JUDGMENT : I.A. ANSARI, J. 1. Under the judgment, dated 11.8.2009, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 854 of 2005, by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, at Bettiah, the accused-appellant, Kanhaiya Patel, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant, Kanhaiya Patel, has been sentenced, under the order, dated 12.8.2009, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as under:- (i) Accused Kanhaiya Patel, son-in-law of the first informant, Jagdish Prasad (PW-5), had married Ragini Devi (since deceased). The couple had two children, namely, Poonam Kumari (PW-3), aged about 7 years and Kundan Kumar Patel (PW-4), aged about 6 years. While Nathu Patel is the elder brother of accused Kanhaiya Patel and Saraswati Devi (PW-2) is wife of Nathu Patel, Bimla Devi (PW-1) is mother of accused Kanhaiya Patel. (ii) On 1.8.2005, at about 3:30 PM, Kanhaiya Patel, accompanied by his mother, Bimla Devi (PW-1), reached the house of his elder brother, Nathu Patel, and also called there his wife, Ragini Devi and his children, Poonam Kumari (PW-3) and Kundan Kumar Patel (PW-4). (iii) When Kanhaiya Patel's wife, Ragini Devi, reached the house of Nathu Patel, accused Kanhaiya Patel told his sister-in-law, Saraswati Devi (PW-2), his children and his mother, Bimla Devi (PW-1), that he had to talk to his wife alone and then, took his wife, Ragini Devi, to a room, which was about 10 feet long and had two doors. Though the room was used as place of worship, a cot was also lying there. Having entered into the room with his wife, accused Kanhaiya Patel closed the door of the room from inside. (iv) When no sound was heard coming from inside, accused Kanhaiya Patel's children, namely, Poonam Kumari and Kundan Kumar Patel, out of curiosity and concern, peeped through crevasse of the door and found that their father, accused Kanhaiya Patel, was sitting on their mothers abdomen and was pressing her neck. (iv) When no sound was heard coming from inside, accused Kanhaiya Patel's children, namely, Poonam Kumari and Kundan Kumar Patel, out of curiosity and concern, peeped through crevasse of the door and found that their father, accused Kanhaiya Patel, was sitting on their mothers abdomen and was pressing her neck. (v) On noticing the ghastly scene, the children told Saraswati Devi (PW-2) and their grand-mother, Bimla Devi (PW-1), what was happening inside the room, whereupon Saraswati Devi (PW-2), too, peeped through the crevasse of the door and saw Kanhaiya Patel throttling his wife. On hearing hulla raised by the children of the accused, their neighbours came rushing and they tried to forcibly open the door. In the meanwhile, accused Kanhaiya Patel fled away from the other door of the room. The people, who were present there, opened the door by breaking open the bolt of the door and found Ragini Devi's body lying lifeless. Though Ragini Devi was taken to the Government Hospital, the doctor declared her (Ragini Devi) dead. (vi) On being orally informed about the occurrence, police arrived at the house of accused Kanhaiya Patel and recorded the statement of PW-5 (Jagdish Prasad) in the form of latter's fardbeyan and, treating the said fardbeyan as First Information Report, Shikarpur Police Station Case No. 193 of 2005 was registered, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against sole accused, Kanhaiya Patel. (vii) During investigation, inquest was held on Ragini Devi's dead body, which was also subjected to post-mortem examination and on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against accused Kanhaiya Patel. 3. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against accused Kanhaiya Patel, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that Ragini Devi died due to illness and the accused had been falsely implicated to grab his property. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. Having, however, arrived at the finding that accused Kanhaiya Patel had been proved guilty of the charge framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly. Following his conviction, sentence has been passed against the convict as mentioned above. 6. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the convict, Kanhaiya Patel, has preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Counsel, appearing as Amicus Curiae. We have also heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, leaned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. 8. While considering the present appeal, let us, first, come to the evidence of Dr. Kumar Mukund Prasad Parwe (PW-8), who had, admittedly, conducted post-mortem examination, on 2.8.2005, at 9:55 AM, at M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah, on Ragini Devi's dead body. According to the evidence of the doctor (PW-8), he had found following injuries. "Ante mortem injuries:- 1. One abrasion ½" x ¼" over the middle part of inner spect of upper lip. 2. Multiple bruises of various sizes over the front of neck, over right and left side of neck. 3. One bruise over left side of the chin. On Dissection: Skull-meninges and brain were found congested. Neck – underline substances, tissues was ecchymosed and showed extra vasation of blood. Neck, muscles, larynx and trachea were bruised and congested, and contained frothy blood stains mucous in its numen. Both lungs were congested. Heart-right chamber full and Left chamber empty. Abdomen-Stomach empty, liver, spleen and both kidneys were congested. Urinary bladder – empty. Uterus-none gravida." 9. In the opinion of the doctor (PW-8), the injuries above mentioned were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling. In his cross-examination, the doctor (PW-8) has clarified that throttling was done by hand. The doctor has denied the suggestion of the defence that Ragini Devi died, because of illness. 10. Considering the fact that the findings of the doctor (PW-8) could not be shaken, we are clearly of the view that Ragini Devi met with homicidal death. 11. In his cross-examination, the doctor (PW-8) has clarified that throttling was done by hand. The doctor has denied the suggestion of the defence that Ragini Devi died, because of illness. 10. Considering the fact that the findings of the doctor (PW-8) could not be shaken, we are clearly of the view that Ragini Devi met with homicidal death. 11. The question, however, remains: whether the accused-appellant, Kanhaiya Patel, was the one, who had put to death his wife, Ragini Devi, and committed thereby the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code? 12. Bearing in mind what has been indicated above, let us enter into the discussion of the ocular evidence on record. 13. We notice that according to the evidence of PW-2 (Saraswati Devi), wife of Nathu Patel, elder brother of the accused, on the day of occurrence, when she was at home, the accused took his wife, Ragini Devi, to a room and the two children of the accused-appellant also followed them, but the accused asked them to remain outside the room, because he had something private to talk to his wife. It is in the evidence of PW-2 that while the accused and his wife entered into the room, she and the children of the accused remained outside, where her mother-in-law (i.e. mother of the accused-appellant, examined as PW-1), too, came and, in the meanwhile, accused closed the door. It is also in the evidence of PW-2 that Kundan Kumar Patel (PW-4), son of the accused, when peeped into the room from the crevasses of the door and, having seen that his father was pressing the neck of his mother, Ragini Devi, raised alarm, she (PW-2), too, peeped into the room and saw that accused was pressing Ragini Devi's neck. On hearing hulla, people came and broke the door open, but the accused ran away from front gate of the house. It is the further evidence of PW-2 that Ragini Devi was taken to hospital, but the doctor declared her dead. 14. In her cross-examination, PW-2 (Saraswati Devi) has clarified that her house is a two-room house and that each room has one door with no windows. PW-2 has deposed that the doors are made of wood, but there are cracks in the door. 14. In her cross-examination, PW-2 (Saraswati Devi) has clarified that her house is a two-room house and that each room has one door with no windows. PW-2 has deposed that the doors are made of wood, but there are cracks in the door. In her further cross-examination, PW-2 has made it amply clear that in the room, wherein the occurrence had taken place, there are two doors and that in the said room, there is a bed and also a place of worship. PW-2 has clarified, in her evidence, that when the door was broken open, accused fled away. PW-2 has also clarified, in her evidence, that her husband, Nathu Patel, elder brother of the accused, was not present at home at that point of time. 15. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW-2, but do not find that material aspects of her evidence could be shaken by the defence. Nothing exists on record to show that PW-2 had any inimical relation with the accused so as to falsely implicate him. In fact, except offering suggestion that she (PW-2) was not a witness to the occurrence and she (PW-2) had falsely implicated the accused in order to grab his property, the defence did not even dispute the factual aspects of her evidence that at the time of the occurrence, the accused was present in the house of PW-2 with his wife, Ragini Devi, in the very room, where there were two doors, which had a bed and also a place of worship, coupled with the fact that on hearing hulla, their neighbours came and when the door was broken open, the dead body of Ragini Devi was found lying on the bed. The only dispute was whether the accused had throttled to death his wife or not. 16. Situated thus, we see no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of PW-2. 17. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW-2 is the evidence of PW-4 (Kundan Kumar Patel), son of the deceased, aged about 8-9 years. The learned trial Court has recorded that PW-4 (Kundan Kumar Patel) is able to read and write and he is also able to understand the questions put to him. These findings of the learned trial Court are not in dispute before this Court. 18. The learned trial Court has recorded that PW-4 (Kundan Kumar Patel) is able to read and write and he is also able to understand the questions put to him. These findings of the learned trial Court are not in dispute before this Court. 18. As regards the occurrence, the evidence of PW-4 is that while he was at his home, his father accompanied by his grand-mother, Bimla Devi (PW-1), came from Ram Nagar and went to the house of his (i.e. accused Kanhaiya Patel's) elder brother, where the accused called him (PW-4), his sister (PW-3) and his mother, Ragini Devi and then, the accused told the aunt of PW-4 (i.e. PW-2) that he (accused-appellant) had to have some private talks with his wife and, accordingly, took PW-4 mother (i.e. Ragini Devi) to a room and closed the door. It is in the evidence of PW-4 that when they called from outside, no one responded from inside the room, whereupon he (PW-4) and his sister (PW-3) stood up on a chair and peeped through the hole of the door inside the room. 19. Describing as to what he had witnessed inside the said room, PW-4 has deposed that he saw his father pressing his mothers neck and, on witnessing the scene inside the room, he (PW-4) and his sister (PW-3) started crying and their grant-mother (PW-1) and aunt (PW-2) came and, then, his father ran away from the other door. 20. It is also in the evidence of PW-4 that his aunt (PW-2) took his mother to hospital, but his mother died on the way. PW-4 has also asserted, in his evidence, that his father, Kanhaiya Prasad Patel, had killed his mother. 21. In his cross-examination, PW-4 (Kundan Kumar Patel) has clarified that there was a hole in the upper part of the door and through the said hole, he (PW-4) was the first person, who had seen what was happening inside the room, and, on the hulla being raised by him (PW-4), his grandfather, Jagdish Prasad, also came. Explaining further how the door of the said room was opened, PW-4 has deposed that the bolt was opened with the help of a screw-driver, but he could not recollect as to who had opened the bolt. Explaining further how the door of the said room was opened, PW-4 has deposed that the bolt was opened with the help of a screw-driver, but he could not recollect as to who had opened the bolt. It is also in the evidence of PW-4 that having opened the door, people entered into the room and saw his mother, who was not talking, and she had some injury on her cheek. 22. Though PW-4 has admitted that he was brought to the Court by his grand-father, he has denied that his mother had died of illness and that his grandfather and his uncle had falsely implicated the accused and/or that he (PW-4) had not seen the occurrence and had falsely implicated his father, i.e. accused Kanhaiya Patel, as asked by his grandfather and his uncle. 23. No doubt, the evidence of a child witness needs to be closely examined and carefully appreciated for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity or otherwise of the child witness's evidence. 24. In the case at hand, apart from the fact that the learned trial Court has recorded to the effect that PW-4 (Kundan Kumar Patel) has developed requisite understanding to answer questions, the tenor of his cross-examination by the defence shows that he had been put questions, which he would not have been able to answer if he was a tutored witness. Moreover, there is no reason for PW-4 to falsely implicate his father nor is there any reason for others in the family to falsely implicate the appellant, when, according to the evidence on record, the property of the appellant and his brother, Nathu Patel, already stood partitioned before the occurrence took place. 25. Considered thus, we find no reason to disbelieve PW-4, though he is a child witness. 26. Broadly in tune with the evidence of her brother, PW-4 (Kundan Kumar Patel), the evidence of Poonam Kumari (PW-3), daughter of the accused, aged about 7 years, is that about a year back, while she was at home, her father, i.e. the accused-appellant, came from Ram Nagar and, on coming to the house of her aunt, called them i.e. the children and their mother (Ragini Devi) and told that he had private talks with her (Poonam Kumari's) mother. It is in the evidence of this witness (PW-3) that her father asked them to leave and when they all came out, her father closed the door from inside and, after a little while, they (children) stood up on a table and peeped into the room through the crevasse and saw her father sitting on the abdomen of her mother and pressing her mothers neck. 27. It is also in the evidence of PW-3 that they started raising hulla, whereupon people came there and tried to open the door of the said room, but her father fled away from the back door and, thereafter, the persons, who had assembled there, carried her mother to hospital and when they brought back her mother from the hospital, they said that her mother was dead. 28. In her cross-examination, PW-3 has clarified that since the door remained closed for about ten minutes, they stood up on a small table and peeped through the crevasse of the door to find out what was happening inside and, when the people assembled, the door was pushed, the bolt of the door got broken and, then, many persons entered inside the room and, at that time, her mother was not speaking. PW-3 has denied that she has given evidence as has been tutored by her grand-father. 29. It has been pointed out, on behalf of the appellant, that in her evidence, since PW-2 (Saraswati Devi) has deposed that there are two rooms in her house and rooms has one door each, the evidence of PW-3 that the accused-appellant had runaway from back door is not correct. The argument, so advanced, loses sight of the fact that while it is, indeed, in the evidence of PW-2 (Saraswati Devi), sister-in-law of the accused, that there are two rooms in the house and these rooms have one door each, it is also in the evidence of PW-2 that there are two doors in the room, where the occurrence had taken place, the room being about 10 feet long, where there is a bed and also a place of worship. The evidence, so given, has not been denied and/or disputed by the defence meaning thereby that the room, where the occurrence had taken place and where Ragini Devi died, was a room, which has two doors and this room is distinctly different from the two rooms, which have one door each. The evidence, so given, has not been denied and/or disputed by the defence meaning thereby that the room, where the occurrence had taken place and where Ragini Devi died, was a room, which has two doors and this room is distinctly different from the two rooms, which have one door each. 30. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that the evidence of PW-3 has remained, same as the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4, unshaken despite their cross-examinations and the evidence of these witnesses shall be treated as evidence of witnesses, who are trustworthy and reliable. 31. Coming to the evidence of PW-1 (Bimla Devi), mother of the accused-appellant, we notice that according to her evidence, on the day of occurrence, at about 4:00/5:00 PM, she was at home, the son of Ragini Devi peeped into the room through crevasses of the door and said that his mother was being killed by his father and when hulla was raised, the door was broken open and Ragini Devi was found lifeless. It is in the evidence of this witness (PW-1) that though Ragini Devi was taken to doctor, the doctor declared her dead. 32. In her cross-examination, PW-1 (Bimla Devi) has clarified that she came to the place of occurrence on the hulla being raised and she had not witnessed the occurrence herself. 33. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PW-1 (Saraswati Devi) to show that what she deposed was false or untrue. 34. From the unshaken evidence of PW-1, who is none other than the mother of the accused-appellant, what clearly transpires is that her evidence, too, supports the prosecutions case that on the day of the occurrence, at about 4:00/5:00 PM, the accused was present in a room with his wife, Ragini Devi, the room was closed, by the accused himself and as no sound was being heard, Ragini Devi's son, Kundan Kumar Patel (PW-4), peeped into the room and saw that his mother's neck was being pressed by his father and when hulla was raised, the door was broken open and while Ragini Devi was found lifeless, the accused fled away from the other door of the said room. 35. 35. The only question, which remains, while considering the evidence of PW-1, is: whether her evidence that Ragini Devi's son, having peeped into the room, in question, had said that his mother was being killed by his father is admissible in evidence or not. 36. The question, posed above, brings us to Section 6 of the Evidence Act, which makes it abundantly clear that whatever is said even by the by-standers at a place of occurrence, so shortly before or after an occurrence as to form part of the transaction, is relevant Illustration (a) brings out this aspect very clearly, when this illustration (a) mentions that whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after, is as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. 37. In fact, Section 6 of the Evidence Act, along with Section 7 thereof, embodies the rule of admission of evidence known as res gestae. 38. In order to be a part of res gestae, the utterances ought to have been made substantially contemporaneous with the act or immediately after the act so that there is no opportunity for reflection or fabrication. It is in this background that the interval between the act and the statement assumes significance. The statement, which is in the nature of a mere declaration or narration of a past event, cannot be termed as res gestae. Such a statement becomes relevant, because the statement is intimately connected with the facts and the statement is, in effect, spontaneous utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, there being no opportunity for making a deliberately fabricated statement. 39. The above aspects of res gestae were succinctly discussed in R. vs. Andrews, (1987) 1 All ER 513. The observations, made therein, are as follows:- "The primary question which the Judge must ask himself is: can the possibility of concoction or distortion be disregarded? To answer that question the Judge must first consider the circumstances in which the particular statement was made, in order to satisfy himself that the event was so unusual or startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that his utterances was an instinctive reaction to that event thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection. To answer that question the Judge must first consider the circumstances in which the particular statement was made, in order to satisfy himself that the event was so unusual or startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that his utterances was an instinctive reaction to that event thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection. In such a situation, the Judge would be entitled to conclude that the involvement or the pressure of the event would exclude all possibility of concoction or distortion provided that the statement was made in conditions of approximate but not exact contemporaneity. In order for the statement to be sufficiently spontaneous, it must be so closely associated with the event which has excited the statement that it can be fairly stated that the mind of the declarant was still dominated by the event Thus, the Judge must be satisfied that the event which provided the trigger mechanism for the statement was still operative." (Emphasis is added) 40. In Thakur Das vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1992 Cri. L.J. 2415 (HP), the witnesses deposed that a woman, who was present near the scene of occurrence, had come running to the market crying for help and informing them that the accused had set his wife on fire by pouring kerosene oil. This statement was held to be res gestae as connected to the facts in issue, namely, accused setting his wife on fire by pouring kerosene. 41. In the case of Chander Kala vs. Ram Kishan, (1985) 4 SCC 212 , the scope of res gestae has been enlarged by the Supreme Court. The facts of the case were that complainant alleged that the accused had, by reasons of familiarity, obtained the signatures of the complainant with a view to blackmail her. The complainant went home and narrated the events to her husband and, on the next day, to her colleagues. The question, which arose, was whether the statement, made to the colleagues, would form res gestae. The Supreme Court held that assuming that the complainant's conduct in narrating to her colleagues what had transpired is not res gestae and it would be inadmissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, when corroborated by the witnesses, who had heard the narration, is clearly admissible, under Section 157 Evidence Act, for the purpose of corroboration. The Supreme Court held that assuming that the complainant's conduct in narrating to her colleagues what had transpired is not res gestae and it would be inadmissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, when corroborated by the witnesses, who had heard the narration, is clearly admissible, under Section 157 Evidence Act, for the purpose of corroboration. Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, 2011 Cr. L.J. (SC) 4274 and Rajpur Jabbarsingh Malaji vs. State of Gujrat, 2011 Cri. L.J. (SC) 4361. 42. It must be noted that when, on principle, it is said that a statement, made under Section 6, is an exception to the hearsay rule, it should not be confused as making relevant hearsay evidence. Section 60 of the Evidence Act prescribes the mode of direct oral evidence and any evidence, which does not satisfy the test of Section 60, is hearsay and, hence, inadmissible. The term hearsay, in the context of Section 6, actually means hearsay to the facts in issue. 43. Thus, if the facts in issue is A committed the murder of B, the evidence of witnesses, who depose that C, the son of B, was crying for help and shouting that A has committed the murder of B, is hearsay so far as facts in issue is concerned, because the witnesses have neither seen the murder nor heard A admitting that he committed the murder of B. The statement would not be hearsay if the intent of the statement is to prove the immediate post crime conduct of the person, who witnessed the murder. The conduct, being so spontaneous and natural, that any possibility of concoction, in the making of statement, is absolutely ruled out. 44. The evidence of res gestae given by witnesses, so far as the post crime conduct of the witnesses to a murder, is concerned, the same is direct and should not be confused as hearsay. The evidence becomes relevant, because even though it does not directly prove the existence or nonexistence of the facts in issue, yet because of the time and proximity in which the witnesses heard the shouts attaches great credibility to such a statement, because C would not have shouted for help and the witnesses would not have heard the shouts, immediately after the occurrence, had it not been a spontaneous reaction to the events. 45. 45. Thus, evidence, in the form of res gestae statement, is indirectly fed to the facts in issue. 46. In the light of the law, we have discussed above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the evidence, given by PW-1, as to what her grand-son, Kundan Kumar Patel (PW-4), had said on peeping into the room, in question, is admissible in evidence as res gestae inasmuch as this evidence shows that promptly after the occurrence, PW-1 heard PW-4 saying, on peeping into the room aforementioned, that his father had been killing his mother. 47. To the extent, therefore, that PW-1 (Bimla Devi) has given evidence to the effect that Ragini Devi's son had peeped to the room, where his parents were present, and said that his mother was being killed by his father, is admissible in evidence and cannot be ignored. 48. What, however, the evidence of PW-1 does not legally prove is whether Ragini Devi was, as a matter of fact, put to death by her husband or not. In this regard, it is the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, which we find not only relevant, but credible and of immense importance. 49. It needs to be borne in mind that as far as PW-1 is concerned, nothing has been elicited from her cross-examination to show that her evidence is false implying thereby that her assertion that hulla was raised by the accused-appellants children that their father was killing their mother and when the door was opened, Ragini Devi was found dead, but the accused-appellant fled away cannot be held to be untrue, more so, when it is her clear and undisputed evidence that there had been a partition of the properties between the accused and his brother, Nathu Patel, and both of them lived separately and she (PW-1) lived with the elder brother of the accused-appellant and it was never suggested to her (PW-1) that there was property dispute with the accused-appellant. 50. Whether, as a matter of fact, the accused-appellant had killed Ragini Devi or not, if we may reiterate, is a question, which is answered by the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. 51. It has been suggested to PW-4 by the defence that his mother died of illness and that maternal grand-father and uncle had falsely implicated his father i.e., accused-appellant. This suggestion has been boldly denied by PW-4. 51. It has been suggested to PW-4 by the defence that his mother died of illness and that maternal grand-father and uncle had falsely implicated his father i.e., accused-appellant. This suggestion has been boldly denied by PW-4. A suggestion, offered to a witness, by the adverse party, while cross-examining the witness, is of no value unless the suggestion is proved or, at least, probablized by the evidence on record. It is noteworthy in this regard that there is not even a particle of evidence to show that Ragini Devi died, because of any illness. Far from this, the medical evidence on record speak loud and clear that she died of asphyxia as a result of throttling. 52. Coming to the evidence of PW-5, who is father of the deceased, we notice that according to his evidence, on the day of occurrence, at about 4.30 PM, he was at Narkatiyaganj Block and, on returning from there, when he (PW-5) reached the house of his son-in-law, Kanhaiya Patel (i.e. accused-appellant), he (PW-5) noticed that the accused-appellant s two children were raising hulla and even the sister-in-law and mother of the accused were screaming, whereupon he (PW-5) peeped into the room through crevasses of the door and saw accused sitting on the chest of his wife, Ragini Devi, trying to throttle her. It is also in the evidence of PW-5 that on hulla being raised, accused fled away from the back door and surrendered at GRP Police Station. 53. Though it is in the evidence of PW-5 that he, later on, came to learn at the house, where the occurrence had taken place, that Kanhaiya Patel (i.e. accused-appellant) had come to his elder brothers house with his mother (PW-1) by Satyagrah Express and the accused-appellant called his children and wife there and told them that he wanted to talk alone with his wife and then, took his wife to the said room, PW-5 has clarified, in his cross-examination, that when he reached the house of the accused, the occurrence was in progress and he found there the mother-in-law of the deceased and wife (PW-2) of the elder brother of the accused. In fact, in his cross-examination, PW-5 has clarified that besides the room, where the occurrence had taken place, there are two more rooms in the house and this assertion of PW-5 has gone unchallenged by the defence. In fact, in his cross-examination, PW-5 has clarified that besides the room, where the occurrence had taken place, there are two more rooms in the house and this assertion of PW-5 has gone unchallenged by the defence. When this piece of evidence is considered in the light of the evidence of PW-2 (Saraswati Devi), it becomes abundantly clear that the occurrence had taken place in the room other than the rooms, which had one door each, and the room, where the occurrence had taken place, was used as a place of worship, this room had two doors and there was a cot lying inside the room. 54. According to the evidence of PW-5, besides him, Kanhaiya's mother (PW-1), sister-in-law (PW-2), Kundan Kumar Patel (PW-4), son of the accused and Poonam Kumari (PW-3), daughter of the accused, had also seen the occurrence. 55. It is the unchallenged assertion of PW-5, in his cross-examination, that before the occurrence had taken place, he had never made any complaint against the accused as the relationship between the accused and his wife was cordial, which shows that there was no animosity and PW-5 had no reason to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. 56. Though learned counsel for the accused-appellant has pointed out some inconsistencies and contradictions in the First Information Report, which PW-5 has lodged, and his evidence on record, we are unable to attribute any importance to such inconsistencies inasmuch as PW-5 has not been examined at all on the contents of the First Information Report and his attention has not been drawn to his previous statements contained in the First Information Report, though the drawing of such attention is essential in law before a witness can be impeached by the previous statement made in the First Information Report or otherwise. 57. At any rate, the infirmities, if any, in the contents of the First Information Report lodged by PW-5, on the one hand, and his testimony, on the other, does not take away the credibility of the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. Even if the evidence of PW-5 is disbelieved and rejected, the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 would still remain unshaken on all material aspects. 58. Even if the evidence of PW-5 is disbelieved and rejected, the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 would still remain unshaken on all material aspects. 58. Though, with the help of the testimony of PW-10 (Kripa Patel), the accused has brought out that Ragini Devi was sick and the accused used to take care of her, the fact remains that there is, if we may point out, not even an iota of evidence supporting the contention of the appellant that his wife died of illness. Far from this, the unshaken medical evidence on record eloquently speak and clearly proves that Ragini Devi died, because of asphyxia as a result of throttling. 59. The remaining evidence of the prosecution is not very relevant for the purpose of this appeal and is, therefore, not discussed. 60. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the accused-appellant came to the house of his elder brother, Nathu Patel, along with his mother (PW-1) from Satyagrah Express and on reaching the said house, he called his wife, Ragini Devi (deceased), daughter, Poonam Kumari (PW-3) and son, Kundan Kumar Patel (PW-4), to the house of his elder brother, Nathu Patel, whose wife is Saraswati Devi (PW-2) and on the pretext of talking something personal and private with his wife, the accused took his wife, Ragini Devi, to a room, which is about 10 feet long and which is used as a place of worship, besides having a cot in the said room, and throttled her to death and when the accused-appellant was throttling his wife, his son (PW-4) was the first one, who has peeped into the room through the crevasses of the door by standing on a table/stool had seen as to what was happening inside the room and the said ghastly scene of the room was also witnessed by his sister (PW-3), as well as PW-2 and on hulla being raised, nearby people assembled and they tried to forcibly broke open the door. In the meanwhile, however, the accused-appellant fled away from the back door and because of the force applied on the door, the bolt of the door broke open and when the people, who had so assembled there, entered into the said room, they found the lifeless body of Ragini Devi. In the meanwhile, however, the accused-appellant fled away from the back door and because of the force applied on the door, the bolt of the door broke open and when the people, who had so assembled there, entered into the said room, they found the lifeless body of Ragini Devi. Hoping and wishing that Ragini Devi might have remained alive or she might restart breathing, she was taken to hospital, but the doctor declared her dead and when her dead body was subjected to post mortem examination, she was found to have died due to asphyxia as a result of throttling and, consequently, not due to illness. 61. It is noteworthy that the doctors (PW-8) findings have not been disputed by the defence and though it was suggested to the doctor (PW-8) that Ragini Devi died because of illness, the doctor (PW-8) categorically denied this suggestion. In the suggestion put to the doctor (PW-8), it was not mentioned by the defence as to what illness or disease led to Ragini Devi's death. We may also point out that there is no reason for the doctor (PW-8), who is an independent witness, to falsely manufacture his findings claiming that Ragini Devi did not die, because of illness, but because of asphyxia due to throttling. This apart, the deceased had one abrasion on the middle part of inner aspect of her upper lip, multiple bruises of various sizes over the front of her neck and one bruise on left side of her chin. 62. The evidence, given by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, is simple, natural, consistent, coherent and intrinsically reliable. Nothing has been elicited by the defence, which could even slightly shake their evidence. We see, therefore, no reason to reach a finding contrary to the finding reached by the learned trial Court. 63. We, therefore, hold, as we must hold, that the accused-appellant was, beyond reasonable doubt, proved guilty of having committed the offence of murder and shall be liable to suffer imprisonment for life with fine as has been directed by the learned trial Court. 64. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not notice that the finding of guilt, which the learned trial Court reached against the accused-appellant, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual, and we see, therefore, no reason to interfere with the accused-appellant s conviction and/or the sentence passed against him. 64. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not notice that the finding of guilt, which the learned trial Court reached against the accused-appellant, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual, and we see, therefore, no reason to interfere with the accused-appellant s conviction and/or the sentence passed against him. 65. Situated thus, we find no merit in this appeal. Thus, the appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 66. Let the Amicus Curiae be paid a fee of Rs. 5,000/-. 67. The Registry shall send back the Lower Court Record along with a copy of this judgment and order.