JUDGMENT : A.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2002 passed by Third learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 691/2001 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and fine Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since, in elaboration, they are mentioned from Paras 3 to 6 of the impugned judgment. However, for ready reference, it would be condign to mention here that the deceased namely Guddi Bai was the wife of the complainant Mukundilal. On the fateful date i.e. 12-7-2001 at 11 in the night the complainant Mukundilal had gone to his neighbour's house namely Netram Choudhary to hear the story of Alah. His wife (deceased) and children were at his home. While hearing the story of Alah, Rakesh Choudhary asked the appellant to bring Bidi and gave currency note of Rs. 100/- but the complainant told the appellant that he may go to his house and may take the change from his wife to bring Bidi. Thereafter, it is said that appellant went to the house of the complainant and thereafter brought the bundle of Bidi and handed it over to Rakesh Choudhary. It is also the case of the prosecution that after 15 minutes they heard the scream of some lady coming out from the house of the complainant as a result of which all of them had gone to his house and found that the deceased was lying in injured condition and was groaning. When the complainant kept her head upon his lap and asked who has caused the injuries to her, she named the appellant saying that he had dealt knife blows upon her. Her son Ramsu also said that appellant dealt knife blows upon the deceased. The deceased died after sometime. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Mukundilal in the concerning police station on the basis of which the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. 4. Her son Ramsu also said that appellant dealt knife blows upon the deceased. The deceased died after sometime. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Mukundilal in the concerning police station on the basis of which the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. 4. The investigating agency after investigating the matter submitted the charge-sheet in the committal Court who committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received for trial. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charge punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. Needless to say, that the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and also placed documents on record Exs.P/1 to P/22. The defence of the accused person is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and has examined one witness in support of his defence. 5. Learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record arrived at a conclusion that appellant caused the knife injuries to the deceased as a result of which she had died and eventually convicted the appellant and passed the order of sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. 6. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. On bare perusal of the evidence of Ramsu @ Purshottam (PW-6) son of the complainant Mukundilal, at 11 in the night the appellant came and asked to give Rs. 10/- to him as directed by the complainant Mukundilal and when his mother turned to bring Rs. 10/- at that juncture the appellant scuffled with his mother and threw her on the ground and dealt the knife blows to her. Specifically this witness is saying that one knife blow was dealt on the fingers of left hand, another blow was given in the space between the left thumb and finger and third blow was dealt upon her chest. Specifically this witness is saying that one knife blow was dealt on the fingers of left hand, another blow was given in the space between the left thumb and finger and third blow was dealt upon her chest. According to this witness, the fourth blow landed upon the ground. Further this witness has deposed that after causing injuries by knife the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. His mother was lying in Parchhi and she was groaning. He too started screaming. This witness has also stated that his father complainant Mukundilal (PW-3) had gone to hear the story of Alah in his neighbour's house and he came immediately after hearing the shriek of the deceased. That apart, this witness is further saying that his father kept the head of the deceased upon his lap and asked her as to who has caused the injuries to her, upon which she told that appellant Balkishan first of all scuffled with her and thereafter dealt the blows of knife. This witness was cross-examined at length but nothing has been carved out in order to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. According to us, although this witness is a child witness having age of 14 years on the date of deposition but looking to section 118 of Evidence Act, according to us, his evidence is quite relevant and he understands the things and the incidence which has occurred in his presence. 9. The statement of Ramsu @ Purshottam (PW-6) is corroborated by the evidence of complainant Mukundilal (PW-3) who has also deposed the he heard the shriek of his wife coming out from his home, as a result of which he rushed to home and found that the deceased was having umpteen injuries and the blood was oozing from the wounds. According to him, he had gone to the neighbour's house to hear the story of Alah where he asked the appellant to take the money from his wife to bring the packet of Bidi. According to us, this witness too was cross-examined at length but we could not find anything in order to hold that his testimony is not worth reliable. Although by examining his testimony by different angles we find that the testimony of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy. According to us, this witness too was cross-examined at length but we could not find anything in order to hold that his testimony is not worth reliable. Although by examining his testimony by different angles we find that the testimony of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy. The evidence of Mukundilal (PW-3) is in corroboration to the evidence of Ramsu @ Purshottam (PW-6) who had said that the appellant caused knife injuries to the deceased after scuffling with her. 10. According to Mukundilal (PW-3), the appellant firstly tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased and thereafter the knife blows were inflicted upon her and this fact was stated by the deceased to him before she died. Hence, according to us, there is unimpeachable oral dying declaration of the deceased. The Supreme Court in Vishram and Others vs. State of M.P. AIR 1993 SC 250 has categorically held that conviction can be based upon the oral dying declaration. 11. The aforesaid two witnesses have also been corroborated by the evidence of Lakhan Choudhary (PW-4) who also arrived at the spot on hearing the scream of the deceased and saw that the complainant kept the head of the deceased on his lap and on being asked to her that who has caused the injury only this much he could hear that the deceased told Balkish. Needless to say that the name of the appellant is Balkishan. Thus, we can infer that on being asked by the complainant that who has caused injuries to her, she narrated the name of the appellant. Thus, from the statement of this witness the oral dying declaration is proved. 12. The other witness Rakesh Choudhary (PW-5) is the witness in whose house the story of Alah was being arranged and the villagers assembled there to hear the story. Although the evidence of this witness is based upon the oral dying declaration being given by the deceased to the complainant Mukundi in his presence but he was unable to say anything, therefore, he was declared hostile and when he was cross-examined he stated that Ramsu @ Purshottam (PW-6) told him that appellant Balkishan caused the knife injuries to the deceased. According to us, the statement of this witness is admissible in evidence under section 157 of the Evidence Act. According to us, the statement of this witness is admissible in evidence under section 157 of the Evidence Act. According to us, persons assembled at the place of occurrence immediately after hearing the shriek of the deceased and, therefore, it cannot be said that within short interval i.e. one minute this witness was tutored. Thus, according to us, the evidence of Rakesh Choudhary (PW-5) is also relevant piece of evidence and is admissible under section 157 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, it would be fruitful to place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 (39) SC 54, Smt. Chander Kala vs. Ram Kishan and Another, AIR 1985 SC 1268 and State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suresh and Another, 1998 Cri. L.J. 1416. 13. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is also corroborated by evidence of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Shyam Singh (PW-8) who found three incised wounds upon the person of the deceased which are also mentioned in the postmortem report (Ex.P/15). It would be germane to quote these injuries which reads as under:- “1. Incised wound 1½” x 4” x 3” present on the left side of chest at midclavicular line between 3, 4 and 5 rib level. 2. Incised wound 1½” x ¾” at the base of left middle finger. 3. Incised wound ½” x ¼” at the base of left thumb.” 14. Hence, according to us, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses has been fully corroborated by the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon and also the post-mortem report of the deceased Ex.P/15. Since the blows were so brutal and forceful that the lungs as well as the heart of the deceased were pierced, according to us the act of the appellant amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder and the learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant for the charge punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 15. Resultantly, this appeal is bereft of any substance, the same is hereby dismissed.