JUDGMENT Rakesh Saksena; J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 21.6.2001, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 395/2000, convicting the Appellant for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- for committing murder of his wife Smt. Ganeshi Bai. 2. In short, prosecution case is that Smt. Ganeshi Bai, the deceased was married to Appellant about six years ago. She had no issue. In the year 2000, about 10-15 days before the festival of Holi, deceased along with Appellant came to her parental house in village Bukswahi. Both stayed there for about 15-20 days. Appellant then wanted to go back to his house at Tendukheda. He wished deceased to accompany him, but her father Khillu (PW1) asked him to fetch deceased after Holi. This resulted into dispute between Appellant and Khillu. Appellant extended threats to desert Ganeshi Bai. However, Khillu convinced him and sent back to Tendukheda. Deceased continued to stay at her father's house. 3. In the night of 14th April, 2000, while Khillu, his wife Tara Bai, his sister Kamla Bai, two daughters, brother Lakhan, his wife Baro Bai and nephew Prem were sleeping in the outer courtyard of the house, at about 2.30 O' clock in the night, Appellant came there and assaulted deceased on her neck with a scissors. Kamla Bai shouted that Appellant assaulted Ganeshi. Khillu, Lakhan and other persons woke up and saw Appellant running away infront of the courtyard. They chased him, but could not catch him. Appellant disappeared leaving his slippers there. Ganeshi Bai was lying smeared in blood with deep wound in her neck. Within few minutes she died. Khillu, immediately informed the incident to Kotwar Ramdas, Sarpanch Kalicharan and went to police station Katangi and lodged report Ex. P/1 on 19th April, 2000 at 6.45 A.M. 4. Police Katangi registered merg intimation Ex. P/2 and proceeded for investigation. On the same day, inquest proceedings were conducted, a memo Ex. P/5 was drawn, spot map Ex. P/3 was prepared and a pair of slippers were seized vide memorandum Ex. P/10. Blood stained, mattress, broken bangles and plain earth were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/11. Dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination. 5. Dr. (Mrs.) S. Chopra (PW9) and Dr. P/5 was drawn, spot map Ex. P/3 was prepared and a pair of slippers were seized vide memorandum Ex. P/10. Blood stained, mattress, broken bangles and plain earth were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/11. Dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination. 5. Dr. (Mrs.) S. Chopra (PW9) and Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra (PW10) conducted the postmortem examination and found an incised wound on the neck of deceased measuring 6" deep in the atrium cavity. This injury was ante mortem in nature and had resulted in death due to shock and haemorrhage. 6. On 25.4.2000, Appellant was arrested and on his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a scissors was seized vide memorandum Ex. P/7. His clothes were also seized and were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. According to query report Ex. P/14 given by doctor, injury found on the body of deceased could have been caused by the said scissors. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was then committed for trial. 7. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. According to him, at the time of incident he had been at Jabalpur in the marriage of the daughter of his brother Lekhram. His wife wished to live with him, but his father-in-law did not let her go with him. He also got a search warrant issued for the recovery of his wife from Damoh Court. To substantiate his defence Appellant examined seven defence witnesses and also appeared himself in evidence as a witness under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Besides eye witness Kamla Bai (PW14) prosecution examined Khillu (PW1), Tara Bai (PW3), Prem (PW5), Lakhan (PW6), Baro Bai (PW7) who saw Appellant running away from the spot after assaulting deceased. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, held the Appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 11. It was no longer disputed that deceased Ganeshi Bai died of homicidal injuries. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. (Mrs.) Section Chopra (PW9) and Dr. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 11. It was no longer disputed that deceased Ganeshi Bai died of homicidal injuries. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. (Mrs.) Section Chopra (PW9) and Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra (PW10), who conducted the postmortem examination of the body of deceased. According to them, on 19.4.2000, when they were posted as Assistant Surgeons in Primary Health Centre, Patan, the body of Ganeshi Bai was brought for postmortem examination. They found following injury on the body of deceased: (i) Incised (penetrating) wound 1.5" x 1/2" x 6" present anteriorly between neck and sternum horizontally and slightly to wards left. On probing it was found directed downward, obliquely to left and deep. Injury was ante mortem in nature. On internal examination of the body, they found that incised wound had cut subcutaneous, tissues, chest muscles, thick wall of left atrium and had entered its cavity. All chambers of heart were empty. Thoracic cavity was full of huge sized blood clots. In their opinion, aforesaid injury was caused by sharp edged penetrating cutting object. Injury was ante mortem in nature. It had resulted into death due to excessive haemorrhage. Postmortem report Ex. P/13 was written and signed by them. 12. Kamla Bai (PW14) deposed that Appellant dealt a blow by some sharp penetrating weapon in the neck of deceased, as a result of which she died. It is thus clearly evident that deceased Ganeshi Bai died of ante mortem homicidal injury. 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased and had falsely implicated the Appellant due to enmity. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the Appellant. 14. Kamla Bai (PW14) deposed that she had gone to village Bukswahi for attending marriage of the daughter of her cousin brother Dabble. In the night of incident, after performing some ritual in the house of her uncle she went to sleep in the house of her brother Khillu. Since it was a summer night, all of them were sleeping in the courtyard. She and deceased Ganeshi Bai slept on the same mattress. In the night of incident, after performing some ritual in the house of her uncle she went to sleep in the house of her brother Khillu. Since it was a summer night, all of them were sleeping in the courtyard. She and deceased Ganeshi Bai slept on the same mattress. Ganeshi's mother, her younger brother Lakhan and his wife Baro Bai were sleeping in the same courtyard. When she felt deceased squirming, she woke up and saw Appellant assaulting deceased in the neck with some pointed weapon. Appellant had pressed the mouth of deceased. She shouted that Tendukhedawala killed Ganeshi. Her brothers got up and chased Appellant who was running away, however, he could not be caught. Kamla (PW14) deposed that for about two months in the past Appellant had stayed in his father-in-law's house. He wanted to take deceased with him, but her parents asked him to take Ganeshi after the marriage. This witness was cross examined at length. Though some contradictions were pointed out in her statement, but they seemed not material by nature. The fact that Kamla Bai (PW14) did not mention in her police statement Ex. D/6 that in the night she had gone to perform the ritual of offering turmeric in the house of her uncle, cannot be said to be a material omission. No doubt, she did not disclose the fact in her police statement that an electric bulb was illuminating near the place of occurrence or it was a moonlit night, but it does not effect the credibility of this witness as according to her, at that time she and other persons were weeping in agony. Apart from it, the omissions about the presence of light were brought on record during the cross examination of the witnesses, who categorically stated that there was electric light. The suggestion made by the defence that there was no light on that night in the village was denied. Even Appellant, who appeared as DW-8 in his cross examination admitted that there was light in village Bukswahi. It was also admitted that there was light in the houses of Khillu, Lakhan and also on the street. In these circumstances, the absence of light cannot be presumed in the absence of some specific evidence in that regard. Even Appellant, who appeared as DW-8 in his cross examination admitted that there was light in village Bukswahi. It was also admitted that there was light in the houses of Khillu, Lakhan and also on the street. In these circumstances, the absence of light cannot be presumed in the absence of some specific evidence in that regard. It may be a mistake on the part of Investigating Officer in not making query from the witnesses about the light while recording their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be expected of the witnesses coming from the rural background and the village women to speak about each and every minor detail which does not directly appear connected with the incident. In the above circumstances, the Appellant, who was close relatives of the witnesses could have been identified even in the night by them. 15. Similarly, a minor discrepancy in her evidence that whether she saw Appellant mounting over the chest of deceased or standing on the back side of deceased cannot be held to be substantive in nature. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Kamla Bai (PW14) was not a reliable witness because her clothes were not smeared with blood of deceased while she was lying on the same mattress. On perusal of evidence of Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra (PW10), it is revealed that the penetrating wound on the neck of deceased was deep, reaching up-to cavity of atrium, clots of blood were found collected in the thoracic cavity. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it is possible that clothes of Kamla Bai did not get stained with blood. According to her, the blood had flown on the mattress. 16. Evidence of Kamla Bai (PW14) finds corroboration from the evidence of Khillu (PW1), father of deceased. He deposed that Kamla Bai shouted that Appellant killed Ganeshi. When he got up, he saw Appellant running away. Though, he chased him, but he returned when he heard that Ganeshi Bai was alive. Similar statement was made by mother of deceased viz. Tara Bai (PW3). According to her, when she heard Kamla Bai (PW14) crying that Appellant was assaulting Ganeshi Bai, she and other persons got up and saw Appellant standing there. Her husband and his younger brother shouted and tried to chase the Appellant when he ran away. 17. Similar statement was made by mother of deceased viz. Tara Bai (PW3). According to her, when she heard Kamla Bai (PW14) crying that Appellant was assaulting Ganeshi Bai, she and other persons got up and saw Appellant standing there. Her husband and his younger brother shouted and tried to chase the Appellant when he ran away. 17. Prem (PW15), cousin of deceased, Lakhan (PW6), uncle of deceased and Baro Bai (PW7), aunt of deceased also reiterated the same facts corroborating the evidence of Kamla Bai (PW14). All these witnesses deposed that they got up hearing the shrieks of Kamla bai and saw Appellant standing behind the head of deceased. When they got up, he ran away. 18. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the evidence of aforesaid witnesses was discrepant and contradictory. Some witnesses stated that they saw Appellant standing behind the head of deceased, whereas some stated that he was mounting over the chest of deceased. Tara Bai stated that Appellant was holding the hair of deceased, whereas Kamla Bai stated that he had pressed the mouth of deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their evidence. 19. Trial Court keeping in mind the human behaviour and broad probabilities closely scrutinized the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and held that the incident had occurred suddenly in mid of night when witnesses were sleeping. On sudden wriggling of deceased, Kamla Bai (PW14) awoke and saw the incident and shouted whereupon other witnesses got up and witnessed the occurrence. The sequence of occurrence was so fast and continuous that all the witnesses could not have seen whole of the events, therefore, the occurrence of discrepancies in their statements in respect of the acts of Appellant were natural. Merely on the basis of these minor discrepancies, their evidence, which otherwise appeared consistent, could not be discarded. Apex Court in Boya Ganganna and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 1541 observed that "minor contradictions are bound to appear when ignorant and illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in case of trained and educated persons, memory sometimes plays false and this would be much more so in case of ignorant and rustic women. Apex Court in Boya Ganganna and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 1541 observed that "minor contradictions are bound to appear when ignorant and illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in case of trained and educated persons, memory sometimes plays false and this would be much more so in case of ignorant and rustic women. It must also be remembered that the evidence given by a witness would very much depend upon his power of observation and it is possible that some aspects of an incident may be observed by one witness while they may not be witnessed by another though both are present at the scene of offence. It would not, therefore, be right to reject the testimony of such witness merely on the basis of minor contradictions." 20. On examining the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in the light of the above proposition enunciated by the Apex Court, we find that the discrepancies pointed out by learned Counsel for the Appellant are not such so as to render their testimony unworthy of reliance. In our opinion, trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of aforesaid witnesses. 21. The fact that Appellant came to village Bukswahi in the night of occurrence is further reinforced from the evidence of Prahalad (PW2). Prahalad (PW2) deposed that in the night at about 12-1 O' clock while he was going to village Jhagri from Bukswahi, Appellant met him on way. He talked to him and said that he was going to fetch Ganeshi Bai. In the morning, he came to know that Ganeshi Bai was murdered. On the next day, he informed Khillu about his meeting with Appellant in the night. Evidence of this witness in this aspect was not challenged by the defence. 22. Evidence of Khillu (PW1) that on hearing the cries of Kamla Bai (PW14), he got up and saw Appellant running away after assaulting Ganeshi Bai finds support from the evidence of Sarpanch Kali Charan (PW4) and Kotwar Ramdas (PW8). According to Khillu, immediately after the occurrence he went to inform them about the occurrence disclosing that Appellant assaulted the deceased. Kalicharan (PW4) and Ramdas (PW8) categorically stated that in the morning of 19.4.2000, Khillu Burman came to them and informed that Appellant ran away after assaulting his daughter Ganeshi. According to Khillu, immediately after the occurrence he went to inform them about the occurrence disclosing that Appellant assaulted the deceased. Kalicharan (PW4) and Ramdas (PW8) categorically stated that in the morning of 19.4.2000, Khillu Burman came to them and informed that Appellant ran away after assaulting his daughter Ganeshi. They went at the house of Khillu and saw Ganeshi lying dead in the house of Khillu. Evidence of Khillu finds further corroboration from the first information report Ex. P/1 lodged by him immediately after the occurrence at 6.45 A.M., wherein he named the Appellant as assailant and also mentioned presence of eye witnesses. 23. Learned Counsel for the Appellant next submitted that the evidence of recovery and seizure of scissors at the instance of Appellant was of no use because no blood was found on the said scissors in chemical examination of the same. 24. Investigating Officer Sunil Kumar Nema (PW15) categorically stated that on 25.4.2000, on interrogation Appellant disclosed that while running away he threw the scissors in a field. He recorded this information in memorandum Ex. P/8. In consequence of this information Appellant got recovered the scissors near a Mango tree situated near the field of Kailash Jain. This scissors was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/7. Evidence of Sunil Kumar Nema (PW15) stands corroborated by the evidence of Prahalad (PW2) and Kalicharan (PW4). There appears no ground to disbelieve the evidence of Sunil Kumar Nema (PW15). After seizure, the scissors was sent for examination to Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra (PW10) on 1.5.2000. Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra (PW10) vide query report Ex. P/14 opined that the injury found on the body of Ganeshi Bai could have been caused by the sealed scissors sent to him for examination. No doubt, the scissors was sent about 5 days after its recovery, but it was explained by the Investigating Officer (PW15), he could not send the same earlier due to his involvement in some other important works. In our opinion, the recovery of the scissors at the instance of Appellant cannot be doubted. It is true that no blood was detected on the said scissors when examined in Forensic Science Laboratory, but the recovery of the scissors on the information of Appellant furnishes corroboration to prosecution version in view of the evidence of Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra (PW10). It is true that no blood was detected on the said scissors when examined in Forensic Science Laboratory, but the recovery of the scissors on the information of Appellant furnishes corroboration to prosecution version in view of the evidence of Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra (PW10). It is quite possible that since the scissors remained lying in the open field, the blood stains might have disintegrated. 25. As far as the motive for commission of the offence by the Appellant is concerned it's a mental condition which remains hidden in the mind of offender. Khillu Burman (PW1), father of deceased deposed that when Appellant wanted to take deceased with him, he asked him to leave her there for some more time as she wished to go after the festival of Holi. It resulted in an altercation between him and the Appellant. Tara Bai (PW3) mother of deceased deposed that when she requested Appellant to take deceased after Holi, he told that they should give 'Chhor Chutti' to him and he went away. This gives some idea about the misunderstanding developed between the deceased and the Appellant. But the correct picture comes from the evidence of Appellant himself when he appeared as defence witness under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From his evidence, it clearly transpires he suspected fidelity of his wife. Though, he stated that he wished to take his wife with him, but at the same time he said that she had illicit relations with Kailash, a neighbour. According to him, he came to know about this fact when he stayed in his 'Sasural' for about a month. Though, he wished to live in his 'Sasural' and to do some job, but he became reluctant due to illicit relations between Ganeshi Bai and Kailash. When he questioned his wife about the frequent visit of Kailash at the house of his father, she expressed her inability to stop him. However, she told him about her willingness to live in village Tendukheda. He stated that his suspicion grew further when Kailash objected Ganeshi Bai's going with him. He disclosed that he had instituted a case in Tendukheda for calling his wife and got a search warrant issued in this regard. In our opinion, these circumstances clearly indicate existence of motive on the part of Appellant for committing the crime. 26. He stated that his suspicion grew further when Kailash objected Ganeshi Bai's going with him. He disclosed that he had instituted a case in Tendukheda for calling his wife and got a search warrant issued in this regard. In our opinion, these circumstances clearly indicate existence of motive on the part of Appellant for committing the crime. 26. Defence of Appellant was that at the time of alleged occurrence in village Bukswahi, he was present at Jabalpur in the marriage of the daughter of his brother Lekhram. Appellant examined as many as eight witnesses including himself as DW-8. His brothers viz. Ramlal Barman (DW1), Parmulal Barman (DW2), Lekhram (DW7), his brother's wife Smt. Sushila Bai (DW5), brother-in-law Hariram Barman (DW3), landlord of brother Bhola Singh (DW4) and Pandit, who performed the marriage Ramadhar Sharma (DW6) stated that there had been marriage of daughter of Lekhram on 19th April, 2000. Appellant had come to Jabalpur on 18th April, 2000 to join the marriage. On 19th April, 2000, in the night police Tendukheda arrested him from the marriage. All the aforesaid witnesses are either close relatives of Appellant or interested witnesses. Their evidence appears discrepant in material aspects. Appellant Gudda (DW8) though stated that he had gone to Jabalpur from Tendukheda by Taj Bus along with his two sisters, two brother-in-laws and brother Ramnath (Ramlal), but Ramlal (DW1) merely stated that in the morning of 18th April, 2000, Appellant came at the house of Lekhram. He did not say that Appellant along with him went to Jabalpur from Tendukheda. Similarly, Hariram Burman (DW3), brother-in-law of Appellant did not say that Appellant went to Jabalpur from Tendukheda with him. On the contrary, he stated that Appellant met him in Jabalpur. Parmulal (DW2) though stated that he sent Appellant in Taj Bus for Jabalpur, but he did not say that his two sisters, brother-in-laws and Ramlal were also boarding the same bus. Apart from it, Ramlal (DW1) disclosed that the distance of Jabalpur from Bakswahi where the incident occurred was around 40 Kms. One can reach Jabalpur from the house of in-laws of Appellant by motorcycle within 2-2½ hours. He also stated that no photographs were taken in the marriage. In these circumstances, the possibility of Appellant reaching Jabalpur after the commission of offence in the night cannot be ruled out. One can reach Jabalpur from the house of in-laws of Appellant by motorcycle within 2-2½ hours. He also stated that no photographs were taken in the marriage. In these circumstances, the possibility of Appellant reaching Jabalpur after the commission of offence in the night cannot be ruled out. It is also significant that Prahalad (PW2), who is an independent witness met Appellant in the night at about 1 O'clock near village Bukswahi, where the incident took place. 27. In our opinion, the plea of alibi put forward by the Appellant was rightly rejected by the trial Court. 28. After scanning and scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by defence, we find that the Court below has considered the evidence oral and documentary on record in proper perspective and has rightly come to conclusion that Appellant committed murder of Ganeshi Bai. We see no illegality or error in the impugned judgment requiring any interference therein. 29. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded to Appellant under Section of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court is affirmed. 30. Appeal is dismissed.