that the witnesses had not seen the incident and the investigator was buying out time to give shape to the prosecution case. In our view, in the absence of any explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution his inordinate delay in recording of the statements of these witness, under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is alone sufficient to reject their testimony. 11. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P., the contents of the complaint, Exh. 10, which was admittedly lodged by the P.W. 1 Complainant Bhagwan on the very day i.e. 30.8.2005, disclose that the same was lodged by him on the basis of information given by P.W. 2 Kamlesh to P.W. 1 complainant Bhagwan. 11. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P., the contents of the complaint, Exh. 10, which was admittedly lodged by the P.W. 1 Complainant Bhagwan on the very day i.e. 30.8.2005, disclose that the same was lodged by him on the basis of information given by P.W. 2 Kamlesh to P.W. 1 complainant Bhagwan. Hence, it is amply clear that though the statement of P.W. 2 Kamlesh is recorded after the delay of 6 days, he had already narrated and conveyed the occurrence of incident during the intervening night between 29.8.2005 to 30.8.2005 to P.W. 1 complainant Bhagwan on 30.8.2005 itself which was reflected in the complaint at Exh. 10 dated 30.8.2005 and therefore, no suspicion can be raised regarding the statement of P.W. 2 Kamlesh in respect of its veracity and accordingly, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant bears no substance. 12. As regards the observations made in the above referred ruling cited by learned counsel for the applicant, since the complaint, Exh. 10, categorically discloses that P.W. 1 complainant Bhagwan filed the complaint on the basis of information received from P.W. 2 Kamlesh and since the said complaint was lodged on the very day of the incident i.e. on 30.8.2005, the facts and circumstances in the present case and the facts and circumstances in the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant differ from each other and therefore, same cannot be of any aid and assistance to the appellant. 13. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant, that although investigating agency has recorded the statement of P.W. 2 Kamlesh on the very day of incident i.e. on 30.8.2005 as admitted by investigating officer P.W. 9 in his deposition, the said statement was suppressed by the investigating agency and the same has not been produced before the Court which also creates suspicion in respect of testimony of P.W. 2. However, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the statement of P.W. 2 Kamlesh was not recorded on the very date of incident i.e. on 30.8.2005, but it was recorded on 6.9.2005 and therefore, there is no question of suppression of statement of P.W. 2, allegedly recorded on the date of incident i.e. on 30.8.2005. However, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the statement of P.W. 2 Kamlesh was not recorded on the very date of incident i.e. on 30.8.2005, but it was recorded on 6.9.2005 and therefore, there is no question of suppression of statement of P.W. 2, allegedly recorded on the date of incident i.e. on 30.8.2005. In the said context, it is pointed out from the testimony of P.W. 9 Shaikh Mohammad Imam that he categorically stated in his deposition that he recorded statement of son of deceased and accused No. 1 Vasant namely Kamlesh on the very day i.e. on 6.9.2005 since the reference of said date is to the date mentioned in earlier sentence and for the ready reference the said para from the deposition of P.W. 9 is reproduced hereinunder. On 6.9.2005 I had recorded statement of Bhaurao Usare and other witnesses. On the very day I recorded statement of son of the deceased and accused No. 1 Vasant with Kamlesh. 14. Hence, it is apperant that by referring the very day in respect of recording of statement of P.W. 2 Kamlesh, P.W. 9 referred to date in the earlier sentence i.e. 6.9.2005 and not to date of incident i.e. 30.8.2005 and there is no substance in the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of suppression of statement of P.W. 2 allegedly recorded on 30.8.2005 since no statement was recorded on the same date as rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P for the State. 15. It was further canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 Kamlesh is a child witness and conviction cannot be sustained upon the testimony of the said child witness who is of about 5 to 6 years old, since the testimony has to be evaluated carefully and adequate corroboration is required from the other evidence to his testimony and appellant relied upon the ruling reported at A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 1088 in the case of Bhagwan Singh and others V. State of M.P. (S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.). It is observed in the said ruling that:- The law recognizes the child as a competent witness but a child particularly at such a tender age of six years, who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of the incident because of immaturity of understanding, is not considered by the court to be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied without other corroborative evidence. The evidence of child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony. [(1988) 7 SCC 177 relied on]. 16. Inthe said context, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge in para 11 of the impugned judgment that P.W. 2 Kamlesh is the only eye witness who has seen the occurrence of incident during the intervening night of 29.8.2005 and 30.8.2005 and who is son of the appellant/ accused herein. The learned Judge also stated that before recording the evidence of P.W. 2 Kamlesh, he satisfied himself by putting certain questions to that witness and found that he is capable to understand the relevancy, sanctity and importance of oath, hence, he administered oath to P.W. 2 Kamlesh. During his testimony P.W. 2 Kamlesh stated that name of his mother as Mandabai and he used to call "Nana" to his father i.e. appellant who has inflicted blow of grinding stone on the head of his mother Mandabai. He further stated that his leg was pressed under the foot of his father, when he was sleeping and therefore, he woke up and saw that incident and blood was oozing from the head of his mother Mandabai and she was fallen. His father Nana i.e. appellant herein told him that he is going to Nasik at the house of his sister. Further, he has stated that his mother did not wake up in the morning and died because of the blow of grinding stone on her head by his father i.e. appellant herein. 17. Thereafter, P.W.2 Kamlesh was cross examined at length, but he sustained with the cross examination, except omission that he woke up when his leg was pressed under the foot of his father. But same was not duly proved through the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.9 Shaikh Imam and therefore, same cannot be construed as fatal to the credibility of child witness. But same was not duly proved through the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.9 Shaikh Imam and therefore, same cannot be construed as fatal to the credibility of child witness. P.W. 2 Kamlesh categorically narrated the occurrence of incident of inflicting of blow of grinding stone by the appellant upon the head of his deceased mother in the house during the intervening night between 29.8.2005 to 30.8.2005 and the said very aspect has not been shaken in the cross examination. Moreover, the P.W. 2 Kamlesh withstood to the cross examination and he has not been impeached in the cross examination and therefore, though it is the testimony of child witness, the testimony of P.W. 2 Kamlesh is required to be accepted and since it is direct evidence of eye witness to the occurrence of incident it connects the appellant with the crime. 18. As regards the above referred ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no doubt that the testimony of a child witness is required to be scanned with close scrutiny, but in the instant case, the testimony of P.W. 2 Kamlesh, a child witness, withstood the test of cross examination and has not been shaken and it inspires confidence and therefore, the facts and circumstances in the present case and facts and circumstances in the above referred case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant differ from each other and therefore, same cannot be of any assistance to the appellant. Accordingly, reliance can be very well placed on the testimony of P.W. 2 Kamlesh to connect the appellant with the crime. 19. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not residing with deceased Mandabai and his son Kamlesh, P.W. 2 and therefore, he was not aware about the incident. Further, it was submitted that the appellant himself surrendered before the Kranti Chowk Police Station which itself shows the conduct of the accused/ appellant that he is not involved in the alleged crime. However, the learned trial Judge rightly observed that the proposition of the appellant that he was not residing with deceased Mandabai and Kamlesh, cannot be accepted since P.W. 8 - landlord of appellant viz. Sajjanrao Devkhade stated in his evidence at Exh. 7 that he knows the appellant and his wife deceased Mandabai. However, the learned trial Judge rightly observed that the proposition of the appellant that he was not residing with deceased Mandabai and Kamlesh, cannot be accepted since P.W. 8 - landlord of appellant viz. Sajjanrao Devkhade stated in his evidence at Exh. 7 that he knows the appellant and his wife deceased Mandabai. He categorically stated that he had given room to appellant on monthly rent of Rs.600/- which is situated near statue of Shivaji at Naregaon. 20. Moreover, the neighbourer i.e. Popatrao, P.W. 3 also stated that he knows the appellant accused who is residing in front of his house. Incident took place on 30.8.2005 and he saw the dead body of Mandabai in the house of appellant/ accused and deceased Mandabai had sustained head injury and blood was there near her body, and her son Kamlesh i.e. P.W. 2 was sitting near the dead body and he was crying. He further stated that he went to the house of complainant Bhagwan and narrated about the aforesaid incident. So also another neighbourer i.e. P.W. 7 Ashabai also deposed that she knew deceased Mandabai and she was her neighbourer and the appellant/ accused was husband of deceased Mandabai and she identified him in the Court. She categorically stated that deceased Mandabai was residing along with appellant/ accused and her son. She further stated that before 2-3 days of the incident, there was a festival of Rakshabandan. Sister of the appellant had been to the house of appellant at the time of Rakshabandhan and she also identified her before the Court. Besides that she has categorically stated that appellant and deceased Mandabai were her neighbourers. Hence, there is no reason why independent witness i.e. Sajjanrao Devkhade, P.W. 8, Popatrao P.W. 3 and P.W. 7 Ashabai would depose against the appellant. 21. Moreover, it is significant to note that during the course of cross examination of Bhaurao, P.W. 5, it was suggested on behalf of the appellant that appellant was working in factory at M.I.D.C., Chikhalthana as electrician under the contract which was denied by him, but said suggestion itself indicates that appellant was residing and working at Aurangabad at the time of occurrence of incident. Besides, it is material to note that during the course of recording the statement of the appellant under section 313 of Cr.P.C., it was specifically asked to him why the witnesses i.e. P.W. 8 Sajjanrao, P.W. 3 Popatrao and P.W. 7 Ashabai stated in their evidence that he was residing with deceased Mandabai, but appellant accused simply denied the said fact and he has not given any explanation thereto nor stated particular place of his residence at the time of occurrence of incident. Hence, there is no substance in the proposition put forth by the appellant that he was not residing with the deceased Mandabai and his son Kamlesh, P.W. 2 and was not aware about the incident. 22. It is most incriminating circumstance against the appellant that the appellant/ accused was absconding from the date of incident i.e. 30.8.2005 till 18.10.2005 i.e. for the period of one and half month. In the said context, P.W. 2 Kamlesh has specifically stated in his deposition that after inflicting the blow of grinding stone by the appellant on the head of his deceased mother Mandabai, the appellant had left the house. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the appellant has not put forth any reason in support of his contention that he was residing separately from the deceased. Hence, it is crystal clear that the appellant was residing with his wife deceased Mandabai and son Kamlesh i.e. P.W. 2 at Aurangabad, but failed to give any explanation for his absence for the period of one and half month i.e. 30.8.2005 up to 18.10.2005 and the said conduct of the appellant speaks volumes for itself. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the observations made in the ruling reported at 1999 Cri.l.J. 3763, Ramsingh V. State of Maharashtra (V.K. BARDE AND J.A. PATIL, JJ.) as follows:- The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused was absconding and this is a circumstance pointing out to his guilt. Merely because the accused was not at home when Police reached there, it cannot be said that the accused was absconding. No such specific case is made out by the prosecution. Furthermore, this circumstance was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with a view to obtain his explanation regarding allegation that he was absconding. No such specific case is made out by the prosecution. Furthermore, this circumstance was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with a view to obtain his explanation regarding allegation that he was absconding. The accused could have explained his absence if an opportunity had been given to him. However, absence of the accused when the Police reached at his house, cannot be considered that he was absconding. So, this circumstances also cannot be considered as a link to connect the accused with the alleged crime. However, the above referred case mainly based on the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession made before the Police Patil, but in the instant case, there is direct and clinching evidence of eye witness P.W. 2 Kamlesh, neighbourers namely P.W. 3 Popat, P.W. 7 Ashabai and P.W. 8 Sajjan i.e. landlord of the room of the appellant. Besides that, the appellant has failed to give plausable explanation for his absence or for his abscondance for substantial period from 30.8.2005 to 18.10.2005 and he is also silent in that respect in the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the above referred case and facts and circumstances in the present case, differ from each other and observations made in the case cannot be come to the rescue of the appellant. Hence, the evidence of P.W. 2 Kamlesh and above referred other neighbourers P.W. 3 Popat, P.W. 7 Ashabai and P.W. 8 Sajjan – landlord of the room of the appellant - crystalise that the appellant was residing along with deceased Mandabai and son P.W. 2 Kamlesh at Aurangabad at the time of occurrence of incident. 24. It was further canvassed by the appellant that although P.W. 2 Kamlesh has stated in his deposition that the appellant allegedly inflicted the blow of grinding stone on the head of the deceased Mandabai, but the P.M. report, Exh. 10, shows the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage due to rupture of liver, spleen and left lung with multiple rib fractures, associated with injury to the head and therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the medical evidence does not match with the version of P.W. 2. 25. That takes us to the medical evidence adduced by Dr. 25. That takes us to the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Kailash Zine, P.W. 4, who has stated that he performed the autopsy of the dead body of deceased Mandabai on 30.8.2005 between 2.15 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. As per police inquest there was history of assault by her husband on 29.8.2005 at about 21.00 hrs. to 5.00 p.m. of 30.8.2005. He noticed following injuries on the body of deceased Mandabai. (i). Lacerated wound over right side of occipital region, size 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m., muscle deep, margines irregular and contused, reddish in colour. (ii). Abrasion over right shoulder of size 5 x 1.5 c.m., reddish in colour (iii). Contusion over posterior lateral aspect of back right lumber region, of size 10 x 8 c.m., reddish in colour (iv). Contusion over posterior lateral aspect of back left lumber region, of size 8 x 6 c.m., reddish in colour. He further stated as follows The injuries were antimortem in nature. On internal examination there was subgalial contusion on occipital region size 3 x 2 c.m., reddish in colour. There was no evidence of fracture of skull. There was sub-arachnoid evidence over both parital occipital region. Potechial of hemorrhages present. Cerebral odema present. In thorax infiltration of blood in the posterior lateral aspect of back on both sides corresponding to the injuries mentioned in column No. 17. There were fractures of ribs on left side 4 to 5 in mid axillary line, 6 and 7 on para spinal region on left side. Left plural cavity contain 450 Ml dark coloured blood. Pleura torn corresponding to fracture ribs. Left lung shows contusion over upper and lower limb and laceration at high lump on cut section reddish fluid oozing out. In abdomen cavity contain 400 CC blood. Liver ruptured to two pieces, spleen ruptured, rest of the organs are pale. Stomach was empty, mucosa normal. No abnormal smell persuade. Blood sample was preserved to blood grouping and handed over to accompanied police. Opinion as to the cause of death "shock and hemorrhage due to rupture of liver, spleen and left lung with multiple fractures associated with injury to head". Injury Nos. (iii) and (iv) are possible due to the article No. 1. (grinding stone). 26. He further stated that the injuries shown in the post mortem report are sufficient to cause death collectively in the ordinary course of nature. Injury Nos. (iii) and (iv) are possible due to the article No. 1. (grinding stone). 26. He further stated that the injuries shown in the post mortem report are sufficient to cause death collectively in the ordinary course of nature. He also produced the P.M. report dated 30.8.2005 at Exh. 19. He further stated that the death of deceased is not natural. During cross examination, he stated that head injury is not sufficient individually to cause death of the deceased, but it corroborates with the deposition of P.W. 2 Kamlesh. 27. Thus, although P.W. 2 Kamlesh, eye witness of the incident, has stated that the appellant/ accused inflicted blow of grinding stone on the head of deceased Mandabai, the said injury itself is not sufficient individually to cause death as stated by P.W. 4 Dr. Kailash Zine. In the said context, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that P.W. 4 Kailash Zine has categorically stated in his deposition that injury No. 3 i.e. contusion over posterior lateral aspect of back right lumber region, and injury No. 4 i.e. contusion over posterior lateral aspect of back left lumber region, are possible due to grinding stone i.e. article 1 and the cause of death is shown in the P.M. report, Exh. 19 is shock and hemorrhage due to rupture of liver, spleen and left lung with multiple fractures associated with injury to head. Therefore, it is amply clear that there is no substance in the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the said medical evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Kailash Zine and P.M. notes, Exh. 19, also connects the appellant with the crime, and proves death of Mandabai to be homicidal. 28. Thus, there can not be any dispute that the death of Mandabai was homicidal considering the medical evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Kailash Zine and P.M. notes, Exh. 19. Moreover, the appellant accused failed to explain how the death of his wife i.e. Mandabai occurred and there is no explanation given by the appellant/ accused in that respect in the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Besides, F.I.R. has been lodged by P.W.1 complainant Bhagwan Usare at the earliest point of time and there is no delay in lodging the said F.I.R. 29. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no substance in the present appeal and the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant/ accused under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months and no interference therein is warranted and therefore, the present appeal fails and accordingly same stands dismissed.