JUDGMENT 1. - Instant jail appeal has been filed by convict Ganpat Lal from Central Jail, Udaipur where the appellant is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 70/2002 vide judgment dated 5.7.2003 for committing offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Court further imposed fine of Rs. 2,000/-upon the appellant and, in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 2. According to facts of the case, an oral information was given at about 9.30 P.M. on 19.6.2002 by the appellant-accused Ganpat Lal at Police Station Dhaula Pani that in the morning at about 11.00 A.M. he went to the forest for getting fire-wood. At that time, his nephew Shambhoo Lal, aged 10 years, was with him and, in the forest, they ate "karaunda". Thereafter, near pathar of Gora Mahadev temple, Shambhoo Lal said that he was not feeling well and he is thirsty and asked for water. Upon this, as per the appellant-accused, he told Shambhoo Lal that they will go to the Gora Mahadev temple and have water there; but, all of a sudden, Shambhoo Lal started vomiting and fell down and became unconscious. It is stated by the appellant-accused that thereafter he lifted Shambhoo Lal in his nands and in the temple of Gora Mahadev he gave Shambhoo Lal water and after drinking water, he again lifted Shambhoo Lal and came back to village. 3. In the village, appellant called Roop Lal and Veni Ram and all three of them felt through the body of Shambhoo Lal to find that he had died. As per the appellant-accused, deceased Shambhoo Lal was habitual of eating mud and father of deceased Shambhoo Lal, Modi Ram was out of village for the purpose of employment. As per appellant-accused, he made efforts for the search of his brother Modi Ram but he failed to find him and came back to the village. As per the accused-appellant Shambhoo Lal died due to vomiting. 4. As per appellant-accused, he made efforts for the search of his brother Modi Ram but he failed to find him and came back to the village. As per the accused-appellant Shambhoo Lal died due to vomiting. 4. Upon above information, after registering the information report under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code, the Investigating Officer of the Police Station Dhola Pani proceeded to make investigation and went to the place where the dead body of deceased Shambhoo Lal was lying and, first if all, he took the body in his possession and took the dead-body for the purpose of post mortem. In the post mortem, as per the doctor's opinion, Shambhoo Lal died due to throttling, so also, he had sustained certain injuries. Therefore, F.I.R. was registered for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. bearing No. 33/2000 on 21.6.2002. Said F.I.R. was registered by Puran Singh Bhati, officer-in-charge of the Police Station Chhoti Sadari. After due investigation, the appellant-accused was arrested and upon his information one axe (kulhari) was recovered; and, thereafter, usual investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, challan was filed before the competent Court against the appellant-accused for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 5. After filing of the challan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Pratapgarh. Learned trial Court, after framing charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code., proceeded for trial and, in all, 15 prosecution witnesses were examined and statement of accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. 6. Learned amicus curiae vehemently argued that appellant is real uncle of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it is argued that he himself informed the police with regard to the incident which took place in the forest but he has been implicated, therefore, the whole prosecution story is required to be rejected only on the ground that there was no intention of the appellant because he himself made the information to the police that the incident took place. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed and conviction and sentence against the appellant is required to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that recovery of kulhari, vide Ex.P-3 is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that Roop Lal, PW-1 turned hostile before the Court and he has not corroborated the prosecution story. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that recovery of kulhari, vide Ex.P-3 is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that Roop Lal, PW-1 turned hostile before the Court and he has not corroborated the prosecution story. Further, it is argued that no human blood was found upon the kulhari, article 1, and the injuries upon the body of the deceased were simple as per the doctor's report, therefore, obviously the appellant has been wrongly implicated in this case. It is also argued that there is no evidence of motive on record for which it can be said that the appellant has committed the offence of murdering his own nephew. In this view of the matter, when there is no evidence of motive, so also, no blood is found upon the alleged weapon (axe), then, the whole prosecution story is required to be disbelieved and appellant is required to be acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that a heinous offence has been committed by the appellant which is evident from the post mortem report made by doctor Arun Kumar, PW-7. Further, it is contended that oral information was given by the appellant that Shambhoo Lal died due to eating mud, whereas, upon investigation it was found that there were number of injuries upon the body of deceased Shambhoo Lal who was only aged 8-10 years. It is further argued that appellant was custodian of the boy but he has murdered him which is very unfortunate aspect of the case. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that in such type of cases when innocent helpless boy was murdered by his own uncle and, for the same, ample evidence is on record, then, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him and has not committed any illegality. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that not only false information was given by the appellant accused but he has tried to make all his efforts for cremating body of the deceased boy which is evident from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has proved its case by cogent evidence which is corroborated by medical evidence also. Therefore, in this case, no interference is required by this Court. 9. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has proved its case by cogent evidence which is corroborated by medical evidence also. Therefore, in this case, no interference is required by this Court. 9. In this case, after hearing both the parties and considering the entire record of the case, in our opinion, the prosecution has produced ample evidence to prove its case. Obviously, for the first time, when information was given by the appellant Ganpatlal to the police with regard to the incident of death of Shambhoo Lal, then, while believing his testimony, the proceedings under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code was undertaken; but, later on, Investigating Officer Ratan Singh, PW-12 physically examined the body of deceased Shambhoo Lal, then, it was found that there were so many injuries upon the dead body, therefore, the Investigating Officer took the body to hospital where postmortem was conducted by board of doctors, in which, Dr. S.K. Garg and Dr. Arun Kumar Mathur comprised the Medical Board. The said Medical Board found the following injuries upon the body of deceased Shambhoo Lal : "(1) Abrasion 2Vi cm X ½ cm on left side of neck in mid part crecentric in shape in direction of downwards neck. (2) Abrasion 3.0 cm X ½ cm on left side of face towards upper part 2.0 cm below left ear. (3) Abrasion 2.0 cm X ½ cm on Rt side of neck on back. (4) Abrasion 1½ cm X ½ cm on Rt side of neck upper part above to injury No. 3. (5) Abrasion 1½ cm X % cm on mid of chest on lower part of sternum. (6) Bruise (reddish) 4.0 cm X 3.0 cm with abrasion over 2.0 cm X 1.0 cm on left shoulder upper part. (7) Abrasion 2½ cm X ½ cm on left scapular region on left side on bone of chest. (8) Abrasion ½ cm X ½ cm on left hand on thumb in mid part on palmy aspect. (9) Lacerated wound (with clotted blood) 1½ cm X ½ cm X ½ cm on scalp over lower occipital region on back. (10) Diffused swelling on left side the lower part and left upper part of Neck. On detailed dissection thyroid bone seen fractured. All abrasions were reddish in colour with blood show. (9) Lacerated wound (with clotted blood) 1½ cm X ½ cm X ½ cm on scalp over lower occipital region on back. (10) Diffused swelling on left side the lower part and left upper part of Neck. On detailed dissection thyroid bone seen fractured. All abrasions were reddish in colour with blood show. All injuries on dissection showed coagulating of effused blood in subcutaneous tissues with infiltration of blood in muscular tissues beneath the injuries." 10. As per statement of PW-13, Dr. Arun Kumar, blood was coming out from the nose, ears and left side of the ear and mouth of deceased Shambhoo Lal was open but the tongue was dilated and coming out and had become black and both limbs were congested and clotted. Blood was also found in the back of the deceased and urine and stool was also coming out from the organs; meaning thereby, all the symptoms to committing murder by throttling are present and appellant-accused narrated false information to the police and, thereby, made all his efforts to mislead the police as well as other villagers. Therefore, such type of conduct has rightly been dealt with by the learned trial Court while relying upon the evidence of the medical board. 11. It is admitted position of the case that appellant accused Ganpat Lal is real uncle of the deceased and father of deceased Shambhoo Lal had gone out of village for livelihood while leaving behind his son Shambhoo Lal in the care and custody of his (Modi Rams) brother Ganpat Lal. In his statement, PW-14 Modi Ram stated that he left his son with the accused but he has not informed him with regard to death of Shambhoo Lal. He further stated that when he read about the incident in the news-paper he rushed to his village and, thereafter, all information was received by him. In his statement, Modi Ram, PW-14 said that there is a piece of land belonging to his father, in which, all the three brothers are having their share and the land was earlier in the possession of Ganpat Lal accused but he has murdered his son with the motive to eliminate his share so that accused himself will become the owner of the property. In his cross-examination, Modi Ram, PW-14 stated that said land was mortgaged by his father with Roop Lal and Shantilal; meaning thereby, there was motive behind committing murder of Shambhoo Lal on the part of the appellant-accused, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to motive does not suffer from any illegality. 12. Likewise, the prosecution has proved the recovery of axe at the instance of the appellant. The said memo of recovery of axe is on record as Ex.P-2, which is proved by independent witnesses also. Other witnesses of village namely, Mohanlal, PW-9 Veni Ram, PW-7, Bhagwanti, PW-6 and Kanta, PW-5 were examined by the prosecution before the Court and all these witnesses categorically stated that they saw the dead body having injuries upon the person of the deceased. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear that deceased Shambhoo Lal was residing with the appellant-accused Ganpat Lal and he went to forest with the appellant and appellant had brought him back to village in injured condition but gave false information to the police that he died due to vomiting. Therefore, there is cogent evidence on record to prove that appellant-accused has committed the offence of murder and guilt against him under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. is established by cogent evidence coming on record. While considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced him with life imprisonment, in which, there is no error or illegality. The conviction is based upon cogent and trustworthy evidence and, more so, the evidence of villagers and Dr. Arun Kumar, PW-13 who performed the postmortem upon the body of deceased Shambhoo Lal. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading transparent evidence which speaks volumes against the conduct of the appellant and his misdeed. We are of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere in the judgment and order impugned passed by the trial Court. 13. In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******