JUDGMENT Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—This appeal is directed to challenge the judgment and order dated 11.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner recording conviction of accused appellant Bhanwarlal for an offence punishable u/Sec.302 Indian Penal Code and awarding sentence for life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and further to undergo one month's additional imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on basis of a statement made by Shri Hariram (PW-1), before a police officer on 14.10.2004 at Police Station Gangashahar at 12:25 PM, a criminal case was lodged against accused appellant for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. As per the statement reduced in writing (Ex.P/1), on 13.10.2004 at about 7-7:30 PM, Shankarlal, Harikishan and Dungarram came to the hamlet of Hariram and after having meals they slept there. In morning of 14.10.2004 at about 07:00 AM Shankarlal went to the hamlet of Hemaram, the uncle of Hariram. On hearing some noise, Hariram, Dungarram and Harikishan rushed towards the hamlet, where they found Bhanwarlal beating Shankarlal with lathi. Shankarlal was lying on earth and Bhanwarlal was giving lathi blows ruthlessly, consequently Shankarlal died at the spot. 3. During the course of investigation the corpus of Shankarlal was subjected to an autopsy conducted by a medical board consisting of two doctors viz. Dr. Sitaram and Dr. Rahul Jain. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P/27) the cause of death of Shankarlal was coma due to ante-mortem head injury, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The corpus in total was having nine injuries, out of which the injury No.1 was fatal. The deceased also suffered fractures in radius bone of his left arm and in humerus bone of right leg. 4. Accused Bhanwarlal was arrested and on basis of an information accorded by him a blood stained lathi was recovered. A blood stained shirt worn by Bhanwarlal was also recovered. The lathi as well as the shirt worn by accused at the time of incident were sent for their serological examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur and as per its report the shirt was having blood stains of group “A”. The clothes of deceased Shankarlal were also sent for serological examination and they too were found to be stained with blood of group “A”. The clothes of deceased Shankarlal were also sent for serological examination and they too were found to be stained with blood of group “A”. The lathi recovered at the instance of accused though was having blood stains of human origin, but the result with regard to blood group remained inconclusive. 5. The investigating agency after completing the investigation submitted its report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the trial court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused, framed a charge against him for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the charge, trial commenced as desired. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 12 witnesses out of whom Hariram (PW-1), Tolaram (PW-2), Lekhram (PW-4), Chunni (PW-5) and Harikishan (PW-6) were cited as eye witnesses. Testimony of Dr. Rahul Jain (PW-12) was examined to substantiate the medical evidence. The testimony of Shri Islam Khan (PW-8) and Devendra Kumar (PW-10) was examined, both being the investigating officer in the case. The prosecution also got 27 documents exhibited to substantiate its case. 6. The trial court afforded an opportunity to the accused to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The entire evidence was termed by the accused as false. As per the accused he was implicated in a false case due to vengeance and certain family disputes. In defence, four documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4 were exhibited. 7. The trial court after examining the entire evidence available on record and hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel held the accused appellant guilty for committing murder of Shri Shankarlal, accordingly recorded the conviction and awarded sentence. 8. In appeal, while impeaching correctness of the conviction recorded, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are that - (1) eye witnesses Hariram (PW-1) and Tolaram (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case and the eye witnesses Lekhram (PW-4) and Chunni (PW-5) were introduced in the case at quite a later stage, the eye witness Harikishan (PW-6) is a witness interested and as such they are not at all reliable. A reasonable doubt, thus, exists in accepting the involvement of the accused with crime in question; and (2) the prosecution story, even if, is accepted, then too the crime committed by the accused appellant does not travel beyond an offence punishable under Section 304 part-I Indian Penal Code. 9. Per contra, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence available on record in quite definite terms indicate involvement of the accused appellant in the crime in question and in existing set of established facts that is nothing, but a murder as described under Section 300 Indian Penal Code. 10. Heard learned counsels and also examined the record in lucid. 11. The corpus of Shri Shankarlal was having following injuries:- 1. Crushed lacerated wound 13 x 6 cm x cavity deep extending from left angle of mouth to right maxillary bone. Skin, muscles crushed, fracture of mandible, right mascula, all upper and lower teeths are dislocated. 2. Fracture of left radius, ulna bone. 3. Fracture of right humerus bone. 4. Clashed lacerated wound extending from forehead to nosel bridge 6 x 4 cm x muscle deep. 5. Lacerated wound 4 x 2 cm x muscle deep – right upper part of cheek. 6. Lacerated wound 6 x ½ cm x scalp deep – mid parietal region. 7. Abrasion 4 x ½ cm – left leg middle anteriorly placed vertical. 8. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm – abdomen left upper part. 9. Abrasion 5 x 3 cm – right shoulder posteriorly. 12. The cause of death of Shri Shankarlal, as per Dr. Rahul Jain (PW-12), was the head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Shri Shankarlal beside the fatal injury was having lacerated wounds on his forehead and on right cheek in parietal region beside abrasions on left leg, right shoulder and abdomen. He was also having fractures of radius and ulna bones of left arm as well as of humerus bone of right leg. As per the medical evidence available on record, there is no doubt about homicidal death of Shri Shankarlal. 13. The emphasis of learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the testimony of eye witnesses Lekhram (PW-4), Hariram (PW-1) and Chunni (PW-5) is not reliable. As per the medical evidence available on record, there is no doubt about homicidal death of Shri Shankarlal. 13. The emphasis of learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the testimony of eye witnesses Lekhram (PW-4), Hariram (PW-1) and Chunni (PW-5) is not reliable. It is stated that in the written report (Ex.P/1) Hariram did not disclose presence of Lekhram at the spot of occurrence, but he was included in evidence at a later stage just to strengthen the prosecution story knowing it well that genuine eye witnesses Hariram (PW-1) and Tolaram (PW-2) were not accepting the prosecution story. The testimony of Chunni (PW-5) and Hariram (PW-1) is impeached on the count that they are interested witnesses being children of deceased Shankarlal. On examination of record, we found that the statement of Shri Lekhram as per Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the investigating officer on 14.10.2004 itself and on the same day he narrated all the facts which are not at all in any conflict with his version stated before the court. As per this witness, on 13.10.2004 he went to Nokha, where a dowry case was pending in relation to daughter-in-law of deceased Shankarlal. From Nokha he went to Harikishan and Dungarram to the hamlet of Danaram (father of Hariram). On 14.10.2004 Shankar went to the hamlet of Hemaram being called by Deeparam and Hemaram. After some time, on hearing noise, this witness rushed towards the hamlet of Hemaram alongwith Harikishan, Dungar and Chunni. On reaching, he saw Bhanwarlal giving lathi blows to Shankarlal. Shankarlal was lying on earth and Bhanwarlal was giving repeated lathi blows. On intervention, Bhanwarlal fled from the spot of occurrence. The statement given by this witness is definite and in consonance with his first version given before the investigating agency on the date of incident. 14. Smt. Chunni (PW-5) is daughter of deceased Shankarlal and sister-in-law of Hariram (PW-1). Her presence at her in-laws family is not at all in dispute. As per this witness, her father Shri Shankar with Lekhram, Dungarram and her brother Harikishan came to her hamlet in the night of 13.10.2004. They had a night halt there and in morning her father went to hamlet of Hemaram on being called. She also rushed towards the hamlet of Hemaram on hearing noise therefrom. As per this witness, her father Shri Shankar with Lekhram, Dungarram and her brother Harikishan came to her hamlet in the night of 13.10.2004. They had a night halt there and in morning her father went to hamlet of Hemaram on being called. She also rushed towards the hamlet of Hemaram on hearing noise therefrom. On reaching to the hamlet of Hariram she found that Bhanwarlal gave a lathi blow on the head of her father. Bhanwarlal was repeatedly giving lathi blows. On intervention of her brother Hariram, Lekhram and Dungarram, Bhanwarlal fled from the spot. The statement of this witness by the investigating agency were recorded on 14.10.2004 itself. The version of facts given by Chunni is in perfect consonance with the narration made by her before the investigating agency. True it is, this witness is daughter of deceased, but that bears complete confidence and no reason exists to disbelieve her testimony. 15. The other eye witness Harikishan (PW-6) also accompanied his father for hamlet of Danaram on 13.10.2004 and as per this witness also his father went to the hamlet of Hemaram in the morning of 14.10.2004 being called. This witness also rushed to the hamlet of Hemaram after hearing noise. He too found Bhanwarlal giving lathi blows to his father. On minute examination of the statement of this witness, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. It is also pertinent to note that there is no discrepancy in narration of facts by the eye witnesses Lekhram (PW-4), Hariram (PW-1) and Smt. Chunni (PW-5). 16. So far as Hariram (PW-1) is concerned, this witness was declared hostile. Admittedly he is cousin brother of accused Shankarlal. This witness though has not supported the prosecution case, but has accepted his signatures on the written report (Ex.P/1). 17. The other hostile witness Tolaram (PW-2) is also a cousin brother of accused Bhanwarlal. The cited eye witnesses Hariram and Tolaram were declared hostile being not supporting the prosecution but the evidence adduced by other eye witnesses viz. Chunni, Lekhram and Hariram is sufficient to establish the involvement of accused Bhanwarlal in the crime in question. In addition to this, as per the evidence adduced by the investigating officer Shri Islam Khan (PW-8) a blood stained bamboo lathi was recovered at the instance of the accused. Chunni, Lekhram and Hariram is sufficient to establish the involvement of accused Bhanwarlal in the crime in question. In addition to this, as per the evidence adduced by the investigating officer Shri Islam Khan (PW-8) a blood stained bamboo lathi was recovered at the instance of the accused. The fact of recovery of lathi has been established on basis of the evidence adduced by the attesting witnesses. A blood stained shirt worn by accused Bhanwarlal at the time of occurrence of crime was also recovered as per document Ex.P/7 and that too has been established. The blood stains available on the shirt of the accused are having the same blood group as were available on the clothes of deceased Shankarlal. 18. The prosecution with aid of the evidence referred above has established the homicidal death of Shankarlal. The recovery of blood stained lathi and blood stained shirt at the instance of accused Bhanwarlal having blood stains matching with the group of blood stains available on the clothes of deceased in quite unambiguous terms connect the accused with the crime. 19. The other argument of learned counsel for the accused appellant is that even by accepting the prosecution case in totality, the crime committed does not travel beyond an offence described under Section 304 part-I Indian Penal Code, is also not having merit. The accused gave fatal injury on the head of deceased Shankarlal and then gave several lathi blows causing lacerated wounds and fractures in left hand and right leg. The medical evidence clearly establishes overt act and cruelty on the part of the accused. As such, the crime committed by the accused is nothing but a murder as described under Section 300 Indian Penal Code. 20. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.