JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment dated 2.11.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwaia in Sessions Case No.1/2006 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and imposed sentence for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. As per prosecution case, a written report (Ex.P-13) was submitted by the complainant Sabir Mohd. on 3.11.2005 in the mortuary of M.G. Hospital Bhilwara before SHO, City Kotwali in which it was alleged that his cousin sister Rabiya D/o Abdul Latif was married with the accused appellant Mohd. Irfan three years ago. After her marriage, her husband Mohd. Irfan (appellant), father-in-law Mohd. Ayub, mother-in-law Noorbano @ Bannu, brother-in-law Usman and sister-in-law and grandfather-in-law Abdul Rehman Hazi and great grandfather-in-law Abdul Hakim and grand-mother in-law Khatun and other relatives started harassing her every day for demand of Rs. 1 lac as dowry. 3. On 20.10.2005 Rabiya was given beatings and thrown out from the house by her-in-laws with threatening that if she will not bring Rs. 1 lac then she will be murdered. According to the allegation made in the complaint it is alleged by the complainant that today at about 8.00 am sister-in-law Rizwana came and told Rabiya about illness of her husband Mohd. Irfan and took her to the in-laws house. After half an hour, cry of Rabiya was heard from the house of accused Mohd. Irfan. On hearing hue and cry of Rabiya, Abdul Latif, Mohd. Rafiq and Abdul Rashid immediately went to the house of Rabiya situated in same locality where they saw that number of injuries by knife were caused upon the body of Rabiya by the accused appellant. Rabiya was taken to the hospital immediately and in between the way, Rabiya informed to the complainant that her husband inflicted injury by knife and other family members also gave beatings. In the MG hospital, Rabiya died during treatment. 4. On aforesaid written complaint, formal F.I.R. No. 172/2005 (Ex.P-14) was registered under Section 304B I.P.C. by the SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara. After registration of the F.I.R., SHO went on spot and inspected the place of occurrence. During investigation, four accused persons namely Mohd. In the MG hospital, Rabiya died during treatment. 4. On aforesaid written complaint, formal F.I.R. No. 172/2005 (Ex.P-14) was registered under Section 304B I.P.C. by the SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara. After registration of the F.I.R., SHO went on spot and inspected the place of occurrence. During investigation, four accused persons namely Mohd. Irfan (appellant), Mohd. Ayub, Noorbano @ Bannu and Jubeda Khatun were arrested and upon information (Ex.P-35) given by the accused appellant, one knife was recovered vide Ex.P-36. A number of injuries were found upon the body of the deceased and after examination of the body, the postmortem report (Ex.P-14) was prepared and given to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer after completing entire investigation filed charge-sheet under Sections 302, 498A and 201 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandalgarh from where case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara for trial. 5. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara for trial. The learned Trial Court after hearing arguments of both the sides framed charge under Sections 498A and 302 I.P.C. against the accused appellant Mohd. Irfan and framed charge under Sections 498A and 201 I.P.C. against Mohd. Ayub, Noorbano @ Bannu and Jubeda Khatun. All the accused denied the charge and paryed for trial. 6. To prove the prosecution case, 28 prosecution witnesses were produced and during trial 53 documents were exhibited from the prosecution side. After recording evidence of prosecution, the learned Trial Court proceeded to record statement of all the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. No oral evidence was produced in defence, however, six documents were exhibited in defence. 7. The learned Trial Court after recording entire evidence finally heard the case and convicted the accused appellant Modh. Irfan for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and passed the sentence aforesaid, but acquitted accused appellant Mohd. Irfan from the charge levelled against him under Section 498A I.P.C. The other accused persons Mohd. Ayub, Smt. Noorbano @ Bannu and Smt. Jubeda Khatun were also acquitted from the charge levelled against them under Sections 498A and 201 I.P.C. while giving benefit of about vide judgment dated 2.11.2010. 8. Irfan from the charge levelled against him under Section 498A I.P.C. The other accused persons Mohd. Ayub, Smt. Noorbano @ Bannu and Smt. Jubeda Khatun were also acquitted from the charge levelled against them under Sections 498A and 201 I.P.C. while giving benefit of about vide judgment dated 2.11.2010. 8. In this appeal the accused appellant Mohd. Irfan is challenging the judgment impugned dated 2.11.2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 1/2006 by the learned Trial Court. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the finding to hold accused appellant guilty given by the learned Trial Court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, so also, the allegations of Sections 498A and 201 I.P.C. have not been proved by the prosecution, therefore, it is obvious that whole prosecution case is based upon concocted story of demand of dowry. The learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that the entire prosecution case is based upon the testimony of PW-22 Chhotu and PW-25 Sabir Mohd, author of the F.I.R. before whom the deceased Rabiya informed in between the way to the hospital that injuries were caused by the accused appellant Mohd Irfan by knife. As per contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant if the medical evidence is accepted with regard to seriousness of the injuries found upon the body of the deceased, it cannot be presumed that deceased Rabiya was in position to speak when she was taken to the hospital, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have disbelieved the testimony of PW-25 Sabir Mohd. And PW-22 Chhotu, but the learned Trial Court committed grave error while relying upon the testimony of these witnesses so as to hold accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. No other arguments are advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant to challenge the judgment impugned. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there is ample and trustworthy prosecution evidence on record upon which the learned Trial Court gave finding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. While inviting attention towards the statements of PW-25 Sabir Mohd. it is submitted that not only this witness, but other witnesses categorically stated that marriage of deceased Rabiya was solemnized with the accused appellant in the year 2002 and after marriage the behaviour of in-laws and accused appellant Mohd. While inviting attention towards the statements of PW-25 Sabir Mohd. it is submitted that not only this witness, but other witnesses categorically stated that marriage of deceased Rabiya was solemnized with the accused appellant in the year 2002 and after marriage the behaviour of in-laws and accused appellant Mohd. Irfan was so bad towards deceased and they were regularly harassing her and on the date of incident, Rabiya was called on a false information of illness of her husband through Rizwana (sister of the accused appellant). When she reached to her-in-laws house, which is situated just opposite the house of Rabiya, accused appellant Mohd. Irfan inflicted number of injuries upon her body. The witness PW-25 Sabir Mohd. categorically stated in his statement that after hearing hue and cry of Rabiya, they immediately went in the house of Rabiya and accused appellant Mohd. Irfan and saw that a quarrel took place inside the house in which number of injuries were inflicted by Mohd. Irfan to the deceased Rabiya by knife. Due to those injuries her condition became so serious, therefore, Rabiya was taken to the hospital by PW-25 Sabir Mohd. and other family members and in between the way to the hospital, Rabiya informed to the witness PW-25 Sabir Mohd., author of the F.I.R. that these injuries have been caused by her husband Mohd. Irfan by knife. Admittedly, Rabiya died in the M.G. Hospital during treatment and after her death, postmortem was conducted and report (Ex.P-15) was given for investigation. The body of Rabiya was handed over to PW-25 Sabir Mohd., brother of Rabiya vide Ex.P-29 and, thereafter, she was cremated. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that cloths of Rabiya and accused appellant along with knife were sent for chemical examination to the FSL and after examination of articles, FSL, Udaipur Region, Udaipur gave its report on 6.2.2005 in which is reported that upon Salwar, Kamiz, Chunni, Samij, bra, pent, Chaku, blood smeared soil and controlled soil, human blood was found and further it is reported that upon Salwar, kamiz, chunni and pent of the accused appellant and Chakku (knife), the blood of 'B' Group was found. Meaning thereby, prosecution proved it case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned Trial Court held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 11. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no question to disbelieve testimony of PW 22 Chhotu and PW-25 Sabir Mohd. Meaning thereby, prosecution proved it case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned Trial Court held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 11. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no question to disbelieve testimony of PW 22 Chhotu and PW-25 Sabir Mohd. because both these witnesses categorically stated before the Court that accused appellant Mohd. Irfan inflicted number of injuries by knife and due to those injuries, Rabiya died, therefore, there is no strength in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court has committed an error while relying upon the prosecution evidence, therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 12. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, first of all we have perused the finding given by the learned Trial Court. The finding to hold accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is based upon sound appreciation of evidence. Admittedly, marriage of Rabiya was solemnized with the accused appellant in the year 2002, but his behaviour towards Rabiya was not good, which is evident from the statement of prosecution witnesses including PW-25 Sabir Mohd. And PW-22 Chhotu. 13. The witness PW-25 Sabir Mohd. whose testimony is relied upon by the learned Trial Court has categorically stated before the Court that on the day of incident Rabiya was called by the accused appellant through his sister Rizwana while saying that health condition of Mohd. Irfan is deteriorating. It is also not in dispute that in-laws house of deceased Rabiya is situated just opposite side of the house of deceased Rabiya. Meaning thereby, accused appellant as well as the deceased Rabiya were residing in the same locality. The witness PW-25 Sabir Mohd. Irfan is deteriorating. It is also not in dispute that in-laws house of deceased Rabiya is situated just opposite side of the house of deceased Rabiya. Meaning thereby, accused appellant as well as the deceased Rabiya were residing in the same locality. The witness PW-25 Sabir Mohd. Gave following statement in the Court to prove the allegations, which reads as under: 1 & 'kiFk dFku fd;k fd eSa e`rdk jkch;k dk HkkbZ gwWaA jkch;k dh 'kknh o"kZ 2002 eSa fookg lEesyu esa bjQku eksg0 ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA 'kknh ds djhc ,d lky ckn og llqjky vkus tkus yxh Fkh] llqjky vkus tkus yxh rks blds FkksM+s fnuksa ckn gh llqjky esa yM+kbZ >xM+k gksus yx x;kA jkfc;k dks ?kj ls fudky fn;k fQj mls le>k cq>k dj okil llqjky HkstkA llqjky esa jkfc;k ds lkFk ngst dks ysdj yM+kbZ >xM+k pyrk jgrk FkkA ;s yksx mls dgrs fd ,d yk[k :i;s ysdj vk] ;g ckr jkfc;k dk ifr bZjQku o mlds ifjokj okys dgrs FksA geus jkfc;k dks ,d yk[k :i;s ugha fn;s] ;s :i;s ugha nsus ij jkfc;k dks ekjus dh /kedh nh FkhA ;g ckr eq>s esjs pkpk o jkfc;k us crk;h Fkh] eSa ?kj dk lnL; gwWa] blfy, irk jgrk gS fd D;k py jgk gSA jkfc;k dh e`R;q gks pqdh gSA jkfc;k dks bjQku us ekjkA vkt ls djhc iksus ikap lky igys dh ckr gS] jkfc;k gekjs ?kj ij gh Fkh] mls mldh u.kn fjtokuk cqykus ds fy;s vk;h vkSj mls dgk fd bjQku dh rch;r [kjkc gS] fjtokuk jkfc;k dks vius lkFk ysdj llqjky ys x;hA jkfc;k ds ihgj dk ?kj o mlds llqjky dk ?kj vkeus lkeus gh gS] blds chp nks [kkyh IykV gS] lHkh dqN utj vkrk gSA blds vk/kk ?k.Vk ckn gh jkfc;k ds llqjky esa >xM+k gks x;k Fkk] >xM+k fdl fy;s bldh eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS] ml le; eSa vius ?kj ij gh Fkk] esjk ?kj Hkh ikl gh fLFkr gSA esjs ikl esjs nksLr vYrkQ dk Qksu vk;k] tks bZjQku ds ?kj ds lkeus gh jgrk gSA vYrkQ us eq>s crk;k fd rsjs cgu ds llqjky esa fpYykus vkfn dh vkokt vk jgh gSA eSa ml le; [ksr ij tk jgk Fkk] lwpuk feyus ij eSa rqjUr ogka igqWapk] rc esjs ifjokj okys mls thi esa vLirky esa fy;k tk jgs FksA jkfc;k ds 'kjhj ij pkdw ds ?kko Fks] og ?kk;y voLFkk esa Fkh] o [kwu ls yFkiFk Fkh] mls vLirky ys tk jgs FksA eSa Hkh vLirky lkFk x;k FkkA jkfc;k us eq>s crk;k Fkk fd mls bjQku us pkdw ls ekjk gSA fcxksn ls jkfc;k dks ,e0th0 HkhyokM+k vLirky yk;s] mls vLirky esa M~hi yxkus yxs] rc gh mldh e`R;q ;gha ij gks x;hA ckn esa eSaus ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h tks izn'kZ ih0 13 gS ftl ij ds ls ,y esjs gLrk{kj gSA pkdw ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 izn'kZ ih0 14 gS] ftl ij esjs nLr[r ugha gSA iqfyl us jkfc;k dh yk'k dk iksLVekVZe djok dj iapukek cuk;k tks izn'kZ ih0 15 gS ftl ij ds ls ,y esjs gLrk{kj gS] iqfyl us e`rdk jkfc;k dh yk'k eq>s lqiqnZ dh ftldh QnZ izn'kZ ih0 29 gS ftl ij th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA eSaus e`rdk dh yk'k dks ns[kh Fkh] ml ij pkdw ds ?kko yx jgs FksA iqfyl us e`rdk ds oDr igus gq;s diM+s esjs lkeus tCr fd;s ftldh QnZ izn'kZ ih0 30 ij th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA iqfyl us ?kVukLFky dk uD'kk ekSdk cuk;k o [kwu oxSjk ogkWa ls fy;k Fkk] uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih0 31 gS ftl ij th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA ekSds ls tks [kwu vkyqnk o lknk feV~Vh yh x;h mldh QnZ izn'kZ ih0 32 iqfyl us cuk;h ftl ij vkbZ ls ts esjs gLrk{kj gSA jkfc;k ds 'kjhj ij isV ij] ihB ij] xnZu ij pkdw ds ?kko ds fu'kku Fks] xnZu dVh gqbZ FkhA jkfc;k dks tc fcxksn ls HkhyokM+k yk jgs Fks rc eSaus mls iwNk fd D;k gqvk] rks mlus eq>s crk;k fd mls bjQku us ekjk gSA bjQku eqy0 dks tkurk gwWa] tks gkftj vnkyr gS] bjQku ds ekrk firk o nknk nknh dks Hkh tkurk gwWaA jkfc;k dks bjQku us ngst ds fy;s ekjk FkkA In the cross-examination he has categorically reiterated the allegations against the accused appellant for causing number of injuries upon the body of the deceased Rabiya who was wife of accused appellant. 14. PW-22 Chhotu specifically gave following statement in the Court, which reads as under: bjQku dks tkurk gwWa tks e`rdk jkfc;k dk ifr gSA lk<+s+ pkj lky igys dh ckr gS eSa ?kj ls vk jgk Fkk xyh ls vkokt vkbZ tks ekjihV dh Fkh rks eSa vkxs okyh xyh esa x;k rks mjeku] mej] jQhd Hkkx dj tk jgs FksA mLeku jkfc;k dks eksVj lkbZfdy ij vLirky ys tk jgk FkkA jkfc;k dks pkdw dh mlds ifr bjQku us ekjh FkhA bjQku Hkh [kwu ls Hkjk gqvk Fkk ogka eSaus bjQku dks ns[kk tks ekSds ij ns[kk FkkA vkSj dksbZ ckr eSa ugha tkurk gwWaA 15. In the cross-examination, he has reiterated his allegations and entire prosecution case. It is also very material to mention here that PW-25 Sabir Mohd. took deceased Rabiya to the MG Hospital, Bhilwara for the purpose of treatment, but she died in the hospital during treatment before that Rabiya narrated whole incident to the witness PW-25 Sabir Mohd. PW-16 Abdul Latif, father of Rabiya categorically supported the prosecution case and said that after marriage, behaviour of the accused appellant and his family members was so cruel towards his daughter as they were regularly harassing her for less dowry. The postmortem of the body of the deceased Rabiya was conducted by the Medical Board of MG Hospital. In the trial statement of PW-6 Dr. Anil Lahoti, member of the Medical Board holding charge of Medical Jurist were recorded to prove the fact of postmortem. The witness PW-6 Dr. Anil Lahoti stated before the Court that on 3.11.2005 when I was holding charge of Medical Jurist while working on the post of medical officer, upon requisition of SHO City Kotwali, Bhilwara, the postmortem of the body of Smt. Rabiya wife of Mohd. Irfan was conducted by the Medical Board and the Medical Board after due examination prepared postmortem report (Ex.P-14) upon which all the members of the Medical Board put their signatures. Irfan was conducted by the Medical Board and the Medical Board after due examination prepared postmortem report (Ex.P-14) upon which all the members of the Medical Board put their signatures. As per postmortem report (Ex.P-1) of the body of the deceased Rabiya, following injuries were found, which reads as under: 'ko dk eqvk;uk cksMZ dks }kjk fnu esa 2 cts fd;k x;k FkkA 'ko ds ckg~; ijh{k.k ds nkSjku fuEu pksVsa ikbZ xbZ%& 1- bulkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 lseh lkbZt dk gksdj ck;ha vxz Hkqtk ij dksguh ds ikl ihNs dh vksj FkkA 2- bUlkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 lseh lkbZt dk gksdj nkfgus lhus ij ckgj dh rjQ FkkA 3- bUlkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/3 lseh x 22 bap xgjkbZ dk gksdj isV ds visxsfLVd Hkkx esa FkkA 4- bUlkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/2 x 3½ bap lkbZt dk gksdj nka;h fdMuh dks Nsnrk gqvk Fkk rFkk mlls flfo;j fCyfMax gks jgh FkhA 5- bUlkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/2 x 3½ bap lkbZt dk gksdj nk;sa isV esa fetsaM~h dks Nsnrk gqvk Fkk vkSj ogka ls fCyfMax gks jgh FkhA 6- bUlkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/2 x 3½ bap lkbZt dk gksdj veykdl ds ukfHk ds ckgjh dh vksj Fkk tks fd bUVLVkbZu vkbZfy;he dks Nsnrk gqvk FkkA 7- bUlkbZTM owaM 4 bap x 1 bap x ekalis'kh;ksa dh xgjkbZ dk gksdj Vs~fd;k dks dkVrk gqvk tks fd lsadsaM o FkMZ fjax ds ikl Fkk ogka Vs~fd;k [kqyh iM+h FkhA 8- bUlkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/2 x V~osyo oYVh czk vkSj LikbZuy dksMZ dks rsth ls dkVrk gqvk FkkA 9- bUlkbZTM owaM 1 x 1/2 x ,you oYVh czk ,oa LikbZuy dksMZ dks rsth ls dkVrk gqvk FkkA lHkh pksVsa ,aVhekVZe uspj dh Fkh tks iksLVekVZe ds 6 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh dkfjr dh gqbZ FkhA mDr lHkh pksVsa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ FkhA 'ko dk vkarfjd ijh{k.k esfMdy cksMZ }kjk fd;k x;k ftlesa fuEukafdr pksVsa ikbZ%& 1- Vh V~osy ,oa ,you oVhZ czk 'kkiZyh dVh gqbZ FkhA czsu esejsu datsLVsM FkhA cszu datsLVsM Fkk ,oa LikbZuy dksM Vh V~osy ,you ysou ij 'kkiZyh dVh gqbZ FkhA 2- isV esa CyM Hkjk gqvk Fkk vkSj CyM DyksV Fkk tks fetsaM~h ds uhps FkkA 3- vkek'k; dh ,aVhfj;j oky 'kkiZyh dVh gqbZ Fkh vkSj ogka ls lsehlksfyM QwWM esfVfj;y ckgj vk jgk Fkk rFkk lkFk gh NksVh vkar dh vkbZfy;e 'kkiZyh dVh gqbZ FkhA vU; vax] datsLVM FksA esfMdy cksMZ dh jk; esa e`rdk jkfc;k dh e`R;q dk dkj.k 'kkd Fkk tks fd vR;f/kd jDr L=ko o LikbZuy dksM esa vkbZ pksV dh otg ls FkkA 16. Upon perusal of the statement of PW-6 Dr. Anil Lahoti it is obvious that number of incised wounds were found upon the body of the deceased and admittedly, prosecution proved the recovery of knife as per information given by the accused appellant vide Ex.P-36. The knife which is said to be recovered vide Ex.P-5 on 5.11.2005 at 4.00 pm upon the impression of blood was found and the recoveries of cloths has been proved by the prosecution. The knife was recovered in presence of two witnesses namely PW-2 Nishar Mohd. and PW-3 Mohd. Sarif. Both these witnesses categorically retreated before the Court that knife was recovered in front of them and they put their signatures upon recovery memo. The cloths of the deceased and the accused appellant Mohd. Irfan which he was wearing at the time of committing offence, so also, knife were sent to the FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.C/1) dated 6.12.2005 blood of 'B' group was found upon the cloths and knife. 17. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration entire evidence held accused appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C., but acquitted him from the charge under Section 498A, so also, acquitted the other accused persons against whom charge-sheet was filed for offence under Sections 498A and 201 I.P.C. 18. Upon appreciation of entire evidence for the allegation against the accused appellant Mohd. Irfan and finding given by the learned Trial Court, we are of the opinion that there is no strength in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court has committed error to convict the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer thoroughly conducted investigation, which is proved by the prosecution by leading trustworthy and reliable evidence, therefore, no interference is required in the finding given by the learned Trial Court to convict the accused appellant because it is a case in which prosecution has proved that accused appellant Mohd. Irfan committed murder of his wife on the basis of trustworthy and reliable evidence. On the basis of above discussion, there is no force in this appeal. Hence, this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.