JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Man Singh s/o Mool Singh, was tried by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer, Camp at Beawar for causing murder of one Smt. Kelli Devi on 13.10.1992 at 05:00 P.M. near to the road of Village, Bujarail, Police Station, Tatgarh, District Ajmer. 2. The appellant, according to the prosecution case, was armed with lathi. 3. The trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 16.09.2004, convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 4. In the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by the complainant, Gheesa Singh (PW-1), the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased, it was stated that Smt. Kelli Devi wife of his brother, Neem Singh (PW-7) had gone to graze buffalo in the jungle. In the evening at around 05:00/06:00 P.M. when she was returning, near the Hand-pump of the Village, accused, Man Singh s/o Mool Singh resident of Bujarail caused injury to her with lathi, as a result of which she died at the spot. In the written report, it was also stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Kamal Singh (PW-6) and Bheem Singh (PW-5). Panna Singh (PW-8) was sent by them to call relatives of Smt. Kelli Devi. Upon receipt of information by Panna Singh, complainant along with his brother and Villagers came at the spot. On seeing them, Man Singh ran away from the spot. Thereafter, Gheesa Singh came to the Police Station to lodge the report. Complainant further informed that the dead-body was lying at the spot. Therefore, legal action be taken against the accused. 5. On the basis of above written-report (Exhibit-P/1), a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2), bearing registration No.45/1992 was lodged at Police Station Tatgarh, District Ajmer for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 6. The Investigating Agency, after a thorough investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant, along with the report of investigation, was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the trial was entrusted to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer, Camp at Beawar. 7. The Investigating Agency, after a thorough investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant, along with the report of investigation, was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the trial was entrusted to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer, Camp at Beawar. 7. The said Court charged the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. We shall first deal with the medical evidence. 9. Dr. Ashok Gupta (PW-11), being Member of the Medical Board, had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Smt. Kelli Devi. He also proved Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/6). 10. As per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/6), this witness had noted the following injuries on the person of deceased Smt. Kelli Devi:- 1. Bruise 5 cm x 5 cm on the forehead just above right eye. Antemortem in nature. 2. Bruise 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm below right eye. Ante-mortem in nature. 3. Bruise covering whole of right upper eye lid. Ante-mortem in nature. 4. Blood is coming from right ear seen or clotted spots. 5. Haematoma 5 x 5 cm on the forehead on the left side in scalp . 6. Haematoma 8 x 8 cm in scalp above right pinna. 7. Sub-dural haematoma is present in frontal region of head. 8. Sub-dural haematoma is present in left temporal region. 9. Sub-dural haematoma is present in fronto parietal region on right side. 9-B. Brain is congested 10. Bruise 5 x 5 present on transverse colon anterior surface. Ante-mortem in nature. 11. Bruise 5 x 5 cm fronto lateral aspect of left kidney." 11. As per opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death of deceased Smt. Kelli Devi was coma, as a result of injuries, mentioned as injury Nos.7, 8, 9, 9-B and 10 in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/6). 12. Complainant, Gheesa Singh (PW-1), in the Court, stated that twelve/thirteen years ago at about 05:30 P.M. he had gone to attend the last rites of Chandan Singh. He was informed by Panna Singh that Smt. Kelli Devi, the wife of his brother Neem Singh was murdered. At that time, Neem Singh, husband of Smt. Kelli Devi and his brother was also present along with him. He was informed by Panna Singh that Smt. Kelli Devi, the wife of his brother Neem Singh was murdered. At that time, Neem Singh, husband of Smt. Kelli Devi and his brother was also present along with him. They came running to the spot and saw that near the Hand-pump situated on the road that Smt. Kelli Devi was lying murdered. She was wife of Neem Singh. Bheem Singh (PW-5) and Kamal Singh (PW-6) were also present at the spot. They informed that Man Singh had caused murder of Smt. Kelli Devi. They further informed that Man Singh caused injury to her with stick and fist blow. Complainant went to the Police Station, Tatgarh and submitted written-report (Exhibit-P/1), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2) was registered. The Police arrived at the spot and prepared site-plan (Exhibit-P/3). The Police had also prepared inquest proceedings (Exhibit-P/4) and the dead-body was handed over to him vide Exhibit-P/5. The complainant stated that due to dispute over the land, accused had committed murder. 13. Magan Singh (PW-2) had attested the site-plan (Exhibit-P/3) prepared by the Investigating Officer. Teel Singh (PW-3) and Dau Singh (PW-4) had attested panchnama (Exhibit-P/4) of the dead-body of deceased. 14. Bheem Singh (PW-5), being eye-witness of alleged occurrence, stated that twelve years ago at around 05:30/06:00 P.M. he was returning after attending the last ceremony of Chandan Singh. Man Singh (present appellant) caused injury to Smt. Kelli Devi with stick. He knew Man Singh because he was a resident of his Village. Man Singh had caused injury on the right temporal region and also on the head. Man Singh had also given fist blows on the ribs. Smt. Kelli Devi fell at the spot. The occurrence was also witnessed by Kamal Singh (PW-6). They had made an attempt to save Smt. Kelli Devi, but accused came forward to cause them injuries. Upon this, witness ran to the flour mill of Panna Singh (PW-8) and informed him that Man Singh had murdered Smt. Kelli Devi. Panna Singh came at the spot. After seeing dead-body of Smt. Kelli Devi, he went to call Gheesa Singh (PW-1) and Neem Singh (PW-7). He returned after 20/25 minutes, along with Gheesa Singh, Neem Singh, Laxman Singh and Puran Singh. Thereafter, number of Villagers arrived at the spot. 15. The extensive cross-examination was made by the learned counsel for the defence. After seeing dead-body of Smt. Kelli Devi, he went to call Gheesa Singh (PW-1) and Neem Singh (PW-7). He returned after 20/25 minutes, along with Gheesa Singh, Neem Singh, Laxman Singh and Puran Singh. Thereafter, number of Villagers arrived at the spot. 15. The extensive cross-examination was made by the learned counsel for the defence. No meaningful gain could be made to demolish the testimony of the witness. 16. To similar effect is the testimony of Kamal Singh (PW-6). He has duly corroborated the testimony of Bheem Singh (PW-5). 17. In cross-examination, this witness stated that Man Singh was giving abuses to Smt. Kelli Devi and was asking as to why she had come to jungle with her buffalo, she will be killed. The witness (PW-6) was confronted with his previous statement (Exhibit-D/2), wherein the fact that accused was giving abuses was not recorded. The defence could not make any significant gain in the cross-examination of Kamal Singh (PW-6). 18. Neem Singh (PW-7), the husband of deceased also stated that Panna Singh (PW-8) came and informed that his wife has been killed by Man Singh. They went to the spot and saw that Man Singh was standing there with lathi and he told them that he has killed his wife and do whatever you can do. 19. Panna Singh (PW-8) stated that in the evening at about 05:30 P.M. Bheem Singh came at his flour mill and informed that the wife of Neem Singh has been killed by Man Singh and, therefore, he should go to the place where the last ceremony of Chandan Singh was performed and inform Neem Singh etc. The witness stated that he informed Neem Singh regarding alleged incident. Gheesa Singh went to the Police Station to lodge the report. 20. Roop Singh (PW-9) stated that he along with Gheesa Singh reached at the Police Station on the motorcycle. Gheesa Singh narrated alleged incident to the In-charge, Police Station. Navratanmal (PW-10), being Investigating Officer, proved various facets of the investigation. 21. Suffice it to say, at the trial, prosecution, in all, had produced eleven-witnesses apart from placing reliance upon several documents i.e. Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/6. 22. Prosecution closed its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973., all incriminating evidence was put to him. 21. Suffice it to say, at the trial, prosecution, in all, had produced eleven-witnesses apart from placing reliance upon several documents i.e. Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/6. 22. Prosecution closed its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973., all incriminating evidence was put to him. He raised a plea that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. 23. In defence, accused had produced as many as two documents i.e. statements of Bheem Singh and Kamal Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D.2). 24. Mr. P.S. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has vehemently assailed the testimony of Bheem Singh (PW-5) and Kamal Singh (PW-6) to say that on that day, they had not witnessed the occurrence and they have introduced as witnesses later. 25. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that in the statement, Exhibit-D/1 Bheem Singh has stated that only one blow was caused, but in the medical evidence as many as twelve injuries have been found on the person of deceased. 26. We have read the statement of Bheem Singh (Exhibit-D/1) recorded in the Court. He was not confronted with his previous statement, wherein it was purportedly recorded that only one blow was caused. We cannot read the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the same is not substantive piece of evidence. Since in cross-examination, witness was not confronted with the portion sought to be relied by the appellant, same cannot be taken into consideration. 27. No other argument has been raised by the Counsel for the appellant. 28. Having examined the testimony of the witnesses, we find that deposition of Bheem Singh (PW-5) and Kamal Singh (PW-6) is free from any blemish of contradictions, improvements and discrepancies. These witnesses are truthful and aspire confidence of the Court and, therefore, we can place implicit reliance upon these witnesses. 29. In the present case, the medical evidence duly corroborate the ocular version. Having read the testimony of both the eye-witnesses, namely Bheem Singh (PW-5) and Kamal Singh (PW-6), we have not found any reasonable argument in favour of the appellant. 30. As a result thereof, we affirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.Consequently, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed, being devoid of merit. Appeal dismissed. *******