JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2008 and 17.7.2008, respectively, passed by the Learned XXth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2695 of 2004 arising out of Kanke, P.S. Case No. 60 of 2004, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution as narrated in the fardbeyan of Jaglal Mahto, son of Panne Nath Mahto, made on 08.09.2004 at 2. p.m. is that his sister Bajo Devi was married to one Dharmu Mahto about 16 years ago. His daughter had three children, one daughter aged about 12 years and two sons aged about 8 years and 5 years. After marriage, his sister's husband used to regularly beat her. He used to keep one of his nephews, Vivek Kumar and used to school him. In the morning of 08.09.2004, at around 6 a.m., Manoj Mahto, son of Late Laxmi Nath Mahto, who is the nephew of the accused brother-in-law, and one Lachhu Mahto, s/o Late Alam Mahto who is also the nephew of Dharmu Mahto had come to his house on a motorcycle. They asked them as to how things were, to which they answered that aunty has died and returned taking his nephew with them on the motorcycle. After this, he along with his uncle Puni Nath Mahto son of Baldeo Mahto went on motorcycle to Kadma. On reaching Kadma, they came to know that the husband of his sister, Dharmu Mahto had throttled and hanged his sister and killed her. It is his full belief that Dharmu Mahto killed his sister either by throttling or by hanging her. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the police registered Ranchi Sadar, Kanke P.S. Case No.60 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.2695 of 2004. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed as Sessions Trial No.124 of 2005. Charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed as Sessions Trial No.124 of 2005. Charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Altogether 7 witnesses were examined, P.W.1-Tuni Kumari, is the daughter of the deceased, P.W.2-Puni Nath Mahto, is father of the deceased, P.W.3-is Jaglal Mahto, brother of the deceased and informant, P.W.4-is Manoj Mahto, P.W.5-is Hari Lal Mahto, P.W.-6 is Dr. Shambhu Sharan, and P.W.7-Manoj Kumar. The trial was conducted and concluded at the end of which the accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced for life. Hence, this appeal. 5. P.W.1-Tuni Kumari, has deposed that the incident is of 8.00 p.m. on 07.09.2004. Both she and her mother Bajo Devi were in the house. She was asleep when her father come home. Since, she had not brought the clothes hanging outside into the house, he came and slapped me. On seeing her being slapped, her mother came to save her and said why are you bitting her. On this her father started abusing her mother and also started to beat her. He also abused her and said make vegetable curry and continuing beating her mother, he took her outside. After some time, he came to her and said, “Your mother has hanged herself.” She then went outside and saw that her mother was hanging. The rope was loose and the feet were on the ground. She said her mother did not hang herself but her father beat her and killed her. Then her father released her mother from the rope and put her down. Thereafter, he took her on a motorcycle to Dr. Upendera. Dr. Upendra saw her and declared her dead. Then Manoj Mahto and her father brought her back home. Even before the death of my mother, her father used to beat her daily. Whenever, he returned from somewhere, he used to beat her. She has stated that she recognizes the person who killed her mother, and he is in the dock. In her cross-examination, she has further said, that she is staying with her maternal grand parents for the last 6-7 months now, and that she obeys their every word. Her two brothers are now also living with the maternal grand parents. She has stated that she recognizes the person who killed her mother, and he is in the dock. In her cross-examination, she has further said, that she is staying with her maternal grand parents for the last 6-7 months now, and that she obeys their every word. Her two brothers are now also living with the maternal grand parents. The incident is of 7-8 p.m. and it was dark, however, they have electrical lighting at home. 6. P.W.1 further said that her mother had moved to save her from the beating of her father, and then her father started fighting with her mother. Her father slapped her 2-3 times, but she had not cried loudly. Then her mother was sitting. He caught hold of her mother by her hair and started assaulting her very aggressively with hand and feet. He abused her and told her to make vegetable curry. When, she was somehow making the curry, her father took mother outside. After, some time he came and told her that her mother has hanged herself. Her father then took her to the place where her mother was hanging. 7. She further deposed that she did not see the fight between the mother and father outside, but heard him beating her mother. Her mother was crying and screaming. Father was also abusing her mother. This continued for an hour and then it become quiet. When her father came and told her that her mother is hanging, she was making vegetable curry. She then went to her mother and saw that her mother was hanging. The rope was loose and the feet were touching the ground. Mother was not hanging from a height, because that place was not suitable for hanging. She said her father released the rope, and her mother fell down. When, she fell down, her mother was dead, so she did not feel hurt. Her father brought her mother to the room and went to call Manoj Mahto who came, then both of them put her on a motorcycle and took her to Dr. Upendra. At that time Manoj Mahto's wife had also come and she took me home. 8. P.W.2-Puni Nath Mahto, is father of the deceased. He has deposed that the incident is of about 7 months ago. Two persons, had come and informed that aunty has died. Then, he went to Kadma with Jaglal Mahto. Upendra. At that time Manoj Mahto's wife had also come and she took me home. 8. P.W.2-Puni Nath Mahto, is father of the deceased. He has deposed that the incident is of about 7 months ago. Two persons, had come and informed that aunty has died. Then, he went to Kadma with Jaglal Mahto. When they reached Kadma, he saw that his daughter is lying dead. Then his grand daughter informed him that the matter relates to the clothes not being taken in, and her father told her to make vegetable curry and she went in. That Tuni's father had taken her mother outside, all the time beating her. Then, he told her that your mother has hanged herself and died. Tuni then went and saw that her mother was hanging by rope. The rope was loose and her feet were touching the ground. He said that he recognized his son-in-law who murdered his daughter and he is in the Court. 9. P.W.4, Manoj Mahto has deposed that at the time of the incident he was at home. In that night at about 11-12 in the night Dharmnath called him from his home. He had said that his wife's health is bad. On this he went to his house. He saw his wife gasping Dharmnath said lets take her to a hospital. They then took her on his motorbike to Dr. Upendra. The doctor said that the wife's vein has broken. There is no life left is her. After this Dharmnaths wife was brought home. In his cross-examination he has said, that the accused persons house is around 100 feet from his and we regularly visit each other. He has not seen Dharmnath fighting with his wife ever. After returning from the doctor's place, no information was given to the police regarding the death of the wife of Dharmnath. Information was given to his wife's people. He has also said that he does not know how Dharm's wife died or who assaulted her. 10. P.W.6 is Dr. Shambhu Saran and he has performed the postmortem examination of the dead body of Bajo Devi, w/o Dharma Mahto. He has observed abrasions from right great toe to little toe and on right shoulder top. Internally there is diffused contusion of occiptial skull with contusion of brain and presence of sub dural blood and blood clot over both sides of brain. He has observed abrasions from right great toe to little toe and on right shoulder top. Internally there is diffused contusion of occiptial skull with contusion of brain and presence of sub dural blood and blood clot over both sides of brain. He has also opinioned that injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance and that death is due to head injury. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that his wife was somehow injured, and even if she was assaulted, afterwards, the accused tried to save her by taking her to a doctor. There was no motive and at the most he can be responsible for causing death by negligence and hence at the most he is guilty of the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Learned A.P.P. has opposed this line of argument of defence counsel that it is one only of negligence, and asserted that the whole sequence of events and evidence negates any negligence thereof. He has submitted that he has also in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. cooked up a story that since their buffalo died on account of drowning, she was depressed resulting in her death. Depression rarely results in death and the injuries on her body do not indicate so. 13. Learned A.P.P. has also said that the accused has also with the help of P.W.4 or Manoj Mahto tried to mislead the Court about the true facts, by presenting a picture that the deceased Bajo Devi was though injured, alive when P.W.4 saw her, and they rushed her to a doctor. That P.W.4 is a friend of the accused and cannot be relied upon. FINDINGS:- 14. Having perused the records and evidence, and having heard the arguments of both the learned counsels, the case is rather simple and uncomplicated, and rests largely on the evidence of a single witness, who at least witnessed the initial assaults made by the accused on the deceased, and which apparently continued. Then, there is the report of the doctor who conducted the postmortem and his report which clearly points to the fact of death due to assault. 15. Then, there is the report of the doctor who conducted the postmortem and his report which clearly points to the fact of death due to assault. 15. The case against the accused was initiated by the lodging of the F.I.R. by P.W.3, Jagal Mahato, who is also the brother of the deceased, who on the basis of information received from Tuni Kumari, daughter of the accused as well as the deceased, who informed that her father assaulted her mother till she died. On the information from Tuni Kumari, or P.W.1 Jagal Mahto lodged the F.I.R. Tuni Kumari or P.W.1 is about 12 years old, however, she is most reliable. The Court has also certified that though she is a minor girl, but, she understands the questions and could properly answer the questions put to her. She was also cross-examined lengthily and was able to answer all question properly and was consistent in her statements, so is entirely believable, and there is no reasons forthcoming as to why she cannot be believed. P.W.1 is also an important witness, because she is both the daughter of the deceased, as well as the accused. Having lost her mother, she is not going to accuse or implicate her father, unless in truth he needs to be implicated. 16. The salient features of her deposition is that because she had not taken in the clothes hung outside for drying into the house, her father started beating her. Her mother came to rescue her, and in turn her mother became the victim of her father's beatings. Her father then told her to cook some vegetables and took her mother outside. After some time he came and told her, that your mother has hanged herself. However, she has deposed that when she saw the body hanging, she saw that the rope was loose and the feet of her mother was touching the ground. She has then categorically deposed that her mother did not hang herself, rather she deposed her father assaulted and killed her. 17. She has also deposed that when Dr. Upendra Saw her, he declared, she is already dead. In this regard, even Manoj Mahto, or P.W.4 in his deposition has stated that Dr. Upendra had said, that her nerve is cut, and there is no life left in her. 18. P.W.6 or Dr. Shambhu Saran is the doctor who conducted the postmortem. She has also deposed that when Dr. Upendra Saw her, he declared, she is already dead. In this regard, even Manoj Mahto, or P.W.4 in his deposition has stated that Dr. Upendra had said, that her nerve is cut, and there is no life left in her. 18. P.W.6 or Dr. Shambhu Saran is the doctor who conducted the postmortem. He has observed abrasion on the right feet and right shoulder and diffused contusion of occipital skull with contusion of brain and presence of sub dural blood and blood clot over both side of brain. He has also given opinion that injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, and that death was due to injury on head. There is no question of dying by depression in which case there would be no injury. The version of death by depression over the death of a buffalo, in the face of injuries would itself point to the concoction of a patently unbelievable death by depression story. 19. Thus, looking to the evidence on record, namely, that the sole reliable witness is the minor daughter of the accused herself and it is certain that she is not making up the case against her own father. She had herself been assaulted by her father, when her mother rescued her, and then her mother herself began to be assaulted, which this child witnessed. Soon after, the father informs that her mother has hanged herself, which P.W.1 controverts in her deposition on stating that the rope was loose and her mother's feet were touching the ground. Hence, it is obvious that the father killed her by assaults, and then tries to create a suicide by hanging scenario, which the daughter naturally disbelieves. He also later makes up another story of his wife dying due to depression over the death of a buffalo. The creation of his second unfounded version of death further only leads to the conclusion that the accused had killed his wife. 20. Secondly the P.W.6-Dr. Shambhu Sharan in his deposition only supports the version of P.W.1 that her mother was assaulted by her father, leading to the death of the deceased Bajo Devi. 21. Hence, looking into the totality of facts and circumstances and evidence it is concluded that the accused, Dharmu Nath Mahto is guilty of the offence U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction is upheld. 21. Hence, looking into the totality of facts and circumstances and evidence it is concluded that the accused, Dharmu Nath Mahto is guilty of the offence U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment for life U/s 302 I.P.C. is also upheld. 22. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.