JUDGMENT Per : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This is an extremely brutal and unfortunate case of matricide where the appellant, a young man, has been found guilty for the murder of his own mother. The learned Trial Court, after finding the appellant guilty, has sentenced him appropriately. 2. Out of the two sons of the deceased, the appellant Adityanath Singh was the elder and was running in his late twenties at the time of incident. The background facts of this case are that appellant Adityanath Singh married with the co-accused Smt. Harjinder Kaur (acquitted by the Trial Court) out of love and affection towards her. The marriage was solemnized against the wishes of his parents and relatives as Ms. Harjinder Kaur belonged to ‘Rai Sikh’ community. So, the proposal of her parents to the parents of appellant for the marriage was not accepted. In disregard of the wishes of his parents, the appellant entered into this marriage in Arya Samaj Temple and got certificate to this effect from there. He was employed in private sector and was not in the position to disown his parents and start his own life with his newly wedded wife. So, he either lived in the house of his in-laws or many often he used to come and stay in his parents’ house. His parents were not ready to accept Smt. Harjinder Kaur permitting her to live in the house as wife of their son. So, this theme made the appellant and his wife very much annoyed from the informant Ravindranath Singh (father) and deceased Smt. Santosh Singh (mother). More so, when the parents of the appellant made a declaration of depriving him from the properties owned by them. 3. 9/10.9.2006 was the fateful night when the appellant was returning from Moradabad after doing his job work and he pre-informed his parents on phone at about 9 PM that he was coming to their house. He arrived at his parents’ house at about 1.20 AM in that night. The informant and his wife opened the lock of the main door and thus gave way to the appellant to go inside his room. He went in his room and changed his clothes. The appellant asked his mother to give some medicine as he disclosed that he was having headache. The informant (father) proceeded to his room and lay on the bed. He went in his room and changed his clothes. The appellant asked his mother to give some medicine as he disclosed that he was having headache. The informant (father) proceeded to his room and lay on the bed. The deceased Smt. Santosh Singh went to the room of her son Adityanath Singh to give him medicine as asked for. Meanwhile, the informant heard the screams of his wife. So, he rushed to the room of his son and saw that his son Adityanath was giving the blows of knife to his wife Smt. Santosh Singh. The informant strived to save her by making a noise, but the appellant escaped from the place of occurrence after pushing his father (informant) at the spot. Hearing the noise, neighbours came at the spot and thereafter Smt. Santosh Singh was shifted to Amrit Hospital in such a injured state. She was extended some treatment there and thereafter referred to higher centre Sushila Tiwari Medical College and Hospital, Haldwani. During the course of her admission in that hospital, she breathed her last there. After the inquest and post-mortem, the informant brought the dead body of his wife to his home and then went to the police station for lodging the First Information Report Ex. Ka-1. Chick report whereof is Ex. Ka-10. 4. As per the inquest report Ex. Ka-5, the death had occurred on account of stabbing by knife. Nonetheless, autopsy was recommended. The post-mortem (report Ex. Ka-4) was conducted on 10.9.2006 at 1.40 PM by Dr. BN Singh. The deceased was 59 years of age. Death had occurred half day to one day before. So, the time of occurrence, as stated in the FIR, matches with the estimated time as mentioned in the post-mortem report. Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased: (1) Incised wound over right jaw in middle, measuring 2 x 1 cm x bone deep and clear margin. (2) Incised wound over epigastric region in midline, 15 cm above umbilicus, measuring 2.5 x 1.5 cm x cavity deep, on further exploration incised wound over left lobe of liver anteriorly 1 cm x 0.25 cm, parietal cavity is full of blood. (3) Incised wound over right hypochondrium, 3 cm below mid costal margin, measuring 1.5 cm cx 0.75 cm x muscle deep. (3) Incised wound over right hypochondrium, 3 cm below mid costal margin, measuring 1.5 cm cx 0.75 cm x muscle deep. (4) Incised wound over left hypochondrium, 4 cm below costal margin in midclavicular line, measuring 1.25 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. (5) Incised wound over left side of chest in IVth I.C.S. in anterior axillary line, measuring 3 x 1 cm x cavity deep, on further exploration fractured IVth rib, haemotoma present, incised wound over left lung interiorly, blood full in thoracic cavity. (6) Incised wound over left side of chest, 1.5 cm below and anterior to injury no. (5). It is muscle deep and measuring 1.5 x 1 cm. (7) Incised wound over right upper back at the level spine of scapular, 3 x 1 cm x cavity deep, on exploration haemotoma present, fractured 7th and 8th rib seen, incised wound over posterior-lateral aspect of right lung, right thoracic cavity full of blood. (8) Incised wound over middle back on right side, 3 cm below the tip of right scapula, 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. 5. The investigation culminated into submission of the chargesheet Ex. Ka-21 against the appellant Adityanath Singh and his wife Smt. Harjinder Kaur for the offence of Section 302/120B IPC. Learned Sessions Judge levelled the charges against both the accused persons separately because the charge of Section 302 IPC was levelled against Adityanath Singh and the charge of Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC was levelled against Smt. Harjinder Kaur. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. Learned Sessions Judge, after trial, has found Adityanath Singh guilty for the offence of Section 302 IPC, while did not find sufficient evidence of conspiracy against Smt. Harjinder Kaur and she was acquitted accordingly. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. PW1 is the informant Ravindranath Singh, PW2 is Hansraj Singh, PW3 is Ashutosh Singh, PW4 is Subodh Agrawal, PW5 is Smt. Reena Singh, PW6 is Dr. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. PW1 is the informant Ravindranath Singh, PW2 is Hansraj Singh, PW3 is Ashutosh Singh, PW4 is Subodh Agrawal, PW5 is Smt. Reena Singh, PW6 is Dr. BN Singh, PW7 is Ramesh Chand Dwivedi, PW8 is SI Arun Kumar, PW9 is Head Constable Rajendra Singh, PW10 is Smt. Pratibha Shastri, PW11 is Prakash Pandey, PW12 is Constable Prayag Ram, PW13 is Inspector Anand Singh Gusain, PW14 is Har Prasad, PW15 is Head Constable Jagmohan Singh and PW16 is Dr. Rajeev Srivastava. 7. Thereafter statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. They denied their complicity in the crime and stated that they have been falsely implicated. 8. We heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel nay perused the evidence available on record. 9. PW1 is Ravindranath Singh. He is father of the appellant. He was a high rank officer of the State Government inasmuch as he was the Director, Higher Education in the State at the time of his superannuation. He was leading a peaceful life with his wife in Rudrapur town. He has deposed that his son Adityanath Singh had wedded with Smt. Harjinder Kaur in Arya Samaj Temple. Smt. Harjinder Kaur was from Sikh community. This marriage was against the wishes of PW1 and his wife. So, they did not accept Harjinder Kaur as their daughter-in-law because their customs and conventions were not in tune and similar. Since Adityanath had married without the consent and wishes of his parents, so he was ousted from the parental properties by the couple. He has further deposed that in the intervening night of 9/10.9.2006, when he along with his wife was living in his house at Rudrapur, Adityanath gave a ring call to inform that he would be coming there from Moradabad. He reached to the house at 1.20 AM on that night and pressed the doorbell. Hearing the sound of bell, PW1 along with his wife Smt. Santosh Singh got up from the bed and opened the lock of the door. Accused appellant entered in the house and straightway went in his room. After coming inside the room, he asked his mother to give some medicine as he was feeling headache. PW1 aheaded to his room. Smt. Santosh Singh went again in the room of his son with necessary medicine. Accused appellant entered in the house and straightway went in his room. After coming inside the room, he asked his mother to give some medicine as he was feeling headache. PW1 aheaded to his room. Smt. Santosh Singh went again in the room of his son with necessary medicine. At that very moment, PW1 heard the screams of his wife. So, he rushed to the room of the appellant where electric bulb was lit. He saw his son Adityanath giving repeated blows of knife upon his mother. On the noise having made by the father, accused pushed him and took to his heels leaving behind the knife at the spot itself. The unfortunate mother was seriously injured and the entire spot and her body became blood-soaked. PW1 has further deposed that appellant had already thrusted the knife upon his mother and two blows of knife were caused even in his presence. Hearing the noise neighbours Prakash, Subodh and others had come on the spot. With the aid and assistance of the neighbours, Smt. Santosh Singh was shifted to the Amrit Hospital in Rudrapur and after giving the primary treatment and looking to her serious physical state, she was referred to higher centre Sushila Tiwari Medical College and Hospital. During the course of her admission there, the doctor declared her dead. Inquest report was prepared by the police, as has been mentioned hereinabove. PW1 was the first member of the inquest proceedings among other witnesses including PW4 Subodh Agrawal and PW11 Prakash Pandey. PW1 has been cross-examined at length. However, nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve the evidence testified by him against his son (appellant). In our view, his evidence is completely inspiring and there is no reason to discard it. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the FIR was lodged with delay of as many as 17 hours. We are not inclined to accept this argument at all for the reason that the incident was committed at about 1.20 AM in the intervening night of 9/10.9.2006. After this unexpected crime committed at the hands of his own son, husband of the injured (PW1) managed to call PW4 Subodh Agarwal, who was having a car. PW4 received this information at 3 AM and with the assistance of other neighbours, PW1 shifted his wife to the nearest hospital. After this unexpected crime committed at the hands of his own son, husband of the injured (PW1) managed to call PW4 Subodh Agarwal, who was having a car. PW4 received this information at 3 AM and with the assistance of other neighbours, PW1 shifted his wife to the nearest hospital. After commission of this incident, this much time was quite natural in calling the PW4 with his car requesting him to shift his wife to the hospital. After providing the primary treatment to the victim in Amrit Hospital, when the doctor felt that her physical state was very serious, then information was extended on behalf of the hospital to the Police Station, Rudrapur on the letter head, which has been proved as Ex. Ka-14. This information was sent at 4.25 AM on that night. The victim was soon shifted to Sushila Tiwari Hospital and during the course of her admission, she died there. Meanwhile, the police arrived in the hospital. So, the inquest report was prepared at 8.15 AM on 10.9.2006 and the post-mortem was conducted at 1.40 PM on that very day. After conducting the autopsy, the informant brought the dead body of his wife to his home and then went to lodge the FIR. So, this way the time taken by the informant in lodging the FIR does not indicate any delay on his part because he was not supposed to leave the dead body of his wife alone in the hospital and rush to the police station to lodge the report in all priorities. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also argued that the fingerprint of the appellant was not taken by the police. We are not inclined to accept this argument for the reason that the appellant was not arrested at the spot and he had escaped from the place of incident soon after the commission of crime. It has been testified by the PW11 Prakash Pandey, a next-door neighbour of the complainant, that he heard the shrieks coming out from the house of Ravindranath Singh after midnight on 9/10.9.2006. He immediately went to the door of Ravindranath Singh. It was closed from inside. So, PW11 came to the roof of his house and through that way, he went to the house of Ravindranath Singh. He immediately went to the door of Ravindranath Singh. It was closed from inside. So, PW11 came to the roof of his house and through that way, he went to the house of Ravindranath Singh. He saw that the appellant Adityanath, who being a neighbour, well known to him, was escaping barefoot from the house. He saw the appellant as such in the light of electric bulb. He further saw that his mother Smt. Santosh Singh, soaked in the blood, was lying on the earth in the room of Adityanath. Meanwhile, a neighbour Subodh Agrawal also came at the spot and thereafter injured was shifted to the hospital by his Indica car. Rest of the facts has also been narrated by him, as stated above. 12. It has also been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the seriously injured (deceased) was not immediately taken to the hospital for the treatment. This argument is wholly unsubstantial for the reason that the incident occurred at around 1.30 AM in that intervening night. In those sensitive, critical moments full of panic, it is but natural for the husband (PW1), an old retired person who was alone in the house, to loss his nerves. It could have taken him some time to come to his senses. Thus, in the circumstances, it was quite natural for him to first realize this most unfortunate stark reality and then manage some means of transport to remove his seriously injured wife to the hospital. He telephonically called PW4 along with his car at around 3 AM, i.e. within one and half hour, and then immediately shifted his seriously injured wife to the nearest Amrit Hospital. Further, we find that nothing has been asked in this regard by the Defence Counsel from PW1 in his cross-examination so as to provide him an opportunity to explain as to why he took this much time in shifting his seriously injured wife to the hospital. There is nothing on record either as to at what distance the said hospital is situated from the place of occurrence. Even assuming for a moment that PW1 delayed shifting of his seriously injured wife to the hospital, still then the folly or apathy of the husband would not mitigate Adityanath’s offence. 13. PW2 Hansraj Singh is the real younger brother of the deceased. Even assuming for a moment that PW1 delayed shifting of his seriously injured wife to the hospital, still then the folly or apathy of the husband would not mitigate Adityanath’s offence. 13. PW2 Hansraj Singh is the real younger brother of the deceased. He has only corroborated the version regarding the marriage entered by the appellant against the wishes of deceased and PW1. He has further testified that for this reason, the appellant was ousted by PW1 and his wife from the parental properties. So, in our opinion, this was a strong motto nurtured by the appellant in his mind. This drove the appellant to conceive the crime so diabolically and execute it so cruelly against none other but to his own old mother. 14. PW3 Ashutosh Singh is the real younger brother of the appellant. He was not present in the house at the time of incident as pursuing his MBA studies somewhere else. He has also deposed regarding the love marriage of the appellant in Arya Samaj Temple with Smt. Harjinder Kaur against the wishes and without the consent of his parents. So, Smt. Harjinder Kaur was never accepted as the daughter-in-law in the house. This all made Adityanath and his wife Smt. Harjinder Kaur very angry with Ravindranath Singh and his wife. 15. PW4 is Subodh Agrawal. He was residing in the same colony. He got a phone call at about 3 AM on that night regarding the commission of crime and was requested to reach at the spot along with his car. Thereafter he reached there and, with the assistance of Ravindranath Singh and another neighbour Prakash Pandey, the injured was shifted to the hospital as has been stated above. He is also the witness of the inquest report and has proved the same. 16. PW5 is Smt. Reena Singh. She is the real younger sister of the deceased. She is also the witness of the facts. She has disclosed about the estranged relations between the son (appellant) and his parents on the question of marriage. PW6 is Dr. BN Singh, who has proved the stab wounds on the dead body of the deceased, as mentioned in the post-mortem report reproduced above. 17. She is also the witness of the facts. She has disclosed about the estranged relations between the son (appellant) and his parents on the question of marriage. PW6 is Dr. BN Singh, who has proved the stab wounds on the dead body of the deceased, as mentioned in the post-mortem report reproduced above. 17. PW7 Ramesh Chand Dwivedi and PW10 Smt. Pratima Shastri are respectively the Purohit and the President of the Arya Samaj Temple Samiti, who have performed and witnessed the marriage of the appellant with Harjinder Kaur on 8.10.2005 in said local temple. They have also deposed that certificate regarding the marriage was issued thereafter. This marriage certificate is Ex. Ka-12. It did not disclose the presence of the informant or the deceased anywhere as the witness of the marriage. 18. PW8 SI Arun Kumar, who was posted at Haldwani at the relevant time, has been produced to prove his presence at the time of inquest in Sushila Tiwari Medical College and Hospital, Haldwani. PW9 Head Constable Rajendra Singh was posted in the Rudrapur Police Station at the relevant date and time and he had copied the FIR in the GD. He has proved the same. PW12 Constable Prayag Ram Arya has proved Ex. Ka-14, the memo which was received at the police station from Amrit Hospital, Rudrapur to inform that Smt. Santosh Singh was brought in the hospital in serious condition as her body was having a number of cut wounds and excessive blood had flown from her body. 19. PW13 Inspector Anand Singh Gusain is the Investigation Officer. On 10.9.2006, he was posted as SHO in Rudrapur Police Station. After completing the investigation, he submitted the chargesheet and has proved the same. 20. PW14 Har Prasad is the Manager of that hotel at Moradabad, where the appellant had checked in on 9.9.2006 mentioning his name as well as the name of Ravindranath Singh as his father. He checked in at 11.30 PM in the hotel on that day. The entry no. 41 of the concerned register has been proved by him. He has also deposed that on the said day, the accused became fresh in the hotel and thereafter left it, but he did not return. So, this fact corroborates the version which has been highlighted in other oral testimony that the accused appellant had returned to his house from Moradabad on that night. He has also deposed that on the said day, the accused became fresh in the hotel and thereafter left it, but he did not return. So, this fact corroborates the version which has been highlighted in other oral testimony that the accused appellant had returned to his house from Moradabad on that night. Accused had also given a telephonic call to his parents informing them about his arrival in their house on that night. 21. PW15 Head Constable Jagmohan Singh is a formal witness, who had brought the memo of death from Sushila Tiwari Medical College and Hospital to the police station and entered the contents of the same in the General Diary, which is Ex. Ka-23. PW16 is Dr. Rajeev Srivastava who has prepared the memo of death of Smt. Santosh Singh, which is Ex. Ka-24. He has proved the same. 22. Moreover, the bloodstained knife, bedsheet, one pair plastic slippers and bloodstained parts of the floor were also recovered by the police. Recovery memo thereof is Ex. Ka-3. These articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. All these articles were found to have blood smeared. Although the blood upon the knife had been disintegrated, but the blood present on the bedsheet, slippers and concrete collected from the room of the incident were found to be human blood. 23. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant has simply denied the entire evidence in a stereotype manner. He has expressed his ignorance regarding the inquest report and the post-mortem report of his mother. 24. So, in view of what has been stated above, we find it not possible to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 Ravindranath Singh, who is none other but the father of the appellant. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the testimony of PW1 is not corroborated by any other witness cannot be accepted because he was the most natural witness, who was present in the house. So, corroboration of the statement of PW1 by any other eyewitness was not required in the present case. 25. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that the culpability of the accused appellant in this macabre killing is proved beyond doubt and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. As such, we find no force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 25. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that the culpability of the accused appellant in this macabre killing is proved beyond doubt and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. As such, we find no force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 26. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Sessions Trial No. 136/2007. Appellant Adityanath Singh is in jail. He is to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with LCR, be sent to the court below for compliance.