JUDGMENT : Ashim Kumar Roy, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, where this appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine with default clause. 2. The allegations against the appellant is this that he in course of altercation with his wife, Razia Bibi, assaulted her and their two years old son with a hammer and killed them. 3. Although prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses to establish its case but during trial, the P.W. 1 their minor daughter, Mofleara Khatoon appears to be its key witness. However, defence examined none and entire allegation was denied and it is claimed that he was falsely implicated. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the order of conviction on the following grounds:- (a) Evidence is insufficient to warrant conviction. (b) FIR was not reliable on the face of the admission by the scribe thereof that he wrote the FIR as dictated by the police. (c) Inquest report was not proved because the inquest witnesses were not examined. (d) The dead body was not identified before the post-mortem Doctor. (e) The post-mortem Doctor was not examined. (f) The allegation of recovery of the hammer at the behest of the accused was not put to him in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (g) Out of fourteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, only one witness, i.e., P.W. 1 claimed that in her presence the victims were assaulted, however in her cross-examination she did not stick to such claim. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Tapash Ghosh first pointed out that while she was deposing in Court she was only aged about 14 years and in her examination-in-chief she vividly described how her mother and brother both were assaulted by her father, the appellant herein. He then submitted there is no reason to disbelieve her as regards to what she stated in her examination-in-chief on the face of strenuous cross-examination, even if she deviates to a little extent. He further pointed out when she was further cross-examined by defence, she categorically denied what she stated in the chief are false. He then submitted there is no reason to disbelieve her as regards to what she stated in her examination-in-chief on the face of strenuous cross-examination, even if she deviates to a little extent. He further pointed out when she was further cross-examined by defence, she categorically denied what she stated in the chief are false. He further submitted that non-examination of the post mortem Doctor is not fatal because the post mortem report has been exhibited in the trial under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the findings of the Autopsy Surgeon as to the nature of the injuries can be taken into consideration to corroborate the eye-witness's account of assault. Lastly, he added at the time when the wife was killed, she was pregnant for nine months, therefore, this is not a case of double murder but this is a case of triple murder. 6. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties. 7. We find that the prosecution case is entirely hinges on the evidence of P.W. 1 the daughter of the appellant. Going through her examination-in-chief, we find, in her chief, she claimed that both her mother and brother were assaulted with a hammer by her father and killed. She further claimed that the accused first assaulted her mother and killed her and then snatched away her brother from her lap and also hit him on his head by the said hammer. However, in cross-examination, at one stage she stated that she did not see the accused, beating her mother by means of hammer and her brother fell down from her lap when she was going to neighbours house hurriedly. 8. Nov from careful consideration of her evidence in cross-examination we find that after she stated that she has not seen her father beating her mother with a hammer and her brother fell down from her lap when she was going to the neighbours house hurriedly, his brother fell down from her lap, she was again suggested by the defence that whatever she stated in her chief was false. However, she at once denied such suggestion and categorically stated that it is not a fact that the appellant did not hit her mother and brother with a hammer. However, she at once denied such suggestion and categorically stated that it is not a fact that the appellant did not hit her mother and brother with a hammer. Now from a plain reading of what she stated in her cross-examination it cannot be said that appellant killed his wife and his son. We find no valid reason to disbelieve her evidence-in-chief that it is the appellant who assaulted the victims and killed them. In this case the post-mortem reports were exhibited through the P.W. 14, Investigating Officer of the case, in terms of the provisions of section 294, Cr. P.C. and without any objection from the side of the defence. The nature of injuries the victims suffered, as it transpires from the post-mortem reports, clearly supports the ocular account of assault as deposed by the P.W. 1. In this case the offending weapon that is the hammer was seized at the behest of the appellant vide the seizure list Exhibit-4 which bears the signature of the appellant. 9. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the appellant very rightly convicted in the trial and the impugned order of conviction and sentence does not deserve any interference. 10. In the result the appeal fails and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below stands sustained. The appellant is now on bail and same stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender within a week from this date to serve out the sentence failing which the Trial Court is directed to take necessary steps in this regard. Office is directed to send down the Lower Court records alongwith copy of this order to the Trial Court immediately. I agree. Appeal Dismissed.