JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal preferred by the accused appellant Jepa Ram s/o Kanaji, by caste Heeragar, r/o Bhootgaon, against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2003 passed by the learned Addl.District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No.1, Sirohi in Sessions Case No.79/2003. 2. The nub of the prosecution story as disclosed during the trial,is that on 03.04.03 at about 09.00 AM, when the Station House Officer of Police Station Barlut,reached the residence of Kana Ram at village Bhootgaon, the following story was reported (Ex.P/17) to him by Hakma Ram s/o Kanaji. Hakma Ram stated that he resided with his family at his Well in Bhootgaon. His father Kanaji and mother Puni Bai resided in their parental house, along with his brother Jepa Ram. Jepa Ram used to drink liquor excessively and often sold domestic articles from the house to purchase the liquor. Jepa Ram 's wife had left the house for this reason and had shifted to her maternal house. In the morning of 03.04.03, he was at his residence when his old father Kanaji came and informed him that Jepa Ram who had returned at around 12.00- 01.00 AM in the night, in a drunken state, had hanged his mother, after abusing her and when Kana Ram tried to rescue her, he inflicted blows on his body with a lathi. 3. Hearing that, Hakma Ram immediately rushed to the place of the incident and saw that his mother was lying dead. His father's age is 80 years and the age of the deceased mother was about 75 years. On the basis of Ex.P/17, first information report, a criminal case No.29/2003 was registered at Police Station, Barlut and the investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded and an autopsy was conducted on the body of the deceased. The injuries on the body of Kana Ram were examined by a medical officer. The accused was arrested and blood stained clothes and other clothes were recovered from the spot. The stick by which injuries were caused to Kana Ram, was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant Jepa Ram, in pursuance to the information recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused was arrested and blood stained clothes and other clothes were recovered from the spot. The stick by which injuries were caused to Kana Ram, was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant Jepa Ram, in pursuance to the information recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. After usual investigation, a charge sheet was presented in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions and ultimately, transferred to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi for trial. 5. The accused was charged under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, PW/1 Hukam Singh, PW/2 Bhawani Singh, PW/3 Amilal, PW/4 Laxman Singh, PW/5 Hema Ram, PW/6 Kana Ram, PW/7 Hakma Ram, PW/8 Dr.Bharat Kantiwal, PW/9 Girdhar Singh, PW/ 10 Babu Lal, and PW/11 Harikishan Gaur, to support this case. 6. The incriminating evidence produced against the accused was put to him for explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused appellant did not produce any evidence in his defence. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Judge concluded that the accused appellant was guilty for the commission of offence under section 302 and 323 IPC and ordered a sentence as under:- (1) For the commission of offence under section 302 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's imprisonment. (2) For the commission of offence under section 323 IPC, sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 7. We have perused the judgment of the learned trial court. 8. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, out of which, PW/6 Kanaram was an eye witness to the alleged crime and he deposed that four months ago, Jepa Ram, his son had come home at night in a drunken state and at that time he, (Kana Ram), along with his wife Puni, were present in the house. The accused appellant Jepa Ram demanded money from the wife of PW/6 Kana Ram and on refusal, the accused appellant started to beat the deceased Puni. The accused appellant Jepa Ram demanded money from the wife of PW/6 Kana Ram and on refusal, the accused appellant started to beat the deceased Puni. The accused then brought a rope, which was lying in the house, and hanged the deceased Puni. When he (Kana Ram) rushed to her rescue, the accused appellant caused injuries to him with a stick, on his hand, head and other places. He further deposed that the wife of the accused appellant had left their house one year ago, for the reason that the accused appellant Jepa Ram used to beat her in a drunken state. He further deposed that Puni Bai had died on account of the hanging and then the accused had absconded from the house. Early in the morning, he called upon his other son Hakma Ram and informed him about the incident. Other persons from the village also came in the morning. Hakma Ram had reported the incident to the police who had come to the place of the incident . The doctor had examined Kana Ram's injuries. 9. PW/1 Hukam Singh deposed about the preparation of Ex.P/2, the forwarding letter, for sending the sealed packets of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur. 10. PW/2, Bhawani Singh, was the photographer who had snapped photographs, Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/12 and he deposed that Ex.13 and 14 were their negatives. 11. PW/3 Amilal was the witness of memo of arrest Ex.P/15. 12. PW/4 Laxman Singh was the Incharge of the Malkhana of Barlut Police Station, who had sent the four sealed packets in an intact state, with constable Girdhar Singh, to the S.P.Office, Sirohi. 13. PW/5 Hema Ram deposed that the accused appellant Jepa Ram was married and used to beat his wife in a drunken state and for this reason his wife had left him a year ago . Jepa Ram also used to beat his parents in a drunken state and used to demand money for liquor. On the date of the death of the deceased Puni,he went to the spot and saw the rope, by which Puni had been hanged. There were injuries on the body of Kana Ram also. 14. PW/7 Hakma Ram corroborated the evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram, except the fact of seeing the incident with his own eyes. On the date of the death of the deceased Puni,he went to the spot and saw the rope, by which Puni had been hanged. There were injuries on the body of Kana Ram also. 14. PW/7 Hakma Ram corroborated the evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram, except the fact of seeing the incident with his own eyes. He is also the lodger of the first information report, Ex.P/17, about which he deposed that he submitted that report at the place of incident to the Station House Officer. He also corroborated the execution of other memos Ex.P/18, EX.P/19, Ex/P.20, EX/P.21 and Ex.P/22. 15. PW/8 is Dr.Bharat Kantiwal, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased Puni:- "1. abrasion (Ante mortem) 3x1 cm right knee over patella 2. abrasion (Ante mortem) 2x1cm left knee over patella 3. Lacerated wound (Ante mortem) 2x ½ x cm left leg. Ligature mark .. is grooved in the neck over thyroid cartilage. Groove is 1cm broad. Base is pale, dry, hard, leathery and parchment like and margin is reddish brown present above and below the ligature mark.On dissection .. subcutaneous tissue of the ligature mark is dry, white and glistening. There is fracture of the thyroid cartilage of both superior norms. 16. According to his opinion, the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia, which was caused due to hanging. Internal and external injuries observed on the body of Puni,were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Post-mortem report Ex.P/18, was prepared by this witness. He further deposed that on the examination of the body of injured Kana Ram, he found the following four injuries on his body:- 1. Abrasion (Bright scab 2 x 1-½ cm right forearm 2. Abrasion (Bright scab) 1 x 1 cm Forehead 3. Abrasion (Bright Scab) 2-½ x 1 cm Left forearm 4. Abrasion (Bright scab) 1x1 left leg. 17. The above four injuries were simple in nature and were caused by a blunt weapon. The injuries had been inflicted twenty hours before the examination and he also deposed about the preparation of the injury report, Ex.P/17. 18. Abrasion (Bright Scab) 2-½ x 1 cm Left forearm 4. Abrasion (Bright scab) 1x1 left leg. 17. The above four injuries were simple in nature and were caused by a blunt weapon. The injuries had been inflicted twenty hours before the examination and he also deposed about the preparation of the injury report, Ex.P/17. 18. PW/9 Girdhar Singh was the carrier of the four sealed packets from Police Station, Barlut to S.P. Office, Sirohi and then after getting the forwarding letter Ex.P/2, from S.P. Office, Sirohi to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur. 19. PW/10 Babu Lal deposed about reaching the place of incident, just after its occurrence in the morning at 04.45 or 05.00 AM and at that time,the wife of Kanaji was hanging with a rope. He also deposed about preparation of memo Ex. P/18, P/19, P/20, P/21, P/22 and Ex.P/23. 20. PW/11, Harikishan Gaur was the investigating Officer, who reached the place of incident on 03.04.03 and received the report Ex.P/17 from Hakma Ram, son of the deceased Puni Bai and after registration of case No.29/2003, he started the investigation. He further deposed that in pursuance to the information recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he recovered the lathi at the instance of the accused appellant Jepa Ram and identified the same. 21. Accused appellant, in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that his brother Hakma Ram had managed to file a false report by tutoring his father. 22. The learned trial Judge, relied on the ocular evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram and convicted the accused appellant Jepa Ram for the alleged offence. He further relied on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur which was proved by the prosecution as Ex.P/29. 23. Learned counsel for the accused appellant assailed the judgment of the learned trial court on the ground that the evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram, could not be relied upon because he was 80 years old and in his cross examination, the witness deposed that soon after receiving injury with a lathi, he lost consciousness. Therefore, the entire evidence of this witness, as an ocular evidence, could not be relied upon and further the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the learned trial court, could not be termed as an unimpeachable one. 24. Therefore, the entire evidence of this witness, as an ocular evidence, could not be relied upon and further the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the learned trial court, could not be termed as an unimpeachable one. 24. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial court and argued that the ocular evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram, remained unimpeachable during trial and there was no reason for PW/6 Kana Ram, to depose false evidence against his son. 25. We have considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties and also scanned and evaluated the evidence available on record. 26. The present case hinges entirely upon the ocular evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram, who deposed about the incident and also deposed that in the morning at 4.45 or 05.00 AM, he went to Hakma Ram for reporting this matter and in our considered view, the evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram, cannot be termed as unreliable in any sense, because there was no occasion for a father to depose against his son for such a heinous offence, that too particularly in a case of causing the death of his own mother (mother of accused). The presence of this witness, at the place of incident, was natural and the cross examination, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant, did not show any infirmity or contradiction . But contrary to it, the injuries observed on the body of PW/6 Kana Ram, also proved his presence on the place of incident. The conduct of this witness, is also according to normal human conduct and behaviour, because he tried to rescue his wife and resultantly he also sustained injuries. 27. If we come to the evidence of PW/8 Dr.Bharat Kantiwal, it further corroborates the ocular evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram, because according to him also the cause of death of the deceased, was asphyxia due to strangulation. The accused appellant caused strangulation by hanging the deceased with a rope. 28. The accused appellant Jepa Ram knew the consequences of hanging his mother with a rope. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence on record that the accused appellant intended to cause the death of his mother by hanging her. 29. The accused appellant caused strangulation by hanging the deceased with a rope. 28. The accused appellant Jepa Ram knew the consequences of hanging his mother with a rope. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence on record that the accused appellant intended to cause the death of his mother by hanging her. 29. To prove the offence under section 302 IPC, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the injuries caused by the accused appellant, were sufficient to cause the death of deceased in the ordinary course of nature and it is the sanctity and the nature of the injuries, which are necessary to be considered for proving this fact. The expert evidence of PW/8 Dr.Bharat Kantiwal, proved the fact that the accused appellant Jepa Ram had intended to cause the death of his mother, deceased Puni. 30. The testimony of PW/6 Kana Ram, the only eye witness, inspires confidence and nothing is brought on record to impeach his credibility nor is there any major contradiction or omission to disbelieve his evidence. 31. Thus, on the basis of the aforementioned discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the ocular evidence of PW/6 Kana Ram and further, coupled with the evidence of PW/8 Dr. Bharat Kantiwal, it has been proven, beyond doubt, that the accused appellant Jepa Ram had hanged his own mother deceased Puni, with an intention to cause her death. 32. Thus, the commission of offence under section 302 and 323 IPC is well proved beyond doubt against the accused appellant. 33. Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Sirohi dated 28.08.2003 in Sessions Case No. 79/2003, are maintained.Appeal dismissed. *******