VYAS,J. ( 1 ) INSTANT criminal jail appeal has been preferred by convict Hari Ram,at present lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner,against judgment and order of sentence dated 4. 12. 2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, srikaranpur (Sriganganagar)in Sessions Case No. 14/2002, whereby, the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302, IPC for murdering his own wife and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. While challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 4. 12. 2002,it is prayed by the appellant that his conviction for offence under section 302, IPC may be set aside. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to brief facts of the case, daughters of Mukhram,pw. 9,smt. Seema (deceased) and Geeta,were married to two real brothers namely,hari ram (present appellant) and Nathu Ram, both sons of Imilal,residents of village Jivandesar (District Hanumangarh ). Mere specifically, accused-appellant Hari Ram got married to deceased Seema Devi (deceased)19 years back and, as per FIR Ex. P/13,lodged by PW. 9mukh Ram at Police Station ghoomadwali (District Sriganganagar) on 7. 5. 2002, it was stated by complainant Mukh Ram,pw. 9 that his two daughters Geeta and Seema (deceased) were married to two real brothers Hari Ram (accused-appellant)and Nathu Ram 19 years back and after marriage husband of his younger daughter Seema started quarrels with her and regularly used to beat his daughter after consuming liquor. The complainant further stated that on 7. 5. 2002 when he was in the forest area of the village for grazing his animals, he was informed at about 3. 30 P. M. by Krishan Lal,pw. 6,sarpanch of Gram panchayat Jivandesar that Hari Ram, husband of Seema assaulted her with axe and caused injuries upon her neck and temple and due to those injuries seema had died. Upon this information he went to the in-laws house of his daughter at village Jivandesar alongwith one Jagannath where he saw that body of his daughter was lying on a cot inside one room and blood was also appearing on the cot. He found that there were injuries caused with sharp-edged weapon upon the neck and said of the head (temple) of his daughter and she had died. ( 3 ) UPON the aforesaid information, FIR was registered against the accused-appellant; and, thereafter usual investigation was conducted and after recording statements under Section 161,cr. He found that there were injuries caused with sharp-edged weapon upon the neck and said of the head (temple) of his daughter and she had died. ( 3 ) UPON the aforesaid information, FIR was registered against the accused-appellant; and, thereafter usual investigation was conducted and after recording statements under Section 161,cr. P. C. of the witnesses and receiving the post mortem report from the hospital, so also, completing other investigation,challan was filed before the Court of Judl. Magistrate (First class), Padampur,from where, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge,srikaranpur where the trial took place. ( 4 ) TO prove the case, the prosecution produced evidence of 11 prosecution witnesses viz. ,sharda, PW. l (daughter of deceased),geeta Devi, pw. 2 (sister of deceased),bhagirath, PW. 3, Dr. Suman Chaudhary,pw. 4, gopi Ram,pw. 5,krishanlal,sarpanch, PW. 6,jagannath, PW. 7,palaram, pw. 8,mukhram, PW. 9 (father of deceased),bairaj Singh,pw. 10 and Krishan lal,pw. ll. In all, 25 documents were exhibited from the side of the prosecution and, from the side of defence, police statements recorded under section161,cr. P. C. of Sharda,pw. l as Ex. D/l,geeta Devi,pw. 2 as Ex. D/2 and Mukhram,pw. 9 as Ex. D/3 were exhibited. After recording statements of the prosecution witnesses, state of the accused-appellant under Section 313, cr. P. C. 0was recorded in which the appellant refuted all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the learned trial Court heard final arguments and vide impugned judgment dated 4. 12. 2002 convicted the accused-appellant Hari Ram for committing offence under Section 302, ipc and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Doongar Singh, appearing for the accused-appellant, vehemently argued that conviction is totally based upon the testimony of sole eye-witness Sharda, PW. l,daughter of accused-appellant hari Ram and deceased Smt. Seema. While assailing the evidence of Sharda, pw. l,it is contended that prosecution has planted this witness to prove the case and, for the same, he has invited out attention towards the fact that her statement was for the first time recorded on 10. 5. 2002 under Section 161, cr. P. C. whereas as per the prosecution, she was sole eye-witness who saw the incident but there is no disclosure of her name in the FIR. 5. 2002 under Section 161, cr. P. C. whereas as per the prosecution, she was sole eye-witness who saw the incident but there is no disclosure of her name in the FIR. Therefore, on the basis of statement of so called planted eye-witness PW. l Sharda, daughter of the accused-appellant, conviction of the accused-appellant is illegal and contrary to the principle of criminal jurisprudence. It is specifically contended that as per the prosecution story, complainant Mukhram,pw. 9, father of deceased Seema has not disclosed in the FIR that the incident was seen by sharda though he has filed the FIR after reaching the house of appellant and deceased Seema and inspecting the scene of occurrence and after meeting pw. lsharda,therefore, if Sharda,pw. l was eye-witness of the incident, then, obviously her name was to be mentioned in the FIR, Ex. P/13;but, upon perusal of the FIR, Ex. P/13,it is revealed that there is no assertion or averment in the FIR that at the time the incident took place, Sharda,pw. l, daughter of accused-appellant and deceased Seema was present. Likewise, statement of pw. l Sharda was recorded under Section 161,cr. P. C. was recorded for the first time on 10. 5. 2002; and, thereafter, she was planted as eye witness and, on the basis of her testimony, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant which is totally baseless and has no evidentiary value. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further argued that statement of smt. Geeta,pw. 2 who was married to the brother of the appellant-accused, nathu Ram,who, reached at the place of the occurrence soon after the incident but she, too,did not state the name of Sharda,pw. l, that any information was given by her or she was eye-witness of the incident; meaning thereby, soon after the occurrence, Geeta,pw. 2 reached the site of occurrence but Sharda did not inform her that she saw the incident. Therefore, the testimony of statement of Sharda,pw. l deserves to be discredited and, obviously, all the above facts clearly reveal that PW. l Sharda, so called eye-witness, was planted by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused appellant. ( 7 ) WITH regard to statement of Mukh Ram,pw. 9, author of the FIR, it is nowhere stated by him in the FIR, so also, in his statement that Sharda, PW. l Sharda, so called eye-witness, was planted by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused appellant. ( 7 ) WITH regard to statement of Mukh Ram,pw. 9, author of the FIR, it is nowhere stated by him in the FIR, so also, in his statement that Sharda, PW. l informed him with regard to the incident having taken place in her presence. As per statement of Sharda,pw. l, when her father assaulted her mother, he was in drunken condition, therefore, conviction which is based upon the testimony of child witness Sharda. PW. l clearly reveals that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. ( 8 ) AS per learned counsel for the appellant, although in the statement of sharda,pw. l, she has narrated the fact that her father in drunken condition assaulted her mother after bringing axe from the kothar and inflicted serious injuries upon her neck and temple; but, this version has come on record after recording statement of Sharda,pw. l under Section 161,cr. P. c on 10. 5. 2002 i. e. , after three days, and before that, there was no material on record to connect the accused-appellant with the crime, therefore, as per counsel for the appellant, on the basis of such type of prosecution story which has not been disclosed soon after the occurrence, it is unsafe to convict the accused appellant. ( 9 ) WITH regard to evidence of extra-judicial confession, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it is very weak type of evidence, that too, requires corroboration, therefore, if any extra-judicial confession has been made before Smt. Geeta,pw. 2 by the accused-appellant, then, it was to be narrated in the FIR by Mukh Ram, PW. 9 because FIR as filed by him after reaching and seeing the place of occurrence and after meeting Geeta,pw. 2 and Sharda,pw. l:therefore, the story of extra-judicial confession is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt, more so, it is concocted. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further argued that so called recovery of axe is also not proved because, as per statement of Sharda,pw. l, the said weapon axe was lying at the place of occurrence and, as per statement of Sharda,pw. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further argued that so called recovery of axe is also not proved because, as per statement of Sharda,pw. l, the said weapon axe was lying at the place of occurrence and, as per statement of Sharda,pw. l the axe was in the hands of the accused-appellant whereas, as per investigation, after arrest, when information was given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of axe was made; meaning thereby, that there is major contradiction with regard to recovery of the weapon which also casts serious doubt with regard to the prosecution-story, upon which, the appellant-accused has been convicted. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, at the time of recording statement of Dr. Suman Chaudhary,pw. 4,who performed the post mortem, so called axe recovered from the accused-appellant was not shown nor any question was put to her whether the injury found upon the body of deceased Seema could be caused with it or not. Therefore, in the absence of putting such question or showing the weapon to the doctor it cannot be said that by medical evidence it has been proved by the prosecution that injuries which were found upon the body of the deceased seema were caused with axe recovered from the accused-appellant. In this view of the matter, as per the prosecution evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of axe and, more so, the prosecution has led evidence contrary to each other with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence. Therefore, the accused-appellant has been convicted erroneously and without proper appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial Court. ( 12 ) HENCE, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 4. 12. 2002 deserves to be quashed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that in view of the law laid down b the apex Court if the name of the eye-witness is not disclosed in the fir and statements are also recorded in the investigation after delay, then, evidence of such eye-witness cannot be treated to be trustworthy and testimony of such eye-witness is required to be ignored and conviction on the basis of evidence of such type of eye-witness should not be based. For the said proposition, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention towards various following judgments of the apex Court: (1)AIR 1969sc 53,state of Bihar vs. Kapil Singh and Ramujagar Singh vs. State of Bihar. (2)1974scc (Cri)194,ram Pukar Thakur and Others vs. State of Bihar. (3)1975 SCC (Cri)12,jagir Singh vs. The State (Delhi ). (4) 1976 SCC (Cri)366, State of Rajasthan vs. Pabudan Singh and Lachhman Singh. (5)1976 SCC (Cri)461,bahal Singh vs. State of Haryana. (6)AIR 1975 SC216,ravulappalli Kondamh vs. State of A. P. (7)1976 SCC (Cri)596,state of Orissa vs. Brahmananda Nanda. (8)1975 SCC (Cri.)759,muluwa and Others vs. State of M. P. (9)2004 SCC (Cri)428,state of Rajasthan vs. Magni Ram. (10)2006 Cr. L. R. (SC)919, Jog Singh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan. ( 14 ) FOR the purpose of discrediting the evidence of the doctor, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention towards the judgment reported in AIR 1976 SC2423,ishwar Singh vs. State of U. P. and submitted that weapon must be shown to the doctor to prove whether such weapon can cause the injury of the deceased. For the purpose of recovery of the weapon, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment reported in AIR 1963 SC1113,prabhoo vs. State of U. P. , in which, it has been held by the apex court that recovery of weapon and clothes must be proved to have belonged to the accused and ownership of clothes of the accused must be proved. With regard to unnatural conduct of the witness he has cited the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1975 SCC (Cri.)753,karupanna Thevar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu. While citing these judgments, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the sole eye-witness has wrongly been relied upon by the trial court for the purpose of conviction against the accused-appellant because the name of Sharda,pw. l was not disclosed in the FIR, so also, none of the witnesses said in their statements whether the co-called eye-witness has disclosed the incident when they first met the witness. Therefore, it is not safe to convict the accused-appellant on the testimony of the witness whose name was not disclosed at the time of filing of the FIR. l was not disclosed in the FIR, so also, none of the witnesses said in their statements whether the co-called eye-witness has disclosed the incident when they first met the witness. Therefore, it is not safe to convict the accused-appellant on the testimony of the witness whose name was not disclosed at the time of filing of the FIR. ( 15 ) PER contra, learned Public Prosecution vehemently argued that the accused-appellant has committed very serious offence while killing his own wife in front of his daughter Sharda,pw. l who was 11years old at the time of the incident. While criticizing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecution that the allegation of defence with regard to planting evidence of Sharda,pw. l deserves to be totally denied that the prosecution has fabricated any story. More so, in a family, it is obvious that small daughter is residing with father and mother and, here, in this case also Sharda,pw. l gave clear statement before the Court that she saw the incident and, in front of her, her father in drunken condition, assaulted her mother and inflicted very serious injuries with axe which resulted into her death, therefore, such type of trustworthy witness cannot be questioned by the person who has killed his own wife. With regard to argument of learned counsel for the appellant that none of other witnesses mukh Ram,pw. 9 and Geeta,pw. 2 mentioned name of Sharda that any information was given by her with regard to the incident, the argument of learned Public Prosecution is that when elders in the family are present and accused himself was present at the scene of occurrence and arrested by the police at the place of occurrence, then, normally the elder members of family would send the children out of house when such type of incident took place. Therefore, obviously after the occurrence took place the elder members arrived at the spot and children were sent out of the house but, in the investigation, when investigating office made inquiry, then, statement of sharda,pw. l was record under Section 161,cr. P. C, in which, whole story was narrated by Sharda,pw. Therefore, obviously after the occurrence took place the elder members arrived at the spot and children were sent out of the house but, in the investigation, when investigating office made inquiry, then, statement of sharda,pw. l was record under Section 161,cr. P. C, in which, whole story was narrated by Sharda,pw. l, daughter of deceased Seema and she has reiterated the statement before the Court also, therefore, the prosecution has proved its case by cogent evidence which is corroborated by the fact that the weapon of offence axe was recovered from the accused appellant after receiving information from him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, therefore, it is wrong to say that prosecution has failed to prove is case beyond reasonable doubt: ( 16 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. ( 17 ) IN this case, as per the prosecution story, two real sisters viz. ,geeta and deceased Seema were married to two sons of Imilal and,after marriage, matrimonial life of deceased Seema who married the accused-appellant was not happy. As per statement of Mukhram,pw. 9,father of the deceased seema,there were regular quarrels in between the deceased and accused-appellant. The prosecution to prove its case, produced as many as 11 witnesses,out of which,shardapw. l. is daughter of accused-appellant and deceased Seema,who saw the incident. PW. 2 is Geeta,real sister of deceased Seema and Mukhram,pw. 9 is father of deceased Seema and grand-father (mother's father) of Sharda,pw. l. Upon examination and appreciation of statements of these three witnesses,it emerges that in the statements of all these three witnesses, it is obvious that relations between accused-appellant and deceased Seema were not happy and both sisters were living separately but they were lying in neighborhood in the same locality. ( 18 ) IN the statement of Geeta,pw. 2, it is categorically stated by her that soon after the occurrence, when she reached the house of deceased Seema, dead body of Seema was lying in kotha and there were injuries upon her head and neck. At that time, accused-appellant was present in the house and upon being questioned by her that what he had done, he stated that her sister was not obeying him, therefore, he had inflicted the injuries with axe and murdered her; meaning thereby, credibility of the statement ofpw. 2smt. At that time, accused-appellant was present in the house and upon being questioned by her that what he had done, he stated that her sister was not obeying him, therefore, he had inflicted the injuries with axe and murdered her; meaning thereby, credibility of the statement ofpw. 2smt. Geeta,who categorically deposed that soon after the occurrence, she went to the house of Seema where she saw that Seema was murdered by her husband, cannot be put to suspicion. In the Cross-examination also, it is categorically stated by her that the accused-appellant was present at the scene of occurrence, therefore, obviously when husband, wife and children are residing in one house and, if any witness reached the spot soon after the occurrence, then, it is obvious that such type of witness who reaches the house can given correct version of the incident even if the incident itself did not occur in his/her presence, therefore, testimony of said witness can safely be relied upon. In this view of the matter,testimony of Geeta,pw. 2 cannot be discredited on account of the ground that she has not disclosed the name of eye-witness PW. lsharda,so also, it cannot be said that Geeta,pw. 2 is planted witness of the prosecution to prove the case. ( 19 ) NOW, we proceed to assess the creditability of the statement of sharda,pw. l for whom it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that her name was not disclosed in the FIR by complainant Mukhram,pw. 9 nor she disclosed the fact that incident took place in her presence prior to her statement was recorded u/s. 161,cr. P. C. on 10. 5. 2002. Upon perusal of the statement of Sharda,pw. 1 it is abundantly clear that though the said witness is child witness of 11 years of age; but, it is stated by Sharda,pw. l that her father, in drunken condition, asked her mother to give him money but, upon refusal, he made quarrel with her mother and he took axe from kotha situated in the house and inflicted injuries with axe in her presence. Thereafter, she sent to her grand-father's house for information him and, thereafter, his auntie geeta,pw. 2 came on the spot. In the cross-examination, it is categorically stated by her that occurrence took place in front of her. Thereafter, she sent to her grand-father's house for information him and, thereafter, his auntie geeta,pw. 2 came on the spot. In the cross-examination, it is categorically stated by her that occurrence took place in front of her. It is also stated that when her mother cried, none of the neighbours came on the spot and, there-after, the police came on the spot on the date of occurrence on 7. 5. 2002 and, after 2-3 days,the SHO made inquiry from her, so also, recorded statement u/s. 161,cr. P. C. It is true that in the statement of Sharda,pw. l, it is stated by her that oh the date when the incident took place no inquiry was made from her by the police; but, it is stated that the day on which the occurrence took place, her grand father (mother's father), PW. 9 Mukhram,auntie PW. 2smt. Geeta came on the spot on the same day. For the purpose of proving occurrence PW. l Sharda specifically stated in her cross-examination that: ( 20 ) IN our opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly considered and relied upon the testimony of this eye-witness because it is nowhere stated by her that any investigation was made by the police on the same day but, as and when, the police made inquiry from her, she categorically stated the incident which took place in her presence. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant has no force that name of the eye-witness was not disclosed in the FIR. This argument also requires to be discredited on the ground that the author of the FIR Mukhram,pw. 9 came on the spot after the incident and usually when such type of occurrence takes place in the house, obviously the elder members of the family would not allow the children to remain in the house. Therefore, the reason for not mentioning name of eye-witness is well established from the fact that why the name of child witness was not disclosed in the FIR,but, because in the investigation, it was found that the occurrence took place in the presence of Sharda,pw. 1,daughter of deceased seema,therefore, merely on the ground that name of the eye-witness was not disclosed in the FIR, the prosecution story cannot be thrown aside. 1,daughter of deceased seema,therefore, merely on the ground that name of the eye-witness was not disclosed in the FIR, the prosecution story cannot be thrown aside. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable because here, in this case, the occurrence took place in the house where only husband accused-appellant, wife deceased Seema and daughter Sharda PW. l were in the house and sister of deceased Seema was residing in the same locality but came at the spot soon after the occurrence took place. In this view of the matter, it emerges from the statement of PW. 9 mukhram,pw. 2smt. Geeta and PW. 1sharda,daughter of the deceased that all these three witnesses gave statements with regard to the fact which they saw at the place of occurrence. ( 21 ) FURTHER, the testimony of Sharda, PW. 1 is completely proved from the fact that she is child witness and she categorically stated in her statement that the occurrence took place in the house where she is residing and she is not adding anything and stated correct statement of the occurrence. Therefore, all the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant, in which, the apex court held that name of the eye-witness must be disclosed in the FIR or soon after the occurrence took place does not apply in this case because no such type of deficiency is found upon the facts of the present case. Therefore, the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and evidence of the eye-witness has rightly been considered by the trial Court. ( 22 ) WITH regard to argument for showing the weapon to the doctor and putting question whether injuries on the body of the deceased could be inflicted by this weapon or not, the same is, in our opinion, highly technical stand taken by learned counsel for the appellant because in this case injury is proved from the testimony of the doctor and evidence of the eye-witness very plainly tallies the report of the post mortem. Therefore, thereafter, it remains only to be a hyper-technical ground advanced for the sake of argument only and has no force. Therefore, thereafter, it remains only to be a hyper-technical ground advanced for the sake of argument only and has no force. With regard to recovery of clothes and weapon, in our opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the purpose of recovery of clothes and weapon. ( 23 ) IN this case, upon appreciation of the medical evidence on record with the recovery of the weapon and testimony of Sharda,pw. l, it appears that the prosecution story is based upon trustworthy valuable evidence. According to the testimony of Sharda, PW. l,it is specifically stated by her that her father inflicted injuries upon the body of her mother. She has categorically made the following statement: In the post mortem report Ex. P/2, two following injuries were found upon the body of the deceased Smt. Seema Devi. " (1) Incised wound- 15 x 5 x 10 cm on right side of neck. Main vessels and muscles are cut. (2) Incised wound -12x4x8 cm on Right temporal region of Scalp oblique upto Zygomatic arch. " upon perusal of the recovery memo of weapon axe, in which, dimension of the blade of the axe is shown and upon reading all above mentioned three documents statement of PW. lsharda,post mortem report and recovery memo of axe, Ex. P/16,it emerges with sheer transparency that the injuries were caused upon the vital part of the body by the accused-appellant with the recovered axe. Therefore, trial Court after taking into consideration the above trustworthy evidence, convicted the accused appellant, in which, there is no error or illegality warranting any interference. ( 24 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion, this appeal fails and is dismissed.