Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2335 (BOM)

Vijay Gahininath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

2014-11-24

A.I.S.CHEEMA, S.S.SHINDE

body2014
JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - original accused, challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under section 302 of the I.P. Code, to suffer imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, as per provision of section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: A lady by name Surekha Vijay Chavan, wife of the accused, was found dead in the house at about 6.30 a.m. on 20th December, 2010. She was taken to the Rural Hospital, Jamkhed. However, after medical examination, she was found in dead condition. Initially, A.D. No. 68/2010 was registered at 9.30 a.m. The concerned Police Officer made an inquiry about the said A.D. An inquest panchanama was prepared. Post-mortem examination was done. The Medical Officer submitted post-mortem report mentioning therein that, the death was due to shock due to head injury due to assault by hard and blunt object. The dead body was cremated and the last rites were performed. 2. The brother of the deceased by name Bhausaheb Nivrutti Gore lodged First Information Report after performing last rites, on 20th December, 2010. The gist of the complaint was that, appellant i.e. original accused used to suspect the character of the deceased and there used to be quarrels between the accused and the deceased and ultimately on 20.12.2010 at about 6.30 a.m. the accused assaulted the deceased with the help of digging instrument called as 'Tikav' on head of Surekha as a result of which the deceased met with the homicidal death. The First Information Report was registered as Crime No. I-261 of 2010 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at about 7.30 p.m. on 20.12.2010. During the course of investigation, panchanama was prepared, the incriminating articles like Tikav, a piece of floor tile and the blood stains were collected from the spot of incident. The clothes of the deceased were also seized. The seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyzer. C.A. Report was received. After recording the evidence, trial Court convicted the appellant accused. Hence this Criminal appeal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, though the alleged offence had taken place at 6.30 a.m., the First Information Report was lodged belatedly at 7.30 p.m. on the date of incident. C.A. Report was received. After recording the evidence, trial Court convicted the appellant accused. Hence this Criminal appeal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, though the alleged offence had taken place at 6.30 a.m., the First Information Report was lodged belatedly at 7.30 p.m. on the date of incident. It is submitted that, no explanation has been offered for delay in lodging the First Information Report. It is submitted that, the evidence of child witness i.e. PW-9 Sayali was not acceptable as trustworthy, since there are contradictions in her evidence. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit & another), reported in (2000) 3 S.C.C. 70 and submits that, "testimony of the child witness should be carefully evaluated and should find corroboration before being relied upon". It is submitted that, the presence of PW-9 at the relevant time in the house itself was doubtful inasmuch as she stated that, she went to the house of the grandmother. The learned Counsel also criticized evidence of the Medical Officer and invited our attention to his cross-examination and submits that, PW-6 Dr. Gahininath Bhaurao Zagade, has admitted that, due to fall of instrument like 'Tikav', there can be head injury. The learned Counsel also criticized evidence of PW-2 Babasaheb Gore, on the ground that, his version in the examination-in-chief is improbable inasmuch as there was no question of appellant going to milk dairy of PW-2 for supplying milk early in the morning. The prosecution has not brought anything on record to suggest that, the appellant supplied milk to PW-2 on the date of incident. It is further submitted that, if two views are possible benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the accused. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance in the case of (Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab), reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 1000. The learned Counsel further pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of (Radhey Sham Vs. State of Rajasthan), reported in (2014) 5 S.C.C. 389 and submitted that, the prosecution case should rest upon evidence led by the prosecution and not on weakness of the defence. 4. State of Punjab), reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 1000. The learned Counsel further pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of (Radhey Sham Vs. State of Rajasthan), reported in (2014) 5 S.C.C. 389 and submitted that, the prosecution case should rest upon evidence led by the prosecution and not on weakness of the defence. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the findings recorded by the trial Court and contends that, trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence on record, reached to the correct conclusion, and therefore, interference in appeal is not warranted. 5. We have given careful consideration to the arguments of the Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent State. With the able assistance of the Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned APP for respondent State, we have carefully perused original record and proceedings so as to re-appreciate the entire evidence. In the facts of this case, three main questions would arise for consideration of this Court; firstly whether deceased Surekha died homicidal or accidental death. Secondly, which is the spot of incident and thirdly, whether there is sufficient evidence led by the prosecution so as to connect the appellant with the commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that, place of death of Surekha was house of the appellant i.e. matrimonial home. It appears that, PW-10 Shattappa Waghmode the Investigating Officer, prepared spot panchanama PW-2 Babasaheb Gore acted as panch for preparation of spot panchanama. It further appears that, Panditrao Shankarrao Chavan was other panch witnesses, however, spot panchanama is proved by the prosecution through PW-2 and PW-10. So far as spot panchanama and recovery from the spot was concerned, PW-2 in his evidence before the Court, stated that, he was called by the Police to act as panch for preparing spot panchanama Panditrao Chavan was the other panch witness. Both of them saw the spot of incident and agricultural instrument called as 'Tikav' was seized from the spot of incident. The tiles of the floor of spot of incident were in broken condition. Blood stains were on that spot. The samples of blood stains were taken with the help of cotton. A piece of tile stained with blood was also seized. The tiles of the floor of spot of incident were in broken condition. Blood stains were on that spot. The samples of blood stains were taken with the help of cotton. A piece of tile stained with blood was also seized. The spot of incident was adjacent to the north of the kitchen of the house of the accused Vijay. He was shown spot panchanama dtd. 20.12.2010. He stated, it bears his signature. Its contents are correct. It also bears the signature of other panch Chavan. It is exhibited as Exh. 22. He further stated that, Article No. 3 was shown to him, which was in sealed condition. The seal affixed was of the slip bearing his signature and signature of other panch. The seal was opened in Court. The piece of tile found in the sealed condition was the same which was seized from the spot of incident. He further stated that, Article No. 2 shown to him is an empty envelop. It is affixed with the slip bearing his signature and signature of other panch. It contained cotton swab by which blood sample was taken from the spot. 6. PW-10 in his evidence has stated material particulars about preparation of spot panchanama. He stated that, he collected blood sample with the help of cotton swab from the place of incident. He also seized the incriminating weapon i.e. Tikav from the spot of incident under panchanama Further from the spot of incident piece of broken tile was seized. This witness has stated further details about seized articles. Same were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. Said articles were seized and sealed after following proper procedure and were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. If the evidence of PW-2 and PW-10 is read conjointly, through them the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that, the spot of incident was house of the appellant. This position is also not challenged by the defence in respect of seized articles from the spot and sending same to the C.A. Receiving of C.A. Report is also proved by the prosecution. 7. Whether the death was accidental or homicidal is the question for consideration. This position is also not challenged by the defence in respect of seized articles from the spot and sending same to the C.A. Receiving of C.A. Report is also proved by the prosecution. 7. Whether the death was accidental or homicidal is the question for consideration. The appellant, in his statement, under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by way of filing written statement has suggested that, the death of Surekha was accidental, at the relevant time he was not in the house and he went to his agricultural field at 6.45 a.m. on 20.12.2010. PW-6 Dr. Gahininath Zagade in his evidence before the Court, stated that, on 20.12.2010, dead body of Surekha Vijay Chavan was brought in their Hospital at about 9 a.m. and he performed post-mortem examination of the dead body between 11.40 a.m. to 12.40 p.m. He expressed following opinion: 1] The dead body was well nourished and cold. Rigor mortis was absent. 2] He found following external injuries on the dead body. Viz. 1. CLW over left parietal region 3 x 1 c.m. x upto bone deep. Straight shape horizontally and irregular averted margins- 2. Depressed fracture over left parietal bone 3 x 1 x upto brain matter. 3. Depressed fracture over occipital bone upper part 4 x 1 x upto brain matter. 4. CLW over upper part of upper occipital region 4 x 1 x upto bone. 5. Contusion over left forehead above left eye 1 1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. 6. Contusion over right forehead 3 x 2 c.m. 7. Abrasion left wrist 2 x 2 c.m. 3] All the above injuries could have been caused within three hours prior to the post-mortem examination. 4] All the above injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object. 5] Injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were dangerous to life and injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were simple injuries. The injuries Nos. 1 to 4 above would be sufficient to cause death in normal course. All the above injuries were ante mortem injuries. 6] He noted following internal injuries as mentioned in Col. No. 19 of PM report. Viz. 1) CLW over parietal region 3 x 1 x upto bone 2) CLW upper part of occipital region 3 x 1 x upto bone. 7] Injury Nos. 1 and 2 above are injuries of scalp. All the above injuries were ante mortem injuries. 6] He noted following internal injuries as mentioned in Col. No. 19 of PM report. Viz. 1) CLW over parietal region 3 x 1 x upto bone 2) CLW upper part of occipital region 3 x 1 x upto bone. 7] Injury Nos. 1 and 2 above are injuries of scalp. 8] He further found the following internal bone injuries of skull. Viz. 1) Depressed fracture left parietal bone 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x upto brain matter. 2) Depressed matter occipital bone upper part. 9] He also found following injuries on brain viz. 1) Laceration - total laceration of left parietal lobe of cerebrum. 2) Laceration of left occipital lobe of cerebral. PW-6 opined that, all the above injuries are corresponding to external injuries noted in column No. 17 of PM report. Said injuries were sufficiently dangerous to cause death in normal course. He further opined that, death in question was due to shock due to head injury due to assault by hard and blunt object. This witness identified his signature on PM report and also original certificate of cause of death. He was shown muddemal article No. 1 i.e. Tikav [digging instrument]. He opined that, external injury Nos. 1 to 4 and corresponding internal injuries mentioned in column No. 17 and 19 of PM report Exh. 32 are possible due to assault with the help of muddemal article No. 1 Tikav by using both sides of the middle round portion of the iron Tikav for assaulting on head. He further opined that, injuries in question are possible due to forceful blow on head by middle round portion of Tikav. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, this witness has stated that, injuries caused to the deceased were within 3 hours before performing P.M. Report and also he has stated in his examination in cross that, if middle portion of Article No. 1 [Tikav] in question hits on head due to fall from the height of about 10 ft. then fracture to head is possible. Upon careful perusal of the cross-examination of this witness, we find, he firmly denied suggestion that, all the above injuries noted in P.M. Report are possible if a person doing some work by standing on a wall or other object of the height of 2 to 3 ft. then fracture to head is possible. Upon careful perusal of the cross-examination of this witness, we find, he firmly denied suggestion that, all the above injuries noted in P.M. Report are possible if a person doing some work by standing on a wall or other object of the height of 2 to 3 ft. falls down forcefully on hard and blunt object. He further denied suggestion that, injuries in question are possible if article No. 1 or such type of heavy instrument falls on the head of person forcible from a height of about 10 ft. He also denied suggestion that, external injury No. 1 mentioned in column No. 17 and corresponding internal injury are possible if a person falls down on a sharp object like cut tiles from a height of 4 to 5 feet. Therefore, evidence of PW-6 Medical Officer makes it abundantly clear that, death of Surekha was homicidal and not accidental as tried to be suggested by the appellant accused. 9. The real question which needs to be answered on the basis of evidence brought on record is, whether the appellant is author of injuries inflicted and as a result Surekhe died. 10. Evidence of PW-5 Bhausaheb Pote and PW-3 Rajendra Pote another brother of deceased Surekha, unequivocally indicates that, the appellant was doubting chastity/character of Surekha. They stated in their evidence that, the appellant - accused used to ill-treat her. Their evidence has been rightly accepted by the trial Court. 11. The daughter of accused and deceased Sayali was examined as PW-9. It appears that, trial Court so as to ascertain whether Sayali is capable to depose before the Court, asked her number of questions, and after ascertaining that, PW-9 is capable to depose, then her evidence was recorded. It appears that, as many as 10 questions were asked to her, so as to ascertain her competency as witness to depose before the Court. PW-9, Sayali in her evidence before the Court stated name of her father, mother and brother and also name of the paternal grandmother. She further deposed that, her paternal grandmother Subhadrabai resides at village Savargaon, adjacent to the house in which she was residing at the time of incident. She stated that, she used to stay at Savargaon along with her Papa, Mummy and Prajwal. She further stated that, Surekha died when she was in 2nd Standard. She further deposed that, her paternal grandmother Subhadrabai resides at village Savargaon, adjacent to the house in which she was residing at the time of incident. She stated that, she used to stay at Savargaon along with her Papa, Mummy and Prajwal. She further stated that, Surekha died when she was in 2nd Standard. Her mummy died at Savargaon in their house. She stated that, Mummy died because her Pappa assaulted Mummy by means of Tikav. She further stated that, Pappa assaulted her Mummy on her head by means of Tikav. She was present on spot when appellant assaulted Surekha. She deposed that, her Mummy sustained bleeding injury on the head. Mummy fell down on the ground due to that blow. She immediately went to the house of her grandmother Subhadrabai and told her that, Mummy had fallen down. Subhadrabai came to their house and took Mummy to Hospital. She further deposed that, appellant assaulted my mother after quarreling with her on that day. The said incident took place at about 7.00 a.m. She also identified the Article No. 1 i.e. Tikav, shown to her before the Court. 12. Evidence of this witness has been challenged by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, on two grounds, firstly, PW-9 did not see the alleged incident and secondly, though she says, no statement was given to the Police by her, PW-10 in his evidence stated that, he recorded statement of PW-9. 13. Her evidence was further challenged on the ground that, at one breath she stated that, there was quarrel between appellant and her mother and then she left to the house of the paternal grandmother, however, in second breath she stated that, she had gone to play with her friends after coming from the house of Subhadrabai. We have carefully perused the cross-examination of this witness, and we are convinced that, this witness was very much present in the house when quarrel was going on between the appellant and Surekha. There is also no contradiction in her evidence as stated by the counsel for the appellant. If evidence of this witness is considered in its entirety, same appears to be trustworthy and can be relied on safely. There is also no contradiction in her evidence as stated by the counsel for the appellant. If evidence of this witness is considered in its entirety, same appears to be trustworthy and can be relied on safely. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that, spot of incident was house of the appellant and presence of PW-9 daughter of the appellant and deceased was natural at the relevant time in her house. The evidence of this witness also finds corroboration from the C.A. Report. It is proved by the prosecution through PW-10 Investigating Officer that, the accused produced his clothes, which were stained with blood. Those clothes were sent to Chemical Analyzer along with the clothes of the deceased as per letter Exh. 45. The clothes of the accused were marked as C-1 and C-2 in the letter Exh. 45. The C.A. report pertaining to those articles is at Exh. 46. The clothes Exh. C-1 and C- 2 are given Exh. Nos. 9 and 10 in the C.A. Report Exh. 46. The report Exh. 46 shows that, human blood of AB group was found on Articles Nos. 9 and 10. Likewise, human blood of AB group was found on incriminating article Tikav Article No. 1, cotton swab Article No. 2, the tile piece Article No. 3 and the clothes of the deceased article Nos. 4 to 8. Thus, the human blood was found on the incriminating articles. The blood was found on the clothes of the deceased as well as on the clothes of the accused. It was of the same group and the accused has failed to explain as to how blood stains of same blood group of that of deceased was found on his clothes. The accused has specifically denied that, Article Nos. 9 and 10 are his clothes. There is no reason to disbelieve evidence of the Investigating Officer to the effect that, Article Nos. 9 and 10 are the clothes of the accused. Thus, the presence of the accused on the spot becomes clear from this piece of evidence, and this evidence corroborates the testimony of child witness Sayali. 14. As already observed, PW-2 has also stated details about spot panchnama and articles recovered and seized from the spot. 15. Evidence of PW-2 Babasaheb Gore is material. Thus, the presence of the accused on the spot becomes clear from this piece of evidence, and this evidence corroborates the testimony of child witness Sayali. 14. As already observed, PW-2 has also stated details about spot panchnama and articles recovered and seized from the spot. 15. Evidence of PW-2 Babasaheb Gore is material. As already observed, he has acted as panch for spot panchanama and recovery of the articles from the spot of incident. In his evidence before the Court, he stated that, he does not know the details about reasons, why and how Surekha died. However, it appears that, when his police statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, he did mention that, the accused Vijay himself made extrajudicial confession about the commission of offence before him. Though, he denied in his evidence before the Court that, no such extrajudicial confession about commission of offence was given by the accused appellant. Upon perusal of evidence of PW-10 Shattappa Waghmode, Investigating Officer, it is clear that, in his evidence he stated that, he recorded statement of Babasaheb Nivrutti Gore. Portion marked 'A' shown to him out of his statement was stated by PW-2 before this witness and same was correctly recorded. The said portion 'A' is marked as Exhibit 43. Therefore, to the extent of denying about extra judicial confession given by the accused Vijay, this witness was declared hostile and then cross-examined by APP through evidence of PW-10, the portion marked 'A' from the police statement of this witness was confronted to him, though it was denied by him, same is proved by the prosecution through Investigating Officer i.e. PW-10. The portion marked 'A', reads thus: This witness has stated in material particulars about fact that, on the date of incident, he did see appellant Vijay. He has also stated in his examination in cross and also in the examination in chief that, the daughter of the accused Vijay came to him, they requested him for taking Surekha to the Hospital. If his statement in cross-examination is considered in its entirety, there are minor contradictions, which are not substantial in nature. His evidence before the Court makes it abundantly clear that, he went to the spot and he noticed the injuries on the head of Surekha. He along with PW-7 mother of the appellant took Surekha in the Civil Hospital, Jamkhed by his pick up van. His evidence before the Court makes it abundantly clear that, he went to the spot and he noticed the injuries on the head of Surekha. He along with PW-7 mother of the appellant took Surekha in the Civil Hospital, Jamkhed by his pick up van. The presence of the accused on the date of incident during morning hours was noticed by this witness. Even this witness has stated that, he opens milk collecting center at 6.00 a.m., and therefore, his presence in the milk collection diary was very much there on the date of incident. He has further deposed that, house of the appellant is at a distance about 500 to 600 feet from his milk collection center. He was well acquainted with the accused appellant. 16. PW-7 mother of the appellant turned hostile, however, the prosecution through Investigating Officer i.e. PW-10 has proved portion marked 'A' and 'B' from her police statement. Portion marked 'A' and 'B' from her police statement marked by the trial Court reads thus: PW-10 when confronted with portion marked 'A' and 'B' reproduced herein above from the police statement of PW-7, deposed that, PW-7 did narrate the said portion and same was correctly recorded by him, which was exhibited as Exh. 42. It appears that, PW-1 and PW-4 were panchas to the seizure panchanama of the clothes of the accused, however, they turned hostile, but, the prosecution has proved seizure of clothes through PW-10 Investigation Officer. 17. PW-8 Devidas Dnyandeo Gavade, at the relevant time, working as Police Head Constable, was examined. His evidence is to the, effect that, he registered the complaint in the Police Station. He was on duty at the relevant time in Jamkhed Police Station. It further appears that, the clothes of the accused were sent to Chemical Analyzer along with clothes of the deceased as per letter Exh. 45. The clothes of the accused were marked as C-1 and C-2 in the letter Exh. 45. The C.A. Report pertaining to those articles is at Exh. 46. The clothes Exh. C-1 and C-2 are given Exh. Nos. 9 and 10 in the C.A. Report Exh. 46. The report Exh. 46 shows that human blood of AB group was found on Articles Nos. 9 and 10. 45. The C.A. Report pertaining to those articles is at Exh. 46. The clothes Exh. C-1 and C-2 are given Exh. Nos. 9 and 10 in the C.A. Report Exh. 46. The report Exh. 46 shows that human blood of AB group was found on Articles Nos. 9 and 10. Likewise, human blood of AB group was found on incriminating article Tikav Article No. 1, cotton swab Article No. 2, the piece of tile Article No. 3 and the clothes of the deceased Article Nos. 4 to 8. Thus, the human blood which was found on the incriminating articles, the floor and the clothes of the deceased was also found on the clothes of the accused. It was of the same group and the accused has failed to explain as to how said blood stains are found on his clothes. It appears that, while sending these clothes, proper procedure was followed, and not only that but the blood was taken from the body of the deceased for sending it to C.A. The C.A. Report fully corroborates substantial evidence of prosecution witnesses and in particular PW-9. 18. Admittedly, the spot of incident was house of the appellant. The prosecution has established beyond doubts that, death of Surekha was in the house of the appellant. PW-9 deposed that, there was quarrel between appellant and her mother, and thereafter, incident had taken place. It further appears that, PW-2 and PW-7 arrived along with PW-9 in the house and they also noticed that, Surekha was lying on floor and sustained injuries on head. It appears that, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code stated that, at the relevant time, he was in his agricultural field. According to him, on 20.12.2010 i.e. date of incident at about 6.45 a.m. after having bath, he started to go for agricultural field and at that time, wife Surekha was doing house work. When he went to the field, he received message from the persons taking Surekha to the Hospital that, Surekha fell down on floor and sustained head injuries, and the said incident was accidental, and had happened in his absence when he was in his agricultural field. It is true that, accused can take defence of simply denial and prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden is on the prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that, accused can take defence of simply denial and prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden is on the prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the facts of the present case, when the death occurred in the house of the appellant and appellant did not deny his presence during the morning hours in the house, it was for him to explain under which circumstance death of Surekha occurred. His defence that, Surekha died accidental death is completely ruled out and deserves no consideration in view of the evidence of PW-6 Medical Officer before the Court. PW-6 has completely ruled out possibility of accidental death and firmly stated on the basis of P.M. Report that, death of Surekha was homicidal. It is true that, in the present case, PW-9 Sayali, daughter of the appellant, has firmly stated that, she saw father quarreling with the mother and about actual incident. However, even if her evidence is kept aside for the time being, section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act puts onus on the accused to explain under which circumstances wife died in his house. When the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act that, deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused, and death of Surekha was within exclusive knowledge of the appellant accused, since same occurred in the house of the appellant. The appellant accused was bound to offer his explanation under which circumstances Surekha died. Since those facts were within his exclusive knowledge. In the present case, accused stated that, Surekha died accidental death. The conduct of the appellant accused taking false defence in spite of the fact that, he killed Surekha, such conduct of the accused is one of the additional circumstance which can be added in the chain of circumstances against the accused. 19. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the firm view that, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt through prosecution witnesses that, death of Surekha occurred in the house of the appellant. Appellant was seen quarreling with Surekha on the said date at the relevant time as stated by the PW-9. 19. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the firm view that, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt through prosecution witnesses that, death of Surekha occurred in the house of the appellant. Appellant was seen quarreling with Surekha on the said date at the relevant time as stated by the PW-9. Thereafter, after PW-9 went to PW-7 and PW-2 and they came to the house of the appellant and saw that, Surekha was lying on the floor having injury on her head and blood was oozing from the said injuries. PW-2 in his evidence, stated that, he along with others took Surekha to the Hospital at Jamkhed, however, she was declared dead in the Hospital. PW-6 in his evidence has stated in detail about external and internal injuries and firmly expressed his opinion that, death occurred due to shock due to head injury due to assault by hard and blunt object, and the death was homicidal. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that, accused inflicted injuries on Surekha and as a result of it, she died. The fact that, the appellant used Article No. 1 [Tikav] to kill Surekha is the indicative of the fact that, assault was with an intention to kill her. The possession of Article No. 1 [Tikav] in the house, however, was natural, since the appellant in addition to agricultural work was also working as mason. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, we find that, findings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence on record and there is no perversity as such and the trial Court has reached to the correct conclusion and rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P. Code. In the result, appeal sans merit, and hence dismissed.