Sneh Prashar, J. 1. The accused/appellant-Ranjhe Khan was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Precisely, the story presented by the prosecution was that Smt. Rani (since deceased) was married to Ranjhe Khan (accused/appellant) of village Akhara about 15 years ago. They had three sons namely Sonu, Kala and Deepu. Sometime prior to the occurrence in question, a buffalo and bitch of Madaan Khan, elder brother of Ranjhe Khan had died regarding which Madaan Khan had got registered a case against Smt. Rani. On 07.08.2004 at about 6:00 pm Sonu telephoned in the neighbourhood of Daler Deen (brother of Smt. Rani) and left message asking Daler Deen to ring him back. Daler Deen contacted Sonu on telephone, who informed that his Sister-Smt. Rani had died at about 3:30 pm in Civil Hospital, Jagraon. On the next day i.e. 08.08.2004 Daler Deen reached village, Akhara at about 10.00 am. By then, the dead body had been buried in the graveyard. On the next day, when he again visited village Akhara he came to know that his sister-Smt. Rani had been murdered by her husband-Ranjhe Khan, brother-in-law-Maddan Khan and son of her brother-in-law namely Rafiq Khan. Niece of Daler Deen namely Raju also told him about the murder of Smt. Rani. Daler Deen lodged a complaint with the police. He stated that the motive for murdering his sister was that because Madaan Khan had got registered a case against Smt. Rani, she used to stop her husband-Ranjhe Khan to have relations with Madaan Khan. 2. A case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On 12.08.2004 deadbody of Smt. Rani was exhumed from the graveyard in the presence of Sh. Daljit Singh Chhina, Tehsildar, Jagraon and was sent for post mortem examination. The appellant-Ranjhe Khan was arrested but the other two persons Madaan Khan and Rafiq Khan named in the FIR were not arrested/challaned. 3. The appellant-Ranjhe Khan was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined all witnesses namely PW 1 - Dr. Sarwan Singh, PW 2 - Dr. 3. The appellant-Ranjhe Khan was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined all witnesses namely PW 1 - Dr. Sarwan Singh, PW 2 - Dr. Sukhdev Singh, PW 3 - Daler Deen, PW 4 - Laddi Khan, PW 5 - Ran Singh, PW 6 - Rajo, PW 7 - Inspector Mohinder Kumar, PW 8 - Rajia Begam, PW 9 - Parveen Kaur, PW 10 - Darshan Singh, PW 11 - Constable Tarsem Singh, PW 12 - HC Gulzar Singh, PW 13 - Daljit Singh Chinna and PW 14 - Tarsem Lal for substantiating its allegations. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded false implication but did not lead any evidence in defence. Appellant-Ranjhe Khan was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred the instant appeal. 4. The accusation against the appellant was that on 07.08.2004 he murdered his wife Smt. Rani aged 30 years by setting her a fire. However, learned counsel for the appellant emphatically argued that the appellant was innocent and had been falsely framed by brothers of Smt. Rani by representing her death as a murder. The witnesses on whose testimony the case of the prosecution rested were all near relations i.e. brothers, sister and niece etc. of the deceased and therefore they were all interested witnesses. Otherwise also for various reasons the testimony of none of the witnesses of the prosecution deserves to be believed. Admittedly, PW 3 - Daler Deen complainant, PW 4 - Laddi Khan both brothers of the deceased and PW 5 - Ran Singh, uncle of the deceased, were not eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Their testimony is nothing but an account of imagination and hearsay evidence. It was in their presence that the dead body of Smt. Rani was buried appellant and his family. At that time they had no grudge against the appellant and also did not suspect any foul play in the death of Smt. Rani. 5. Elaborating his argument learned counsel pointed out that the only witness on whom the prosecution could depend upon was PW 6 - Rajo a small girl aged about 4/5 years at the time of occurrence, who was introduced as an eye-witness. 5. Elaborating his argument learned counsel pointed out that the only witness on whom the prosecution could depend upon was PW 6 - Rajo a small girl aged about 4/5 years at the time of occurrence, who was introduced as an eye-witness. Her statement was so fluctuating and infirm that she proved to be a tutored witness on being cross-examined. She admitted that her uncle had told her the statement to be made in Court on that day. She also stated that when she made statement before the police she did not tell them that Ranjhe Khan had given a sabbal blow to Smt. Rani, rather she admitted that the police told her about the blow with Sabbal on that day. Learned counsel contended that the said admissions and the inconsistencies in the statement of PW 6 - Rajo render her statement unreliable. Learned counsel further urged that the appellant and deceased-Smt. Rani had three sons aged 11 years, 9 years and 7 years as was stated by PW 4 - Laddi Khan. None out of the three sons, who must be present in the house, was joined as witness during investigation or was examined by the prosecution to prove its allegations. PW 4 - Laddi Khan admitted that when they reached the house of his sister - Smt. Rani her sons were present in the house and when they inquired about the cause of death of their mother, they replied that she fell from the ladder. Meaning thereby, that according to the sons of the deceased also she died due to the injury suffered by her as a result of fall from the ladder. In the above context, statement of PW 2 - Dr. Sukhdev Singh Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagraon was also referred to by learned counsel. PW 2 stated that Smt. Rani was admitted in the hospital by him and that the patient had come with the history of fall from height two hours back. He also mentioned that the patient was conscious at that time. Learned counsel contended that it was not the version of PW 2 that Smt. Rani controverted the history of fall from height given to him. It being so there remains no doubt that the injury which proved fatal to the life of Smt. Rani was suffered by her as a result of fall from height. 6. Learned counsel contended that it was not the version of PW 2 that Smt. Rani controverted the history of fall from height given to him. It being so there remains no doubt that the injury which proved fatal to the life of Smt. Rani was suffered by her as a result of fall from height. 6. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant do not appear to be forceful in the light of evidence available on record. The allegation against the appellant was supported not only by direct evidence offered by PW 6 - Rajo, a child witness, but also by strong circumstantial evidence. Indeed, as stated by PW 3 complainant Daler Deen his sister Smt. Rani died on 07.08.2004 and was buried on 08.08.2004. According to PW 2 - Dr. Sukhdev Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagraon, Smt. Rani was brought to the hospital on 07.08.2004 and as per nothings in Ex-PE i.e. admission record, she had reached the hospital at 12:45 pm and the history of the injury on her person given was "fall from a height two hours back". However, the matter was not so simple as it was represented. 7. PW 3 - Daler Deen deposed that on the third day when they went to village Akhara to perform certain last rites of his sister they came to know that accused Ranjhe Khan, his brother Madaan Khan and Rafiq Khan son of Madaan Khan had murdered his sister Rani. He immediately lodged a compliant with the police on which FIR Ex-PF was registered. On an application given by the police the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon passed the order Ex-PG on 12.08.2004 directing the Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar) to accompany the police for exhuming the dead body of Smt. Rani from the graveyard. Another application Ex-PD given by the police was forwarded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon to Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagraon on which vide order Ex. PD/1 Dr. Sarwan Singh and Dr. Sukhdev Singh were directed to conduct post-mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Rani. Another application Ex-PD given by the police was forwarded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon to Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagraon on which vide order Ex. PD/1 Dr. Sarwan Singh and Dr. Sukhdev Singh were directed to conduct post-mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Rani. PW 7 - Inspector Mohinder Kumar in the presence of PW 10 - Darshan Singh Sarpanch of village Akhara, PW 13 - Dajit Singh Chinna, Tehsildar Jagraon and the doctors named above and other respectables of village Akhara on identification of the graveyard by PW 3 - complainant Daler Deen exhumed the dead body of Smt. Rani from the grave. The dead body was got identified and photographed. Inquest report Ex-PC was prepared and at the spot the doctors conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body. The viscera and the clothes of the deceased duly sealed, along with the documents in a sealed envelop were handed over by the doctor to PW 7 - Inspector Mohinder Kumar and thereafter, the dead body was again buried . 8. The post mortem examination was conducted by PW 1 - Dr. Sarwan Singh and his companion Dr. Sukhdev Singh which unveiled the cause of death of Smt. Rani. PW 1 proved the postmortem examination report Ex-PB and the pictorial diagram Ex-PB/1 showing the seats of injuries stated as under. "There was fracture dislocation of C-5 and C-6 vertebrae underlying spinal cord contueed. Brain was partially liquefied. Abdomen sweelen on dissection foul smelling gas came out. Other organs were healthy. I also sent for the chemical examination, 1. part of stomach and its contents, 2. part of small large intestine, 3. Part of liver spleen and kidney, 4. Part of blood, 5. Part of saturated solution used for preserving." In the postmortem examination report, the cause of death was recorded as under: "The cause of death in this case in our opinion was most likely to be due to cervico-spinal injuries as described, subject to the report of chemical examiner. I handed over to the police Carboncopy of the PMR, dead body after PM, a bucket having 20 seals, containing viscera as detailed above, an envelop having six seals containing a) police papers, having 26 pages, b) carbon copy of the PMR No. SS/9/04 dt. 12.08.2004, c) forwarding letter to the chemical examiner, and belongings of the deceased." 9. I handed over to the police Carboncopy of the PMR, dead body after PM, a bucket having 20 seals, containing viscera as detailed above, an envelop having six seals containing a) police papers, having 26 pages, b) carbon copy of the PMR No. SS/9/04 dt. 12.08.2004, c) forwarding letter to the chemical examiner, and belongings of the deceased." 9. Another important portion of the statement of PW 1 - Dr. Sarwan Singh is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Probable time between the injuries and death and seven to eight hours as per the record and between death and post mortem five days as per the record. After receipt of the report of chemical examiner, which is Ex-PA, the cause of death in this case was cervico spinal injuries along with organophosphus poisoning." It is crystal clear from the above opinion of the doctors based on the postmortem examination report and the report of the Chemical examiner Ex-PA that the cause of death of deceased-Smt. Rani was (i) cervico spinal injuries and (ii) Organophosphorus Hence, it was not only the cervico spinal injuries suffered by the deceased which proved fatal to her life, but it was also proved from the chemical analysis of stomach, small and large intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, heart, lungs and blood of the deceased that she had been poisoned. 10. On 07.08.2004, while admitting deceased-Smt. Rani in the hospital, the history given was fall from a height. PW 2 - Dr. Sukhdev Singh who admitted Smt. Rani, could not tell the name of the person by whom she was brought to the hospital but it was mentioned on the medical slip on which PW 2 - Dr. Sukhdev Singh wrote the note Ex-PE/1 referring the patient to Dr. Bansal for further investigation that "the seriousness of the patient's condition had been explained to her husband". The said note bears the left thumb impression of appellant-Ranjhe Khan. PW 2 - Dr. Sukhdev Singh also stated that as per record the attendant of the patient was her husband-Ranjhe Khan. From the said medical record, the presence of appellant in the hospital with his wife deceased-Smt. Rani stands established. At the same time, it is also proved that the appellant intentionally concealed that Smt. Rani had consumed/had been administered poison. Sukhdev Singh also stated that as per record the attendant of the patient was her husband-Ranjhe Khan. From the said medical record, the presence of appellant in the hospital with his wife deceased-Smt. Rani stands established. At the same time, it is also proved that the appellant intentionally concealed that Smt. Rani had consumed/had been administered poison. When the factum of poison was concealed, nothing more was required to conclude that a false history of injury was given to the doctor. 11. The above facts need further consideration in the light of testimony of PW 6 - Rajo, the child witness. On the date of her statement i.e. 22.11.2006, she stated her age as seven years which means that on the date of occurrence i.e. 07.08.2004 she was 4/5 years old. Before recording her statement learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana had put a number of general questions to her to which she answered rationally. Observing that she did not understand the sanctity of oath her statement was recorded without oath. PW 6 - Rajo deposed that the appellant-Ranjhe Khan was her "dady" and Smt. Rani was her "mummy". It was about to rain and Rani was collecting clothes at the roof top. Ranjhe Khan pulled Rani from her hairs and gave a blow with Sabbal on the back side of her neck. She added that Ranjhe Khan also gave kick blows on the lower back of Rani and Rani died. Importantly, she added that she narrated the said occurrence to the police. 12. As pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, during cross-examination PW 6 - Rajo spoke some inconsistent sentences, but in one considered opinion that they only show that because of her tender age she got confused by the questions put to her. She categorically stated that her father or mother did not tell her as to what statement was to be made by her in the Court. She also specifically deposed that she narrated the occurrence to the police long time ago when she was about three years old. She categorically stated that her father or mother did not tell her as to what statement was to be made by her in the Court. She also specifically deposed that she narrated the occurrence to the police long time ago when she was about three years old. She might have stated that the police told her that day about the blow with the Sabbal given by appellant-Ranjhe Khan, but at the same time she unerringly narrated the occurrence and stated that the appellant had pulled the hair of Smt. Rani and had given her a blow with Sabbal on the back side of her neck. The statement given by her stands corroborated by medical evidence. As such, there is no reason to discard or disbelieve her testimony. 13. As far as presence of PW 6 - Rajo in the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence is concerned that was proved by PW 8 - Rajia Begum mother of Rajo, who stated that Sonu son of his sister Rani had taken Rajo with him to his village Akhara on 02.08.2004. PW 6 - Rajo also stated that she was taken to the house of appellant and Smt. Rani by Sonu. However, neither to PW 6 - Rajo nor to PW 8 - Rajia Begum it was suggested by the appellant that Rajo was not in the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code also the appellant did not raise the plea that Rajo was not present in his house on the day his wife fell from the wooden ladder accidentally and died as was his version. 14. Importantly, giving explanation for the occurrence, the appellant stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that his wife fell from the wooden ladder accidentally in the presence of his elder son Sonu and on information he came home and took his wife to Civil Hospital, Jagraon and got her admitted there. Sonu was the eldest son of the appellant and as stated by PW 4 - Laddi Khan he was 11 years old when the occurrence took place. The appellant could easily produce him in the witness box to prove how deceased-Smt. Rani suffered the injury which led to her death. Sonu was the eldest son of the appellant and as stated by PW 4 - Laddi Khan he was 11 years old when the occurrence took place. The appellant could easily produce him in the witness box to prove how deceased-Smt. Rani suffered the injury which led to her death. In any case, it was not only the absence of Sonu from the witness box but also non explanation of the poison found to be present in the body of the deceased which caused her death that the conduct of the appellant, which was so unnatural and suspicious, proves that he murdered his wife Smt. Rani by administering poison to her and also by inflicting an injury with a Sabbal on the back of her neck. 15. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, may be close relations of the deceased but that was no ground to suspect their credibility. They deposed the facts in sequence as things happened in their presence. If it was true that they remained silent spectators at the first instance when the dead body was buried , it also stands established through conclusive and substantive evidence that when they came to know about the foul play in the death of Smt. Rani they left no stone unturned to get revealed the truth and therefore they were certainly reliable witnesses. In the above premises, the findings of learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. There being no ground for intervention in the order of sentence awarded to the appellant, that too is upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.