JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals have been preferred to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.9.2004 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.115/2003 by which the learned trial court convicted accused appellant Narayan Ram for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment & imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo one month's RI. 3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the prosecution are that on 18.5.2003, complainant Budha Ram s/o Narayan Ram submitted a written report Ex.P/4 stating therein that he has six brothers. He and his brother Bhanwar Lal are residing separately from their mother and brothers. His Brothers Bhanwar Lal, Lichhu and Bhoma Ram were at Jodhpur for doing their job there. On 17.5.2003, in the evening his mother Lalo Devi, his father Narayan Ram (accused), his elder brother's wife Veera and younger brother's wife Hawa and his two younger brothers were sleeping in the courtyard of the house. The complainant was in his house which was near to the house of his father and mother. In the night at about 12:00 PM, he heard voice and weeping sound of the ladies from his father's house, then he ran towards his father's house and found his father inflicting injury on the neck of his mother. He and his elder's brother wife intervened and shouted than his father with the axe came out from the house. When the complainant looked towards his mother, he found that there was a serious injury on the neck of his mother and blood was oozing out. Hearing the voices, Gorakha Ram, Bhera Ram and Ummeda Ram came running and tried to take care of his mother but she died. On this written report, criminal case No.39/2003 was registered for committing of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and investigation was conducted. During investigation, the site was inspected, sample soils were taken and accused was arrested and weapon of offence axe was recovered from the accused on his information. Clothes, soil and weapon of offence were sent to FSL for report. Victim's post mortem was conducted and report was obtained. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused appellant where he was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Clothes, soil and weapon of offence were sent to FSL for report. Victim's post mortem was conducted and report was obtained. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused appellant where he was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charges and sought trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and 18 documents were exhibited. The statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused stated that the witnesses who were his relative gave false statement because of the pressure of other villagers as the villagers wanted that his land may be given to his sons and in that quarrel, his wife, deceased Lalo Devi, used foul language against the villagers upon which the villagers threatened that she don't want to live. On the night of date of incident, he was sleeping in Rewada (place where the cattle are kept) and hearing the voices from his house, he went to his house where he found number of persons already standing there. He asked who killed his wife upon which none of his son gave any reply. In anger, he started quarrelling, then his sons caught him and tied him and put him in the hut. From there, the police took him to the police station and his wife victim was taken to the hospital. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence. 5. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant after relying upon the statement of his sons PW3 Budha Ram, PW8 Uttama Ram, PW10 Bhanwara Ram and on the basis of the statement of PW9 Bhera Ram and PW11 Gorakh Ram. PW12 Smt. Hawa and PW13 Veero were alleged eye witnesses but PW12 Hawa was declared hostile and the statement of PW13 was relied upon by the trial court for convicting the appellant. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the victim Lalo Devi died because of the injury suffered by her in the night of 17-18.4.2005. Her death was due to the injury which she suffered on the neck. The injury on the neck of the victim was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course as has been opined by PW6 Dr.PC Soni and is proved from post mortem report Ex.P/11. The injuries were anti mortem and the victim Lalo Devi died on the spot. 7. The injury on the neck of the victim was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course as has been opined by PW6 Dr.PC Soni and is proved from post mortem report Ex.P/11. The injuries were anti mortem and the victim Lalo Devi died on the spot. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution witnesses gave evidence against the appellant due to pressure of the villagers and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 , the oral testimony may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 8. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interested ness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case, considered the issue whether plurality of witnesses is necessary in Indian Law or not and held that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. With the help of the above judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution case, there were only three witnesses present on the spot namely, PW8 Uttama Ram, PW12 Hawa and PW13 Veero and in fact, PW12 Hawa and PW13 Veero have not either supported the prosecution case or are not reliable witnesses and their presence on the spot is doubtful as these were the daughters-in-law of the appellant and could not have been sleeping in the same ground where their father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping. It is also submitted that none of other witnesses could have reached the spot nor PW12 and PW13 could have seen the commission of offence because of the reason that there was only one blow on the neck of the deceased and that too, incident occurred in the midnight when all were sleeping. It is also submitted that none of other witnesses could have reached the spot nor PW12 and PW13 could have seen the commission of offence because of the reason that there was only one blow on the neck of the deceased and that too, incident occurred in the midnight when all were sleeping. It is also submitted that the prosecution failed to find out the motive for the crime and in fact there is no motive for eliminating of his wife by the appellant. It is also submitted that in view of the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, their testimony deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein the question of interested witness was examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been observed that close relative of the victim may have tendency to exaggerate or add facts and the Court should examine their evidence with great care and caution. It is submitted that if direct evidence is not believed then in view of the same judgment, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain of circumstances is complete and in a case where there is possibility of two views, then the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 9. Learned public prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that when there are trustworthy evidence and all the witnesses are family members of the accused appellant and had no enmity with the appellant, then there is no reason to discard the evidence of these witnesses merely on the ground that they are family members of the appellant himself. It is submitted that in fact in view of relation of witnesses, it can be presumed that they will not implicate their family's elder man in false case and the witnesses will leave real culprit. It is submitted that the conduct of the appellant is also relevant who has admitted his presence on the spot and he was caught by his own sons and other family members. In these circumstances, minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, who are villagers, cannot be a ground to doubt their credibility. 10. It is submitted that the conduct of the appellant is also relevant who has admitted his presence on the spot and he was caught by his own sons and other family members. In these circumstances, minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, who are villagers, cannot be a ground to doubt their credibility. 10. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned public prosecutor as well as perused the record. 11. It is undisputed fact that PW3 Budha Ram is son of the appellant, PW7 Chanani is appellant's younger brother's wife, PW8 Uttama Ram is son of the appellant, PW9 Bhera Ram is brother of the appellant, PW10 Bhanwara Ram is son of the appellant, PW11 Ghorakh Ram is brother's son of the appellant, PW12 Hawa and PW13 Veero are daughters-in-law of the appellant. The site inspection report which has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant reveals and as per the prosecution case, in open courtyard, the appellant's bed was on the southern side and towards north to bed of the appellant, the bed of his wife was next to him and next to the deceased bed, Veero's bed was towards north and from there, towards north, Hawa's bed was there. About 7 poundas away, there is dhani of Bhera Ram - brother of the appellant. From the main gate, about 30 poundas away was the dhani of Gorakh Ram who is appellant's brother's son. Towards east is the dhani of PW3 Budha Ram son of the appellant and towards south west, there is dhani of Ratna Ram. In front of the gate of house of the appellant, there is house of Bhera Ram - appellant's brother. 12. In this situation, presence of all the witnesses on or near the spot was natural. The prosecution witnesses PW12 Hawa and PW13 Veero fully proved the fact situation as has been projected in the site report Ex.P/15. The appellant's contention that other ladies Hawa and Veero could not have their cots where their father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping, cannot be believed because of the reason that in the house of the appellant, there appears to be only one room, one kitchen, one small room and there was a big courtyard. The appellant's contention that other ladies Hawa and Veero could not have their cots where their father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping, cannot be believed because of the reason that in the house of the appellant, there appears to be only one room, one kitchen, one small room and there was a big courtyard. The fact situation justifies the presence of PW12 Hawa and PW13 Veero on the spot in the manner as stated in the site inspection report. 13. PW-12 Hawa has been declared hostile but she stated in her statement that PW13 Veero is her husband's elder brother's wife and she was present in the dhani with them. She also stated that at that time, she, her mother-in-law, Veero and her father-in-law all were sleeping in open courtyard. PW8 Uttama Ram and Sharawan Ram were sleeping outside the Bakhal. The incident occurred in the midnight. She saw the axe lying near the cot of her mother-in-law and the axe was having the blood over it. When she woke up, her father-in-law already went outside the house. Then she stated, PW13 Veero tried to snatch the axe from the hands of her father-in-law. PW12 though was declared hostile as she contradicted her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but on material point, there is evidence supporting prosecution and this part of the evidence if found to be trustworthy in the light of other corroborative evidence, this part of evidence can be relied upon. 14. PW-13 Veero is also daughter-in-law of the appellant. She also stated that her father-in-law severed the head of her mother-in-law. However, at that time, she was sleeping and wake up obviously hearing the cries. Then, she stated that she herself saw her father-in-law inflicting injury upon her mother-in-law from axe. She stated that PW3 Budha Ram was also in the house. Learned counsel for the appellant condemned the statement of PW13 Veero on the ground that she stated that her son was also sleeping with her mother-in-law but she did not lift her son and she don't know who lifted her son from the cot and that is unusual behaviour of the witness but we are of the view that this is hardly a fact which can be taken into consideration for finding out the credibility in the statement of PW13 Veero. She also stated that the incident occurred just before the day and according to learned counsel for the appellant, this contradicted statement of others who stated that the incident occurred in the midnight. We cannot ignore that because of some minor inaccuracy in the statement of PW13 having corroboration from the statement of PW12 cannot be discarded as PW12 Hawa and PW13 Veero were present in the courtyard at the time of the incident when their mother-in-law and father-in-law were also in the courtyard in the night of the unfortunate day. In the cross examination of PW13, nothing came out which may cast doubt on the natural statement of PW13. 15. Another witness is PW8 Uttama Ram who is son of the appellant. He fully corroborated the statements of PW12 and PW13 and stated that in the courtyard, his father and mother with his two sisters-in-law (bhabhies) were sleeping and he was also in the house. However, he stated that he was sleeping in the courtyard. He stated that his father killed his mother by axe by inflicting injury on the neck of his mother. He also stated that he caught his father then and there and shouted for help, upon which his uncle Bhera Ram, his uncle's wife, his grand father Gorakh Ram (PW11) also came there. His uncle Ummeda Ram also came there. Witness PW8 Uttama Ram was of the age of 14 years when his statement was recorded. He was cross examined at length but nothing came from his cross examination which may cast any doubt upon the credibility of the evidence given by said Uttama Ram. Even this child witness when was put to question that his father had 25 bighas of land, he denied it. At this juncture, it will be relevant to mention here that it is the defence plea that because of the land in the name of the appellant, his sons, under the pressure of the villagers, gave false evidence against the appellant. He denied the suggestion that his father was sleeping in the Bada of goats which was about 50 yards away from his house. The evidence of Uttama Ram is quite reliable evidence and connect the appellant with the crime. 16. He denied the suggestion that his father was sleeping in the Bada of goats which was about 50 yards away from his house. The evidence of Uttama Ram is quite reliable evidence and connect the appellant with the crime. 16. PW-9 Bhera Ram, who is brother of the appellant, stated that hearing the voices of ladies from the house of his brother's house, he and his wife went to the house of appellant and found that the appellant was holding an axe in his hand and appellant's wife was lying injured on the cot with the injury of the axe and she died there and blood was oozing out from his neck. He also stated that Gorakh Ram and Ummeda Ram also reached there and there, PW13 Veero told them that the appellant killed his wife. He denied the suggestion that his dhani was about half kilometer from the dhani of appellant. PW9 Bhera Ram was also thoroughly cross examined but nothing came out from the lengthy cross examination which can cast doubt upon the credibility of this witness. 17. PW-10 Bhanwara Ram is the eldest son of the appellant. He was not present on the spot and he was at Jodhpur at the relevant point of time and, therefore, his statement is not much relevant. 18. PW-11 Gorakh Ram is the appellant's uncle. He stated that hearing the voice, he reached to the house of the appellant with his son Ummeda Ram. He found the appellant's wife lying on the cot dead and the appellant was standing in Guwadi. He stated that the appellant killed his wife. However, he is not the eye witness but his evidence cannot be discarded to the extent that he reached on the spot immediately after the incident and saw the appellant on the spot. He also appears to be trustworthy witness. 19. As we have already observed that all the witnesses are family members of the appellant and from the cross examination of these witnesses, it has not come out that there is any enmity of these witnesses with the appellant because of which they can implicate their elder member of family in this crime where mother or mother-in-law of the witnesses died and the accused is their father/father-in-law. 20. 20. The defence contention that his sons and family members wanted the appellant to give his land to his sons, for that, there is no evidence on record that the accused appellant has any land in his name. Assuming for the sake of arguments, the appellant may have land in his name, even then the killing of wife of the appellant cannot be relevant for getting the land of appellant by his sons. It is also not the suggestion of the appellant that to put pressure upon the appellant, his all family members developed enmity with their mother/mother-in-law to the extent that any one of them may kill the victim. Not only this, the contention of appellant, as stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that the villagers exerted pressure upon his family members to give evidence against him, is liable to be rejected because of the reason that firstly there is no proof that the appellant had land in his name and secondly, there is no evidence nor it is probable that the villagers will go to the extent of creating a situation of killing of appellant's wife so as to oblige the appellant's sons by the appellant's land. 21. It is true that the defence weakness cannot be a ground for upholding the conviction of the accused but when there is trustworthy evidence of all the family members of the appellant against him and that too in a matter of committing crime of murder and then if false plea is taken by the appellant, then it strengthens the case of the prosecution. For minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses about timings, whether the victim was killed in the midnight or just before the day is concerned, is hardly a relevant issue when there is a direct evidence of trustworthy witnesses involving the appellant in the crime committed by him. For minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses about timings, whether the victim was killed in the midnight or just before the day is concerned, is hardly a relevant issue when there is a direct evidence of trustworthy witnesses involving the appellant in the crime committed by him. In the same sequence, the doubt raised by the learned counsel for the appellant about recovery of axe from the appellant when he was already caught and tied by his sons is concerned, that is also not material and relevant in the light of direct evidence fully corroborated by the medical evidence which proves that the victim died because of the injury given by the appellant which was sufficient injury in the ordinary course to cause death and the injury itself is sufficient to indicate that the injury was inflicted with the clear intention to kill the victim. 22. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was fully justified in holding the appellant guilty for committing the offence and sentencing him accordingly. 23. In view of the above, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******