JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16.3.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 400 of 1982 (State v. Abdul Wahid) whereby the trial Court by judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Smt. Jahanivi daughter of the informant Fida Husain (P.W.-1) aged about 24 years at the time of her murder, was married to the accused Abdul Wahid about six years before the occurrence. Smt. Jahanivi used to live at her sasural i.e. the house of the accused Abdul Wahid situated at village Rata within P.S. Waziraganj, District Badaun. The informant Fida Husain went to the sasural of Smt. Jahanivi to meet her daughter wherein she told him that her husband appellant Abdul Wahid is accusing her of infidelity having illicit relations with Rashid (the elder brother of the accused-appellant Abdul Wahid) due to which accused Abdul Wahid was harassing and maltreating her. Hearing the said complaints of her daughter, on her insistence, the informant Fida Husain brought back his daughter to his house on the pretext that her mother was not well. The house of the informant is Pakka. There is a mosque towards the north of the house of the informant. The house of Gulam Husain is situated towards the south and the house of Nabi Husain is adjacent to that house. The house of Zahid Husain is situated towards the south of the house of the informant Fida Husain and Gulam Husain. Similarly, there is a door between the house of Gulam Husain and Nabi Husain also. The exit of all the three houses is in the lane situated towards the east. There are rooms towards the western side of the house of the informant Fida Husain, Gulam Husain and Nabi Husain in front of which there is an open verandah adjoining the Courtyard in the east. 3. Couple of days before the occurrence, the accused Abdul Wahid went to his sasural for taking back his wife Smt. Jahanivi, however, the informant Fida Husain told him to take Smt. Jahanivi with him only after the festival of ‘Koday’. 3. Couple of days before the occurrence, the accused Abdul Wahid went to his sasural for taking back his wife Smt. Jahanivi, however, the informant Fida Husain told him to take Smt. Jahanivi with him only after the festival of ‘Koday’. The accused Abdul Wahid, however, insisted upon to take her back with him to his house and stayed back at his sasural for that purpose. In the morning of the day of occurrence also the accused Abdul Wahid started insisting on taking back Smt. Jahanivi at which Fida Husain told him bluntly that he will not send his daughter Smt. Jahanivi as the accused Abdul Wahid harasses and accuses her of infidelity and also told him (appellant) that he will re-marry her somewhere else. Upon which, the accused Abdul Wahid told Fida Husain that he would see as to how Smt. Jahanivi is re-married to some one else. On the night of the occurrence (i.e. between 8/9-5-1982) the deceased Smt. Jahanivi and the accused Abdul Wahid were sleeping together in the Verandah of house of his (first informant) brother Gulam Husain. Dibia was said to be burning at the spot at the time of occurrence. It was a moon lit night. Gulam Husain and Nabi Husain were not present in their houses, their rooms were closed while their Courtyards were open. Informant and his wife were sleeping in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence. Around midnight, Fida Husain and his wife heard the cries and screams of his daughter Smt. Jahanivi, on which they both rushed to the scene and saw the accused Abdul Wahid sitting on the chest of Smt. Jahanivi tying a Chunni around her neck and strangulating her. The informant Fida Husain and his wife Smt. Bismilla raised an alarm, on which the witnesses Maseet Ullah and Zahid Husain reached there and saw the occurrence in the light of the lamp and in the moon light. The accused Abdul Wahid fled away merely in his underwear and Banyan leaving behind his shirt and pant. When the witnesses came near Smt. Jhanavi, they found her dead. The F.I.R. (Ext. Ka.1) regarding the occurrence was dictated by the informant to Mohammd Sayeed which was lodged at the police station Aonla. The dead body of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi was sent to mortuary where the post-mortem on her dead body was conducted by Dr. When the witnesses came near Smt. Jhanavi, they found her dead. The F.I.R. (Ext. Ka.1) regarding the occurrence was dictated by the informant to Mohammd Sayeed which was lodged at the police station Aonla. The dead body of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi was sent to mortuary where the post-mortem on her dead body was conducted by Dr. K.S. Tiwari, P.W. 5 and Ex. Ka. 13 in the aforesaid post-mortem report. The case was investigated by the S.O. Sri Sampat Singh who recorded the statements of the witnesses and also prepared the Site Plan Ex. Ka.3 and thereafter after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet Ex. Ka. 10 against the accused Abdul Wahid. 4. Charge was framed against the accused Abdul Wahid for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and alleged that he has been falsely implicated. The accused Abdul Wahid has further alleged that Smt. Jahanivi was previously married to Kausar and all her ornaments were usurped by Fida Husain and thereafter got her re-married to him. The first informant in order to again usurp the ornaments has falsely implicated him. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant castigated the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the manner of assault as alleged by the prosecution was not natural and cannot be accepted. He further submitted that the medical evidence does not correlate with the ocular evidence. It was further submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 namely Fida Husain and Maseet Ullah respectively are witnesses of fact and they are highly interested witness. It was further submitted that had the aforesaid witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 present at the spot at the time of the incident, the alleged assailant would not have got an opportunity to flee from the spot. He further submitted that the testimony and evidence of the prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory and inconsistent. 6. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and submitted that the prosecution witnesses proved the case to the hilt and no dent could be caused by the defence. It was further submitted that the medical evidence also corroborates the testimonies of the witnesses. 6. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and submitted that the prosecution witnesses proved the case to the hilt and no dent could be caused by the defence. It was further submitted that the medical evidence also corroborates the testimonies of the witnesses. He further submitted that admittedly the relations between the informant side and the accused who happens to be the husband of the deceased were strained and there is material evidence on record to establish the culpability of the appellant. He further submitted that the accused appellant has neither categorically denied that the clothes and belongings which were found on the spot do not belong to him nor he has suggested that anyone else has murdered the deceased. 7. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ram Yash Pandey, Sri Rajeev Gupta, Sri S.N. Tripathi, Sri Rahul Asthana, Sri V.P. Tripathi, Sri Pradeep Pandey, Sri Ram Sagar Yadav and Sri Uma Kant Mishra, learned A.G.A. 8. In the instance case, the occurrence has taken place in the midnight between 8/9-51982. The FIR was lodged at 12.45 a.m. i.e. only after 1/2 to 1 hours of the occurrence naming the accused Abdul Wahid who happens to be the son-in-law of the informant while the police station Aonla was about 2 kms. away from the place of occurrence. The allegation levelled by the prosecution has not been controverted by the defence that either the FIR is ante timed or it has been lodged after consultation and deliberation. Neither the place of incident nor the cause of death has been challenged by the defence side. 9. A perusal of the record shows that the FIR has been lodged promptly which is also corroborated by the oral testimonies. The prosecution has examined, inter alia, informant Fida Husain as P.W. 1, who happens to be father of the deceased and one Maseet Ullah as P.W. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi, he is an interested witness and no reliance can be place on his evidence. 10. It is true that P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased but only on this count his testimony cannot be discarded. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi, he is an interested witness and no reliance can be place on his evidence. 10. It is true that P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased but only on this count his testimony cannot be discarded. The Court simply has to examine his evidence with due care and caution. 11. The place and time of the incident has not been disputed since the alleged incident has occurred in the house of the informant in the night hours, his presence on the spot is very much natural and no valid, cogent reason has been assigned by the defence to show as to why the father of the deceased would falsely implicate his own son-in-law and not the real culprit of the alleged offence. 12. It is note worthy that the accused Abdul Wahid, who is the only accused in the present case, is the son-in-law of the informant Fida Husain, P.W. 1, who has promptly lodged the F.I.R. naming the accused Abdul Wahid as the only accused. There is no reason as to why he will falsely implicate his son-in-law and will leave the real culprit. The testimony of the P.W. 1 Fida Husain has been amply corroborated and supported by the testimony of P.W. 2 Maseet Ullah. He has deposed that his house is merely about 50 to 60 paces from the house of the informant and that merely a mosque intervenes between their houses. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place during the mid night. The time and the place of occurrence etc. has not been disputed by the accused Abdul Wahid. Under these circumstances, the informant Fida Husain P.W. 1 and the P.W. 2 Maseet Ullah are the most natural witnesses of the occurrence. Both the P.W. 1 Fida Husain and the P.W. 2 Maseet Ullah have corroborated each other and have supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars. They have been cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing material came out in their testimony which could create doubt regarding the case of the prosecution. 13. The witnesses Maseet Ullah, Fida Husain and Smt. Bismilla the mother of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi are aged persons, hence they could not rescue the girl Smt. Jahanivi from the stout accused Abdul Wahid. 13. The witnesses Maseet Ullah, Fida Husain and Smt. Bismilla the mother of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi are aged persons, hence they could not rescue the girl Smt. Jahanivi from the stout accused Abdul Wahid. Hence the contention of the learned defence counsel to the effect that the witnesses could not be said to be present since they could not save deceased Jahanavi from the clutches of the accused Abdul Wahid is also not tenable and we see no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution which is consistent since the time of the lodging of the F.I.R. 14. The case of the prosecution finds support from the medical evidence also. The prosecution has examined Dr. H.S. Tiwari as P.W. 5 who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi and Ex. Ka.13 is the said post-mortem report. In the post-mortem report also the cause of the death has been given as “asphyxia due to strangulation”. Dr. H.S. Tiwari, P.W. 5 has found contusion measuring 28 cm x 2 1/2 cm on the neck of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi and has deposed that the death of the deceased Smt. Jahanivi is possible by tying the chunni around the neck of the deceased and that the death of the deceased could have been caused during the mid night between 8/9-5-1982. Thus, we find that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses has been corroborated and the case of the prosecution has been supported by the medical evidence also. 15. The case of the prosecution regarding light on the spot also is quite consistent. In the F.I.R. Ex. Ka.1 itself which has been promptly lodged, the witnesses are alleged to have seen the occurrence in the light of the lamp and moon light. Both the P.W.1 Fida Husain and the P.W. 2 Maseet Ullah have also deposed that they had seen the occurrence in the light of lamp and in the moon light. Under these circumstances, we find that the light was also sufficient in which the witnesses had recognized the accused Abdul Wahid. 16. The accused has examined one Mohammad Ahmad as D.W. 1 who is alleged to have got the marriage ceremony performed between the accused Abdul Wahid and the deceased Smt. Jahanivi. He has filed the photo stat copy of the Nikah Nama which is Ex. Kha.1. This Nikah Nama Ex. 16. The accused has examined one Mohammad Ahmad as D.W. 1 who is alleged to have got the marriage ceremony performed between the accused Abdul Wahid and the deceased Smt. Jahanivi. He has filed the photo stat copy of the Nikah Nama which is Ex. Kha.1. This Nikah Nama Ex. Kha.1 does not show the signatures or thumb impressions of the witnesses and the accused as well as the deceased Smt. Jahanivi and has not been duly proved. Moreover, even if we take that the marriage of the accused Abdul Wahid was solemnized between the accused Abdul Wahid and Smt. Jahanivi merely 09 months ago, the same will also not be helpful for the defence. 17. It is pertinent to note that it is a case of direct evidence and the appellant who is a son-in-law of the first informant is the sole accused in the present case, and the FIR has been lodged promptly without any delay. The inquest report was also prepared immediately after the arrival of the police in the night hours. The testimony of P.W.1, Fida Husain has been fully corroborated and supported by the testimony of P.W. 2. The story set up by the prosecution is inspiring. There might be some exaggeration in the testimony of P.W. 1 but it does not go to the root of the matter or in any way creates doubt about the credibility and trustworthiness of the prosecution story. The prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that when they reached the spot, they saw the accused tying Chunni around the neck of the deceased and strangulating her and despite their best efforts they could not prevent him from committing the murder of the deceased and fleeing away from the scene. There was no occasion for the father to falsely implicate his son-in-law instead of naming the real culprit. The story set up by the prosecution also clearly shows that the deceased daughter of the informant was being harassed, maltreated and beaten by her husband (appellant) by making false allegations against her of having illicit relations with his brother. The F.I.R. regarding the occurrence was dictated by the informant to Mohammd Sayeed which was lodged at the police station Aonla promptly. The F.I.R. regarding the occurrence was dictated by the informant to Mohammd Sayeed which was lodged at the police station Aonla promptly. The presence of the P.W. 1 was also very natural who was sleeping in the adjoining Verandah (the place of occurrence) and as P.W.1 and P.W.2 were very aged and feeble persons, they could not be able to prevent the accused from strangulating his daughter and escaping from the place of incident. 18. It is pertinent to note that there is no specific denial by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that the clothes found on the spot did not belong to him. He merely said that he does not know. Fard of the lamp, clothes, broken Bangals (Chudi) etc. were prepared and it was duly proved by the witnesses. The recovery of the aforementioned clothes etc. from the spot clearly establishes the presence of P.W. 1 at the spot. The motive has also been proved by the prosecution. 19. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a second marriage of the deceased with the accused-appellant and the first marriage of the deceased had broken and the informant wanted to usurp the jwellery of her deceased daughter, which she found from her first husband and the appellant. The allegation made by the defence in this regard is totally frivolous and has got no basis. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that any father would kill his own daughter for the sake of jwellery. Moreover, all the evidence available on record clearly point the finger at the appellant who had motive to kill his wife as she was not being sent by her father to the house of the appellant. 20. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the deceased Smt. Jahanivi was murdered by the accused appellant Abdul Wahid alias Master by strangulation. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. Deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. P.W.-5 Dr. H. S. Tiwari has fully supported this fact. In our considered view the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of committing the murder of Smt. Jahanivi and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 21. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. Deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. P.W.-5 Dr. H. S. Tiwari has fully supported this fact. In our considered view the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of committing the murder of Smt. Jahanivi and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 21. No other contention has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 22. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is well discussed and the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is liable to be upheld and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.1983 is hereby confirmed. 24. The appellant Abdul Wahid alias Master is on bail. His personal and surety bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Vth Additional Sessions, Judge, Bareilly immediately to serve out the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. In case he fails to surrender, as directed above, the Vth Additional Sessions, Judge, Bareilly would take coercive action against him in this regard. 25. Copy of this judgment alongwith lower Court record be sent immediately to the Sessions Judge concerned for compliance. ——————