Judgment V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. 1.The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 17/1/2004 passed by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No. 53/2002. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : Girjabai (PW.3) was residing at Gondia along with her son Bhagchand and Manju, wife of Bhagchand. She had one more son, i.e. the appellant Lalchand. Lalchand was also residing in the same house but separately. Bhagchand, appellant and Manju were in the house at the time of the incident. The incident occurred on 4/5/2002 at about 8 to 9 p.m. At that time, Girjabai was sitting in the verandah of her house. Manju as well as appellant were inside the house. The appellant Lalchand rushed towards his brother Bhagchand to beat him. At that time, Lalchand had a stone in his hand. Bhagchand was scared, so he ran away. Manju came outside the house to see what happened. The accused Lalchand then went into his house and brought a crowbar. He assaulted Manju with a crowbar. Manju sustained head injury because of the assault. She became unconscious. PW.3 Girjabai lodged FIR (Exh.12) at 23.40 hours. Thereafter investigation commenced. Manju was taken to the hospital and was declared dead. The body of Manju was sent for postmortem. PW.11 Dr. Khandelwal performed the postmortem on the dead body of Manju. He found the following injuries on the body of Manju : 1. Eyes closed. Tongue inside the mouth. Frothy blood was oozing from mouth and nostril. 2. Lacerated wound over head 4 inch x 2 inch over left parietal region extending to occipital region, 3. Lacerated wound lateral 2 inch x 1 inch, 4. Fracture parietal bone left side extending from left coronal suture to lambtoid suture. On internal examination, following injuries were noticed. 5. Scalp lacerated and split over 4 x 2 inches over left parietal region extending upto left occipital region, 6. Fracture left parietal bone. Linear fracture separated from frontal and occipital bone extending from coronal to lamtoid suture and compressed fragment about to separation and sagital coronal and lambtoid suture. Injury to brain : 7. 5. Scalp lacerated and split over 4 x 2 inches over left parietal region extending upto left occipital region, 6. Fracture left parietal bone. Linear fracture separated from frontal and occipital bone extending from coronal to lamtoid suture and compressed fragment about to separation and sagital coronal and lambtoid suture. Injury to brain : 7. Subdural haematoma present with brain lacerated over left parietal region. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was head injury. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para no.1 above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the record in the present case. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opinion that the accused has indeed murdered Manju. 5. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of 3 eyewitnesses, i.e. PW.2 Yogesh, PW.3 Girjabai and PW.8 Yashwant. PW. 3 Girjabai is the mother of the accused. She was the motherinlaw of deceased Manju. Girjabai has stated that the incident occurred on 4/5/2002 at about 8 to 9 p.m. At that time, Girjabai was sitting in the verandah of her house. Manju as well as appellant were residing in the house. The appellant Lalchand rushed towards his brother Bhagchand to beat him. At that time, Lalchand had a stone in his hand. Bhagchand was scared, so he ran away. Manju came outside the house to see what happened. The accused Lalchand went into his house and brought a crowbar. He then assaulted Manju with a crowbar. Manju sustained head injury because of the assault. She became unconscious. PW.3 Girjabai lodged FIR (Exh.12) at 23.40 hours. The promptness with which the FIR is lodged, lends further assurance to the prosecution case. The accused Lalchand went into his house and brought a crowbar. He then assaulted Manju with a crowbar. Manju sustained head injury because of the assault. She became unconscious. PW.3 Girjabai lodged FIR (Exh.12) at 23.40 hours. The promptness with which the FIR is lodged, lends further assurance to the prosecution case. 6.PW.2 Yogesh has stated that after having his dinner at about 8.30 to 9 p.m. when he was going towards the chowk, he saw accused Lalchand assaulting Manju, wife of Bhagchand with a crowbar on the head. PW.8 Yashwant has stated that at about 8 to 8.30 p.m. he was standing in his courtyard. He heard some noise from the house of the accused. He saw Manju, wife of Bhagchand coming out of the house. The minor daughter of Manju was with her. The accused Lalchand also came out. He snatched away daughter of Manju and suddenly dealt blow on the head of Manju with a crowbar. The accused then ran away. Manju fell down. Thereafter, Manju was taken to the hospital. He has stated that PW.3 Girjabai, i.e. the mother of the accused was also present at the spot. Thus, the evidence of these 3 witnesses establishes that the accused assaulted his sister-in-law Manju with a crowbar on the head. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the incident occurred at 8 to 9 p.m., hence, it must be dark and it would not be possible for any of the witnesses to properly identify the assailant. As far as this contention is concerned, it is noticed that the incident occurred just outside the house of Bhagchand and the accused. From the evidence of PW.2 Yogesh, it is seen that there are street lights provided in that area. Thus, if the incident occurred just outside the house of Lalchand, then there would be sufficient light from the streetlights due to which it would be possible to correctly identify the assailant. It is also to be borne in mind that the assailant was very well known to the witnesses, especially Girjabai, who is the mother of the appellant. Moreover, Shastri chowk which is a big chowk is situated at a short distance from the house of the accused and the deceased. Thus, there would be sufficient light at the spot for the witnesses to identify the assailant, hence, we find no merit in this submission. 8. Moreover, Shastri chowk which is a big chowk is situated at a short distance from the house of the accused and the deceased. Thus, there would be sufficient light at the spot for the witnesses to identify the assailant, hence, we find no merit in this submission. 8. The learned Advocate for the appellant thereafter submitted that in fact Manju while running dashed her head, due to which she suffered injury on her head and died and taking advantage of the same, the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. As far as this contention is concerned, it would be relevant to advert to the evidence of PW.11 Dr. Khandelwal. Dr. Khandelwal has stated that if a person banged against a pillar, the injuries mentioned by him in column no.17 are not possible. Thus, this contention also falls to the ground. 9. The learned Advocate then pointed out that originally there were 4 eyewitnesses in the case. Two of the eyewitnesses have been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge and only two eyewitnesses have been relied upon. He submitted that this shows that the other eyewitnesses are also gotup witnesses. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is noticed that the evidence of PW.5 Saijanbai, who is an eyewitness was not relied upon because she has turned hostile. The learned Sessions Judge has also not relied on the evidence of PW.2 Yogesh on the ground that he has narrated the major incident in a very cryptic manner. We do not agree with this submission because we find that though PW.2 Yogesh has stated about the incident very briefly, his evidence clearly brings out the complicity of the appellant in the crime. We see no reason to disbelieve his evidence. It is pertinent to note that PW.3 Girjabai is the mother of the appellant and motherinlaw of the deceased. She would obviously not implicate her own son falsely in the death of her daughterinlaw. We find the evidence of PW.3 Girjabai to be reliable and trustworthy. Hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 10. Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that on seeing the accused armed with crowbar, the witnesses would have got frightened and run away, no witness would stay at the spot risking his life in order to witness the incident. Hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 10. Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that on seeing the accused armed with crowbar, the witnesses would have got frightened and run away, no witness would stay at the spot risking his life in order to witness the incident. Each person reacts in a different manner, hence, it cannot be said that in each and every case the witnesses would get frightened on seeing the accused armed with a deadly weapon and run away from the spot. 11. Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that there is serious discrepancy between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eyewitnesses. He submitted that the medical evidence shows that there were only two injuries on the head of Manju. However, PW.3 Girjabai has stated that her son assaulted Manju three times. On perusal of the medical evidence, we find that there are more than 2 injuries. Thus, we find that this submission is without substance. 12. Thereafter, Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that the accused was in an intoxicated condition when he lifted the crowbar and assaulted Manju on the head. He submitted that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of Manju. Hence, the case would not fall under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. To support this contention, Mr. Patwardhan drew our attention to the fact that Manju was alive when she was shifted to the hospital. He submitted that if it was the intention of the accused to cause death of Manju, he would have kept on assaulting her till she died at the spot itself. The evidence on record shows that Manju died before admission. Manju probably died on the spot because when the FIR was registered at 23.40 hours, the said FIR is under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. This clearly shows that Manju was dead by the time the FIR was registered at 23.40 hours. Moreover, looking to the nature of the weapon with which the appellant assaulted Manju, the force used by him which is apparent from the evidence of PW.11 Dr. Khandelwal and the number of injuries on the vital part of the body, it is clear that the appellant had the intention to cause death of Manju. 13. Moreover, looking to the nature of the weapon with which the appellant assaulted Manju, the force used by him which is apparent from the evidence of PW.11 Dr. Khandelwal and the number of injuries on the vital part of the body, it is clear that the appellant had the intention to cause death of Manju. 13. Looking to the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has conclusively proved that it was the appellant who caused the death of Manju by assaulting her with a crowbar on the head. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.