Hon'ble BISHNOI, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26th Sept., 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore, Camp at Bhinmal (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.13/2005 (3/2005), whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case emerge out from the judgment impugned are that Dhokala Ram (PW 8) filed a report on 19.9.2004 at 2:00 PM to the S.H.O., Police Station, Chitalwana, stating therein that marriage of his daughter Nathi was solemnized 15 years ago with accused-appellant. From last two years, accused-appellant-Jala Ram use to harass his daughter Nathi and is assaulting her. He tried to pacify the accused-appellant through the relatives but the attitude of Jala Ram had not been changed. It is further stated in the report that today Mangla Ram S/o Maga Ram Bishnoi, resident of Agadwa has informed him that his daughter Nathi is lying dead in the Dhani of accused-appellant Jala Ram. On receiving this report, he along with his sons Punma Ram, Shankara Ram, Sawai Ram, Bhera Ram and Vera Ram went to Agadwa and saw some scratches on the neck of her daughter, which clearly shows that Jala Ram has killed his daughter. He has also raised suspicion about Vakta, Purkha and Pallu W/o Vakta. 3. On receiving this report, an FIR was registered against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The post mortem of dead body of Smt. Nathi was conducted on 19.9.2004 by Medical Board consisting of three Doctors, and the post mortem report (Exhibit P/12) was prepared. In the post mortem report, it is mentioned that a female fetus (dead) of about 8 months is found in the body of Smt. Nathi. Four injury marks have been found on the neck of Smt. Nathi. The cause of death is also given which is as under:- Cause of Death of Deceased Nathi W/o Jala Ram Bishnoi aged 35 years R/o Agrawa was Asphyxia due to Throttling.” 4. Four injury marks have been found on the neck of Smt. Nathi. The cause of death is also given which is as under:- Cause of Death of Deceased Nathi W/o Jala Ram Bishnoi aged 35 years R/o Agrawa was Asphyxia due to Throttling.” 4. After investigation, the police has filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Division-I, Sanchore where from, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge and from where it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore, Camp Bhinmal. The trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., however, the accused-appellant has denied the said charges and claimed trial. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses have been examined and 27 documents have been exhibited. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused-appellant has denied the charges and has stated that prior to the incident, he went to Ramdevara on foot along with one Bhiya Ram. He further stated that his daughter Chauthi has been residing at his in-laws house from last one year and on the day of incident also, she was at his in-laws house. He further stated that while giving statement to the police and to the Court, his daughter Chauthi came along with his in-laws and his in-laws tutored Chauthi with intention to grab his land and, therefore, she has given false statement. He further stated that at the time of incident, his elder daughter Bindu was with his wife, as his wife was 8 months' pregnant and ill, his elder daughter used to take care of her. It is further stated by the accused-appellant that the person, who killed his wife, took her ornaments away. It is further stated by the accused-appellant that the police has falsely implicated him in this case with the connivance of his in-laws, he was arrested after coming from Ramdevara, whereas the actual killer has not been traced out till date. On behalf of accused-appellant, two defence witnesses have also been examined. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, has convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 6. On behalf of accused-appellant, two defence witnesses have also been examined. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, has convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 6. The counsel for the appellant, Shri Sharma has argued that the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant solely on the basis of evidence of Chauthi (PW 13), whereas the presence of Chauthi at the scene of crime is highly doubtful. He has stated that none of the prosecution witnesses namely Jagram (PW 7), Dhokla Ram (PW 8), Shankara Ram (PW 11), Bhera Ram (PW 1), Bhakhara Ram (PW 18) and others has stated about the presence of Chauthi (PW 13) on 19.9.2004 at the scene of crime in their statements recorded by police. He has invited our attention towards the statements of certain witnesses recorded by the police, marked as Exhibit D/1 to D/10. On the basis of this, the counsel for the appellant has urged that the prosecution has planted Chauthi (PW 13) as eye-witness in this case, though, she was not present in the Dhani, where Smt. Nathi was killed, and as such, the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, on the basis of statement of Chauthi (PW 13), is highly unsafe and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Sharma argued that Chauthi (PW 13) was a child witness and she was tutored by in-laws of the accused-appellant as she came to give statement from the custody of in-laws of the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that Chauthi (PW 13) was under the influence of in-laws of the accused-appellant and, therefore, reliance on the said witness is illegal. It is further argued by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the trial court has illegally convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. while placing reliance on statement of PW.13-Chauthi, which are not at all trustworthy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. It is further argued by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the trial court has illegally convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. while placing reliance on statement of PW.13-Chauthi, which are not at all trustworthy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sharma has further argued that though the police collected foot moulds from the scene of crime but there is no definite evidence available on record to connect the foot moulds with the accused-appellant and in the absence of any such evidence, the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that on the day of incident, the accused-appellant was not present at village Bantho-Ka-Goliya as he went to Ramdevara on foot along with one Bhera Ram, this fact has been confirmed by the several prosecution witnesses and, therefore, it is clearly proved that the accusedappellant was not present at Bantho-Ka-Goliya on the day of incident as he went away to Ramdevara on foot and was arrested by the police after coming from Ramdevara. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, which are as under:- (i) 2012 AIR SCW 4747 = 2013(1) RLW 176 (SC) (K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Paradesh) (ii) Cr.L.R. (SC) 1979, page no.177 - (Bahadul alias Ghanshyam Padhan vs. State of Orissa) (iii) RCC, Aug., 1992 page 393- Mukesh vs. The State of Rajasthan (iv) RLW 1978 405 (Chandra Bhan vs. State of Rajasthan) (v) AIR 1976 SC 2488 (Stae of Oissa vs. Brahmananda Nana. (vi) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1985, 401 (Shiv Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan. (vii) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1987, 595 (Brij Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (viii) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1987, 508 (Ramjeevan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan) (ix) 1986 WLN (UC) 33 (Dhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan). 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri K.R. Bishnoi has supported the impugned judgment and argued that there is no illegality in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as from the evidence as well as the material available on record, it is very much proved that the accused-appellant has committed murder of his wife. 11. 11. It is further argued by the leaned Public Prosecutor that the evidence of Chauthi (PW 13) is trustworthy and it cannot be said in any manner that Chauthi (PW 13) was tutored or under any influence at the time of giving her statement before the trial court or before the police. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the accused-appellant has failed to prove that at the time of incident, he went to Ramdevara and has not committed the murder of his wife. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that even though, if accused-appellant went earlier to Ramdevara, it is very much possible that he returned back from the way and committed the murder and thereafter again fled towards Ramdevara. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence and material available on record, indicate that the accused-appellant has committed the murder of his wife in the intervening night of 18.9.2004 and 19.9.2004 and during the period of commission of crime, he was identified by his daughter Chauthi (PW 13) and, therefore, in such circumstances, the conviction of the accusedappellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in this appeal. 14. We have considered the arguments made on behalf of both the sides and meticulously examined the material as well as evidence available on record. 15. Chauthi (PW 13), in her statement (Exhibit D/6) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has specifically stated that on the day of incident, she was sleeping with her mother in the Dhani (house) on the same cot and during the night, her father came in the Dhani and caught hold of the neck of her mother and on looking this, when she cried, he put his thumb in her mouth and she chomped the thumb of her father, however, her father strangulated her mother and ran away. She further stated that relations between her father and mother are not cordial and whenever her father visited their Dhani, he used to beat her mother. From the impugned judgment, it is revealed that Chauthi (PW 13) has again reiterated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the ACJM, Bheenmal on 29.11.2004 that she chomped the thumb of her father when he strangulated her mother. From the impugned judgment, it is revealed that Chauthi (PW 13) has again reiterated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the ACJM, Bheenmal on 29.11.2004 that she chomped the thumb of her father when he strangulated her mother. In her statement recorded on 8.8.2005 in the Court again Chauthi (PW 13) has reiterated that at the time when his father was strangulating her mother, she started crying, then her father put his hand on her mouth and she chomped the thumb of her father and her father ran away from the house after strangulating her mother. An important fact reveals from the evidence is that at the time of arrest of the accused-appellant, on his return from Ramdevara, i.e. on 28.9.2004, medical examination of the accused-appellant was conducted and an injury on the thumb of accused appellant was found. The description of the injury given in the injury report Exhibit P/16, is as under:- “1. Healed Abrasion C Separation of slab 1x0.6 cm Palomar aspect of Rt. Thumb of last digit” Simple 16. The duration of the injury was shown between 7 to 12 days. In the arrest memo (Exhibit P/2) of the accused-appellant, it is clearly mentioned that there is bite injury on the thumb of right hand of accused-appellant and the Exhibit-P/2 is verified by the Investigating Officer-Kan Singh (PW 15). Dr. Shaitan Singh (PW 16) has verified the injury report (Exhibit P/16) pertaining to accused appellant. Chauthi (PW 13) in her statement recorded by the police just after the incident and in the statement under Sections 164, recorded about 2 months after the incident and in the statement recorded by the trial court about 11 months after the incident, has repeatedly stated that her father came in the night and strangulated her mother and when she cried, he put his hand on her mouth and she chomped the thumb of her father. The statement of Chauthi (PW 13) to this effect has been corroborated by arrest memo (Exhibit P/2) and the injury report (Exhibit P/16) of the accused-appellant prepared a day after his arrest. 17. The statement of Chauthi (PW 13) to this effect has been corroborated by arrest memo (Exhibit P/2) and the injury report (Exhibit P/16) of the accused-appellant prepared a day after his arrest. 17. We have carefully examined the statement of Chauthi (PW 13) and we find that she understood the questions asked by the Court in a very good manner and there is no indication to the effect that either she was tutored or she was giving her statement under threat, coercion or inducement. Her statements are corroborated by arrest memo (Exhibit P/2) and injury report (Exhibit P/16), therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Chauthi (PW 13). The judgment referred by the counsel for the appellant reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4747 = 2013(1) RLW 176 (SC) (K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Paradesh) is clearly distinguishable as in that case, the statement of the child witness had not been corroborated by the evidence of the victim or by medical evidence. It is also pertinent to note here that the accused-appellant has failed to explain about the injury suffered by him on the thumb in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the only conclusion remains is that he suffered the injury on the thumb on the day of incident as his daughter chomped his thumb when he was strangulating his wife in her Dhani. 18. The argument raised by the counsel for the accused-appellant to the effect that the presence of Chauthi (PW 13) at the scene of crime is not established as the prosecution witnesses, who reached at the Dhani of Nathi in the morning of 19.9.2004 have not stated in their statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Chauthi (PW 13) was present at the Dhani of Nathi in the morning of 19.9.2004. The said arguments of the counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected because the prosecution witnesses such as Dhokla (PW 8), Shankara (PW 11) and Punma (PW 6) have specifically denied the suggestion of this effect in their statements before the trial court. The said arguments of the counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected because the prosecution witnesses such as Dhokla (PW 8), Shankara (PW 11) and Punma (PW 6) have specifically denied the suggestion of this effect in their statements before the trial court. It is to be noted that Bhakhra (PW 18), who happens to be the neighbour of Dhani of Smt. Nathi and was declared hostile, has also specifically said in his examination-in-chief that when he reached at the scene of crime, he saw the dead body of Smt. Nathi and at that time the girl has stated that her mother was strangulated. 19. The another argument of learned counsel for the appellant that though the police has collected the foot moulds from the scene of crime but the prosecution has failed to prove that those foot moulds belong to accused-appellant. It is true that the police has collected the foot moulds from the scene of crime and the prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the same belongs to accused appellant, but in every case the accused cannot be given benefit of lapses of investigation and when evidence of eye witness is available on record the non-proving of foot moulds by the prosecution will not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 20. The judgments reported in Cr.L.R. (SC) 1979, page no.177 - (Bahadul alias Ghanshyam Padhan vs. State of Orissa), RCC, Aug., 1992 page 393- Mukesh vs. The State of Rajasthan, RLW 1978 405 (Chandra Bhan vs. State of Rajasthan), AIR 1976 Superme Court 2488 (Stae of Oissa vs. Brahmananda Nana, Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1985, 401 (Shiv Singh & Anr.Vs. The State of Rajasthan, Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1987, 595 (Brij Lal Vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors, Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1987, 508 (Ramjeevan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan) and 1986 WLN (UC) 33 (Dhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) cited by the counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable as in all those cases, the eye witnesses had not disclosed the identity of the accused immediately after the incident. However, in the present case, the eye witness Chauthi (PW 13) has immediately revealed the identity of the accused to his uncle Purkha and Vakta and thereafter to the police in her statement recorded just a day after the incident. 21. However, in the present case, the eye witness Chauthi (PW 13) has immediately revealed the identity of the accused to his uncle Purkha and Vakta and thereafter to the police in her statement recorded just a day after the incident. 21. In the above mentioned circumstances of the case, the only conclusion arrived in the case is that the accused-appellant Jala Ram has murdered his wife in the presence of his daughter Chauthi (PW 13) on the intervening night of 18.9.2004 and 19.9.2004 and therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 22. Hence, there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.