JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Om Prakash Sain, present appellant has been convicted by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide impugned judgment dated 22.2.2008 for offence u/sec. 302, 307 and 324 IPC. Having convicted the appellant for the above said offences, the Trial Court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under:- For offence u/sec. 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six month additional simple imprisonment. For offence u/sec. 307 IPC to undergo five year simple imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default thereof to undergo two month additional simple imprisonment. For offence u/sec. 324 IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 2.6.2007 the appellant in his own house bearing No. A-1, Govind Dev Colony, Jaipur, had committed murder of his daughter Arti, wife of Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19). It is further case of the prosecution that on said date and time appellant had also committed murderous assault on his son-in-law Preetam Kumar and thereby had committed offence punishable u/sec. 307 IPC. Appellant had also caused injuries to Preetam Kumar falling within the ambit of sec. 324 IPC. 5. Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19), on 2.6.2007 at 11:15 A.M. had made a statement (Ex. P-44) before Anil Singh (P.W. 20) who was then posted as S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur City. On the basis of statement Ex. P-44, formal FIR (Ex. P-50) bearing No. 264/2007 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur. Anil Singh (P.W. 20) deposed in Court that on 2.6.2007 he was posted as In-charge of Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur City. He received an information that some lady is lying unconscious in Govind Dev Colony. Upon receipt of information he reached at house No. A-1, Govind Dev Colony, Jaipur, and found the dead body of a lady, lying in the gallery of the house. Preetam Kumar S/o. Rohit Kumar (P.W. 19) in injured condition was found present at the spot. His statement Ex. Upon receipt of information he reached at house No. A-1, Govind Dev Colony, Jaipur, and found the dead body of a lady, lying in the gallery of the house. Preetam Kumar S/o. Rohit Kumar (P.W. 19) in injured condition was found present at the spot. His statement Ex. P-44 as stated above, was recorded. 6. Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19) in his statement stated that he was practicing lawyer at Dausa. He was married with Arti on 20.4.2006. He further informed the police that after marriage Arti was staying with him at Dausa. On 17.5.2007 he received a telephonic call from his father-in-law Om Prakash that mother of Arti had gone to Ganganagar, therefore, Arti be dropped at Jaipur. On 17.5.2007 complainant, first informant, Preetam Kumar along with his wife Arti, father Rohit Kumar and mother Rajni Devi came to Jaipur. First he had taken his wife to Female Hospital Sanganeri Gate for medical examination. His parents left for house of his maternal grandfather. He left his wife at the house of Om Prakash Sain, accused appellant. Complainant further stated that after staying at the house of his father-in-law for two hours, he returned to Dausa. On 1.6.2007 at around 2:00 P.M. he received a telephonic call from his wife Arti. She enquired as to when complainant will come to take her back to matrimonial home, upon which complainant informed that he will come on 2.6.2007, the date for which doctor had already given an appointment. In the night of 1.6.2007 at about 10 - 11 P.M. complainant received a telephonic call from his father-in-law Om Prakash, who complained that Arti is not cooking meals for him. The complainant asked his father-in-law on telephone to put him across to his wife. On telephone, Arti was weeping and complained that her father is giving her abuses. She further informed that she has been given beating by her father. She requested her husband, complainant, to come immediately. Complainant told her that he will come in the morning. The complainant asked his father-in-law on telephone to put him across to his wife. On telephone, Arti was weeping and complained that her father is giving her abuses. She further informed that she has been given beating by her father. She requested her husband, complainant, to come immediately. Complainant told her that he will come in the morning. On 2.6.2007 at about 5:00 A.M. the complainant started from Dausa and came to Jaipur at around 9:00 A.M. When he reached at the house of his father-in-law and rang the door bell, Om Prakash opened the window of Beauty Parlour and said since he is taking a bath complainant should come after half an hour, upon which complainant told that in case you are taking a bath, Arti should open the door, upon which accused lost temper and asked the complainant to go away and come after half an hour. Complainant went and came after half an hour. He again rang the door bell and when the father-in-law, accused Om Prakash opened the gate, complainant entered the house, immediately Om Prakash pounced upon him, attacked and caused injuries on the head and both the hands of the complainant. Complainant, to take shelter, went inside the room of the Beauty Parlour, closed the door and raised voice bachao-bachao. Upon which Om Prakash said he had already murdered Arti and he will not leave the complainant. Thereafter accused locked gate of the house and went away. Complainant went inside the Bath Room and found that his wife Arti was lying in a pool of blood. Blood was oozing out of her head. A rope was found tied around her neck. After sometime somebody opened the door. Thereafter people came and with their help dead body was brought from the Bath Room to the gallery of the house. People who had gathered informed that Arti had died. The dead body was laid in the gallery of the house. Complainant stated that he was attacked by his father-in-law Om Prakash, and, he had also committed murder of his wife. A grievance was made in the statement leading to registration of the case that Om Prakash used to suspect fidelity of mother-in-law Anju and character of daughter Arti and, therefore, he had committed murder of Arti. 7. Complainant stated that he was attacked by his father-in-law Om Prakash, and, he had also committed murder of his wife. A grievance was made in the statement leading to registration of the case that Om Prakash used to suspect fidelity of mother-in-law Anju and character of daughter Arti and, therefore, he had committed murder of Arti. 7. Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19), complainant and Anju Sain (P.W. 10) step mother of Arti, are the star witnesses of the case. Before we recapitulate the evidence which has emerged in the testimony of these two material witnesses, it will be apposite for us to notice the medical evidence. 8. Dr. N.L. Disania (P.W. 9), on 2.6.2007 at about 4:15 P.M. had conducted autopsy on the dead body. This witness proved on record Post Mortem Report (Ex. P-18). The doctor had noted thirteen ante mortem injuries on the right eye, right and left sides of head, left ear, cheek, hand and left feet. Injuries were also found on the right hand and left elbow. The injuries described in the Post Mortem Report (Ex. P-18) on the person of deceased Arti are reproduced below:- (1) Lacerated wound 3.5 x 1.5 c.m. at right eyebrow, bone deep. (2) Two incised wounds of size 3.5 x 1/2 c.m., bone deep and 2.5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. at right parieto temporal region of skull with reddish clotted blood. (3) Multiple lacerated wound of size varying 3.5 x 1/2 c.m. to 2.5 x 1 c.m., bone deep placed at parieto occipital region of skull with subscalp hematoma with clotted blood. (4) Two lacerated wounds of size 4.5 x 1/2 c.m. to 2.5 x 1 c.m., bone deep, placed at parieto occipital region of skull. (5) Multiple lacerated wound of size varying 5 x 1 c.m. to 3.5 x 1/2 c.m., bone deep, placed at left parieto occipital temporal and left fronto region of skull. (6) Incised wound of size 4 x 1/2 c.m. muscle deep placed at left ear pinna with reddish colour. (7) Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1/2 c.m. muscle deep placed at left cheek. (8) Bruise of size 7 x 5 c.m. left hand index finger with reddish colour with fracture of left proximal phalanx. (9) Multiple bruise on left forearm 12 x 7 c.m. of size varying 3 x 1/2 c.m. to 3 x 1 c.m. with reddish blue colour. (7) Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1/2 c.m. muscle deep placed at left cheek. (8) Bruise of size 7 x 5 c.m. left hand index finger with reddish colour with fracture of left proximal phalanx. (9) Multiple bruise on left forearm 12 x 7 c.m. of size varying 3 x 1/2 c.m. to 3 x 1 c.m. with reddish blue colour. (10) Bruise 3 x 2 c.m. left leg posteriorly. (11) Multiple bruise in arm 9 x 7 c.m. at right hand and palm. (12) Multiple bruise in arm 11 x 10 c.m. of size varying 3 x 1 c.m. to 5 x 2 c.m. with reddish colour. (13) Bruise 3 x 2 c.m. left buttock laterally with reddish colour. 9. As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Dr. Disania (P.W. 9) further opined that the injuries and strangulation were ante mortem in nature. 10. Dr. Shishir Kumar Sawant (P.W. 11) stated that on 2.6.2007, as per injury report (Ex. P-19), he had found seven injuries on the person of Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19). Injury No. 1 to 4 were caused by incised weapon whereas remaining injuries were caused by blunt weapon. All injuries were declared as simple. In cross-examination the witness admitted that injury No. 7 was a complaint of pain and no visible injury was discernible. Injury No. 6 was a simple abrasion. 11. Before we revert to testimonies of Anju Sain (P.W. 10) and Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19), we shall have quick glance over the evidence emerging in the testimony of the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution. 12. Manmohan Chaudhary (P.W. 1) stated that on 2.6.2007, being a resident of same colony, he was attracted to the spot. Police had arrived there. He saw one dead body lying in the gallery of the house. He further found that one man in an injured condition was also present at the spot. The witness had attested panchnama of dead body/inquest (Ex. P-1). Manmohan Chaudhary (P.W. 1) is also witness to the various other recoveries effected from the spot. 13. Ranveer Singh (P.W. 2) was In-charge of the malkhana. He had deposed regarding deposit of the case property and its transmission to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. 14. Virendra Kumar Soni (P.W. 3) has also attested inquest and various memos regarding the recoveries effected from the spot. 15. 13. Ranveer Singh (P.W. 2) was In-charge of the malkhana. He had deposed regarding deposit of the case property and its transmission to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. 14. Virendra Kumar Soni (P.W. 3) has also attested inquest and various memos regarding the recoveries effected from the spot. 15. Ramesh Chandra Napit (P.W. 4) stated that injured Preetam is his nephew. Upon a receipt of telephonic call on 2.6.2007 he had gone to the Emergency Ward of SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he found his nephew Preetam Kumar Sain in an injured condition with blood on his clothes. At that time doctor was stitching the wounds on the hand of Preetam Kumar. The witness stated that in his presence police had taken into possession clothes of injured Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19). 16. Bheemraj (P.W. 5) had attested arrest memo (Ex. P-14) whereby present appellant was arrested. He had also attested the memo (Ex. P-15) whereby clothes worn by the accused were taken into possession. 17. Rajesh Sharma (P.W. 6) a neighbour, stated that on 2.6.2007 he had heard the cries of bachao-bachao. He went to the spot and saw Om Prakash going out of the house. He along with his neighbours had gone inside the house and had seen the dead body of Arti in the Bath Room. He had also found her husband Preetam in an injured condition. 18. Ishwar Sharma (P.W. 7) in no way has advanced the case of prosecution. He has only corroborated the fact that son-in-law of Om Prakash had met him before the occurrence as he had seen him reading a newspaper. 19. Narendra Kumar (P.W. 8) had carried fifteen sealed packets from the Office of Superintendent of Police to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 20. Constable Kailash Chand (P.W. 12) proved arrest memo (Ex. P-14) whereby present appellant was arrested. He has also proved memo (Ex. P-15) whereby clothes worn by the accused were taken in possession. 21. Jagdish Prasad Chaudhary (P.W. 13) stated that he was posted as Photographer in the Police Control Room. Upon an information received he had gone to the spot and had taken photographs. This witness has proved on record nine photographs (Ex. P-21 to Ex. P-29). He has proved negatives of the photographs (Ex. P-21/A to Ex. P-29/A). 22. Head Constable Mali Ram (P.W. 14) is a witness to recovery of weapon at the behest of accused appellant. 23. Upon an information received he had gone to the spot and had taken photographs. This witness has proved on record nine photographs (Ex. P-21 to Ex. P-29). He has proved negatives of the photographs (Ex. P-21/A to Ex. P-29/A). 22. Head Constable Mali Ram (P.W. 14) is a witness to recovery of weapon at the behest of accused appellant. 23. Rampal Sharma (P.W. 15) is not a material witness. He has only deposed that accused on the day of occurrence had come to telephone booth to make a call. 24. Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi (P.W. 15) was posted as a Senior Scientific Officer. He was also In-charge of Mobile Forensic Team. This witness had examined the spot. 25. Rohit Kumar (P.W. 17), father of Preetam, had stepped into the witness-box to corroborate the testimony of his son regarding the fact that on 17.5.2007 his son Preetam along with his wife Arti had come to Jaipur. 26. SI Ajeet Singh (P.W. 18) had also witnessed the recovery of gandasi at the instance of accused. 27. Anil Singh (P.W. 20) has proved on record various facets of investigation. 28. Anju Sain (P.W. 10), step mother of deceased Arti, in Court has deposed that she was married with present appellant Om Prakash on 29.6.1998. Earlier to her marriage Om Prakash was married with Urmila Sain who had died. Arti was daughter of Urmila Sain. This witness further stated that Arti was married with Preetam Kumar Sain on 20.4.2006. This witness further stated that she was running a Beauty Parlour and had opened the same in the name of daughter Arti. The witness deposed that she had opened the Beauty Parlour in the year 1990 when Arti was aged 3 years. Om Prakash used to quarrel with her and give her beating. Om Prakash wanted her to close Beauty Parlour. Om Prakash was addicted to alcohol. The witness further stated that she had not permitted Om Prakash to come inside the Beauty Parlour. Om Prakash used to stay in the house and he was not doing any work. Om Prakash used to threat that he will sell the house and will perform third marriage. The witness stated that in year 2006 she had made a complaint against Om Prakash to the police. In that complaint Om Prakash was arrested for giving beating and causing cruelty to the witness. Om Prakash used to threat that he will sell the house and will perform third marriage. The witness stated that in year 2006 she had made a complaint against Om Prakash to the police. In that complaint Om Prakash was arrested for giving beating and causing cruelty to the witness. The witness stated that on 15.5.2007 she informed Arti that since she is going to her parental house, she should come to take care of Parlour, Arti came and started managing Beauty Parlour. She further stated that she received a telephonic call at the house of her parents that Om Prakash has murdered his daughter. She further stated that when she returned to the house of neighbourers they informed her that accused had committed murder of his daughter Arti. 29. With small variation here and there, Preetam Kumar (P.W. 19) has supported the case unfolded by him in his statement (Ex. P-44) made to the police. The witness has reiterated the facts as stated by him in his statement to police. 30. Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to him. In answer to the question as to what he has to say regarding the offence, he filed written submissions. The witness in his statement recorded u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he has been falsely implicated. He has not killed his daughter. Son-in-law Preetam Kumar and second wife Anju, in order to usurp his property have involved him in a false case. The accused further stated that injuries to his daughter were caused by son-in-law Preetam (P.W. 19). 31. We have heard Mr. Biri Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor. 32. Mr. Biri Singh has assailed the evidence of police officer so far as recovery of gandasi and recoveries effected from the spot are concerned. Learned counsel has urged that immediately police had arrived at the scene, thus there was nothing for the accused to hide and hence all recoveries have been planted. Mr. Biri Singh has further highlighted the statement made by the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that Arti has been killed by her husband Preetam. 33. We are not impressed with the submissions advanced before us. 34. Preetam (P.W. 19) is injured in the occurrence. Mr. Biri Singh has further highlighted the statement made by the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that Arti has been killed by her husband Preetam. 33. We are not impressed with the submissions advanced before us. 34. Preetam (P.W. 19) is injured in the occurrence. He is none else but son-in-law of the accused appellant. There is no previous history of enmity or strained relations between Preetam (P.W. 19) with appellant. It has come in evidence that in the night before the occurrence accused made a telephonic call and complained against his daughter to his son-in-law. In the complaint appellant stated that his daughter is not cooking meals for him. It has come in evidence that Anju Sain (P.W. 10) was married with the appellant before year 1990 and the accused under the influence of liquor used to abuse and beat her. 35. Dead body has been found in the house in possession of the accused-appellant. Preetam (P.W. 19) when police arrived at the scene was also found at the house of the appellant in an injured condition. Appellant was arrested on the day of occurrence itself i.e. on 2.6.2007 at 7:15 P.M. Till his statement was recorded u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. he has leveled no allegation against Preetam (P.W. 19), star witness of the prosecution. For the first time in Court while making statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has stated that daughter Arti may have been caused injuries by Preetam (P.W. 19). This version has surfaced at a highly belated stage as result of consultations and deliberations. Nothing prevented the appellant to give his version earlier to the effect that his daughter has been caused injuries by Preetam, her husband. 36. We have seen photographs Ex. P-23 to Ex. P-42. Photograph Ex. P-37 depicts presence of an empty bottle of McDowell No. 1 and an ice-tray on the table. In the house itself dead body of Arti, daughter of appellant, has been found. Photograph Ex. P-39 depicts presence of blood in the Bath Room. It has come in evidence of witnesses that deceased Arti was left with the accused on 17.5.2007. Anju Sain (P.W. 10), who was step mother, has also stated in Court that she had requested Arti to come to Jaipur to look after her Beauty Parlour. She has further stated that accused under the influence of liquor used to abuse her and give beating. Anju Sain (P.W. 10), who was step mother, has also stated in Court that she had requested Arti to come to Jaipur to look after her Beauty Parlour. She has further stated that accused under the influence of liquor used to abuse her and give beating. 37. Taking broad features of the case that the dead body of deceased was found inside the house in possession of the accused and in the night before the occurrence, deceased had made a complaint to her husband that she has been harassed by her father, present appellant, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has committed the offence. The presence of injuries on the person of Preetam (P.W. 19) also lend corroboration to the version given by Preetam. Testimonies of Preetam (P.W. 19) and Anju Sain (P.W. 10) aspire confidence. The accused has failed to impeach the credibility of the witnesses. Furthermore, in the present case FIR has been promptly recorded. Furthermore, the ocular version stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 38. Taking totality of circumstances enumerated by us above, we find that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. We concur with the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court and thus we have no hesitation to uphold conviction of the appellant and affirm the sentences awarded. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.