ORDER : P. K. JAISWAL, J. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13-6-2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa (MP) in Session Trial No. No. 156 of 2003 by which the appellant has been convicted of the charge of murder of Kalu Singh (deceased) and causing injuries to his wife Nabi Bai (PW6), under sections 324, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo 6 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 150/- and under section 302 of Indian Penal Code has been sentenced to undergo RI for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, respectively. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo 1 month of additional RI on each count. 2. As per prosecution story on 24-4-2003, in village Rapura, at about 23.30 hrs, complainant – Nabi Bai (PW6) and her husband – Kalu Singh were sleeping in the ‘Saysingh courtyard’. At that time appellant – Chatar Singh @ Satar Singh (who happens to be Ex-husband of complainant (injured) – Nabi Bai) came there armed with axe and inflicted injury to Nabi Bai, on a parietal region. Due to which she woke up. Thereafter, Charat Singh, inflicted injuries to her husband – Kalu Singh. On this, she shouted and cried for help. Hearing her shriek, PW3 Phiragya, PW1 Sai Singh and Lal Singh, came at the place of occurrence. On seeing that accused – Chatur Singh @ Satar Singh, ran away towards forest. PW6 Complainant – Nabi Bai, narrated the whole incident to them and took her husband in Jeep to police station – Pansemal and lodged the report at crime no.55/03, vide Exhibit P/3. She stated that due to long standing enmity, accused inflicted injuries on her head and to her husband. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Exhibit P/2. Safina form was issued. Inquest was conducted. The accused was arrested vide Exhibit P/7. Axe was sized from the possession of the accused vide seizure memo Exhibit P/7. Postmortem of the dead body of Kalu Singh was conducted by PW7 Dr. Govind Dewda. As per post-mortem report Exhibit P/5 dated 25-4-2003, the deceased sustained the following injuries :— External examination :— 1. Incised wound — 5 x ½ x 3’’ on the Rt. Parietal bone horizontally. 2. Incised wound – 5 x 1 x 3” on the middle of the Rt ear cut to mandible and maxillary bone. Govind Dewda. As per post-mortem report Exhibit P/5 dated 25-4-2003, the deceased sustained the following injuries :— External examination :— 1. Incised wound — 5 x ½ x 3’’ on the Rt. Parietal bone horizontally. 2. Incised wound – 5 x 1 x 3” on the middle of the Rt ear cut to mandible and maxillary bone. It is horizontal. 3. Incised wound – 5 x 2 x 3” Rt. Side of neck and carotid artery and vein and neck muscle and cervical vertebra also cut. 4. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 1” on the Rt. Chest below the Rt. Cervical bone. It is vertical. 5. Incised wound 5 x 1 x 1/7” on the Rt. Knee vertical. 6. Incised wound 2 x 1 x ½” posterior of the Rt. Arm pit. 7. Incised wound 1 x ½ x ½” on the dorsum of the Rt hand. Injuries No. 1 to 7 caused by sharp and hard weapon. Cause of death due to neorogenic and excessive bleeding shock. It is homicidal. Death within 12 hrs. 3. As per opinion of Dr. Govind Dewda (PW7) deceased died due to neorogenic and excessive bleeding and death is homicidal in nature. 4. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, who committed the case for trial in the Court of Sessions. After the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for trial, the matter was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa. Charge under sections 324 and 302, Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed for trial. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as, twelve witnesses, namely PW1 Sai Singh, PW2 Bathiya, PW3 Viragya, PW4 Kalji, PW5 Bavjya, PW6 Nabi Bai, PW7 Dr. Govind Devda, PW8 Sudhir Kumar, PW9 Dr. Surendra Bhargava, PW10 Dr. Rajesh Jain, PW11 Mohd. Aslam Kureshi and PW12 O. P. Yadav. Complainant PW6 Nabi Bai earlier married to Pagdiya. She was with him for a period of two years. Thereafter, she left him and married to accused – Charat Singh and she lived with him for 15 years. Govind Devda, PW8 Sudhir Kumar, PW9 Dr. Surendra Bhargava, PW10 Dr. Rajesh Jain, PW11 Mohd. Aslam Kureshi and PW12 O. P. Yadav. Complainant PW6 Nabi Bai earlier married to Pagdiya. She was with him for a period of two years. Thereafter, she left him and married to accused – Charat Singh and she lived with him for 15 years. Appellant was torturing her and after consuming liquor causing injuries to her and, therefore, she left the house of the appellant and started living with Kalu Singh (deceased) to which he annoyed with her. Prior to this incident, he two to three times caused injuries to her, but has not lodged any complaint against him in police station. PW2 Batiya, brother of Domliya, father-in-law of the injured. She was examined by Dr. Govind Dewda (PW7). As per MLC report vide Exhibit P/4, complainant – Nabi Bai (PW6) sustained the following injuries :- “Incised wound 3 x 1 x ½” on the lt frontal bone caused by sharp and hard weapon. Semi unconcious serious, duration within 12 hrs.” 6. Exhibit P/6 is her X-ray report. As per X-ray report, no bone injury was found. Dr. Surendra Bhargava PW9, who also treated injured Nabi Bai at primary health center at District hospital, Barwani. As per statement of PW1 Sai Singh, injured Nabi Bai was admitted to District Hospital Barwani on 25-4-2003 and she further treated upto 2.5.2003. Injury of injured was by hard and sharp object, but simple in nature. 7. PW1 Sai Singh in his statement has deposed that he was sleeping in his house and on hearing shriek of Nabi Bai PW6, he woke up and reached along with Bhatiya, Phiragya, Lal Singh, Sai Singh to the spot where he found that Kalu Singh was in lateral phase on ‘Khat’ and Chatar Singh was running from there. He also deposed that Kalu Singh was badly injured. He deposed that Chatar Singh received injuries on neck, head and chest. He deposed that thereafter, they took Kalu Singh in jeep to Pansemal police station. 8. He also deposed that Kalu Singh was badly injured. He deposed that Chatar Singh received injuries on neck, head and chest. He deposed that thereafter, they took Kalu Singh in jeep to Pansemal police station. 8. PW2 – Bhatiya in his statement has deposed that on hearing the shriek of PW6 – Nabi Bai he ran to the place of occurrence along with other persons and when they reached to the incident place, he found that Kalu Singh was badly injured and accused – Chatar Singh was there having axe in his hand and thereafter accused ran away from the place. 9. PW3 Chiragya in his statement has deposed that Chatar Singh has said that he will kill (PW6) Nabi Bai and Kalu Singh (deceased). He deposed that on hearing the shriek, he along with other person reached to the spot where he found that Kalu Singh was badly injured and accused – Chatar Singh was carrying axe in his hand and thereafter the accused person ran away from the place of incident. 10. PW4 Kalji, in his statement has also deposed that he saw Kalu Singh was badly injured having injuries on his head, chest and neck and injured – Kalu Singh was crying due to the injuries sustained by him. He further deposed that accused – Chatar Singh, thereafter ran away from the place of occurrence. 11. PW6 Nabi Bai, has also deposed that Chatar Singh, came to the courtyard where she was sleeping with Kalu Singh and caused injuries to her and her husband Kalu Singh. She further deposed that on hearing her shriek PW1, PW2 and PW3 along with other persons reached to the spot and saw accused – Chatar Singh badly injured her husband and her and thereafter he ran away from the place of occurrence. She in her statement has very categorically stated that she has lodged the report against the accused person at police station Pansemal. 12. PW7 Dr. Govind Dewda, autopsy surgeon has deposed that while examining the deceased, he found the deceased sustained wound 3’’ x 1’’ x ½” on Rt. Frontal bone. According to Dr. Govind Dewda PW7, the said injuries so mentioned by him were received by the deceased by sharp and hard object. 13. 12. PW7 Dr. Govind Dewda, autopsy surgeon has deposed that while examining the deceased, he found the deceased sustained wound 3’’ x 1’’ x ½” on Rt. Frontal bone. According to Dr. Govind Dewda PW7, the said injuries so mentioned by him were received by the deceased by sharp and hard object. 13. PW12 O. P. Yadav, Investigating Officer in his statement has deposed that on 25-4-2003, Nabi Bai – complainant came to the police station along with Kalu Singh, who was dead. He deposed that complainant – PW6 – Nabi Bai lodged the report with regard to the incident. 14. The learned trial Court after appreciating the statement of PW1 Sai Singh, PW3 Bhathiya, PW3 Phiragya and PW4 Kalji, who were the eye-witnesses of the case, convicted the present appellant under section 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as aforementioned. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the material prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. Injured PW6 Nabi Bai was not having cordial relations with appellant and, therefore, she has made the allegation against him and submitted that appellant is innocent and not guilty. With the aforesaid, he prays that the appeal be allowed. 16. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has drawn our attention to the reasoning assigned by the trial and submitted that PW6 Nabi Bai, complainant in her statement very categorically stated that it is the present appellant who inflicted injuries to her and multiple injuries to her husband Kalu Singh. She submits that Dr.Govind Dewda PW7, Dr. Surendra Bhargava PW9 and Dr. Rajesh Jain PW10, have examined the deceased and injured Nabi Bai and they very categorically mentioned in the their statements that the said injuries were inflicted by means of sharp and hard object. She submits that recovery of axe has been made from the possession of the appellant and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 18. As per statements of PW1 Sai Singh, PW2 Bathiya and PW3 Firangiya, on hearing the shriek of injured PW6 (Nabi Bai), they had seen appellant – accused at the spot armed with Axe and Kalu singh was lying unconscious. On seeing them, appellant ran away from the place of incident. Thus, it cannot be said that present appellant has been falsely implicated. On seeing them, appellant ran away from the place of incident. Thus, it cannot be said that present appellant has been falsely implicated. PW4 Kalji and PW5 Bawajya are hearsay witnesses. The prosecution evidence is trustworthy and inspire confidence in the mind of the court and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be believed that the accused has been falsely implicated. The trial court after considering the conspectus of the circumstances and materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused and convicted him. Accordingly, the trial court convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 19. Thus, by appreciating the entire evidence on record, we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was falsely implicated or prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the appellant has played the active role in committing the murder of the deceased and causing injuries to complainant Nabi Bia (PW6). As per post-mortem report deceased sustained number of injuries by hard and sharp object and therefore, the court below perfectly right in convicting the appellant under section 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. 21. In the present case, testimony of PW1 to PW7 are true and trustworthy because PW6 Nabi Bai was present at the spot when the incident occurred and noticed the fact that it was the present appellant, who caused injuries to deceased and her. PW6 Nabi Bai injured in her statement very categorically stated that the present appellant caused injuries to her husband Kalu Singh and also Axe injuries to her. Their testimony are cogent, trustworthy, credible and consistent and cannot be brushed aside at any glance. 22. The Apex court in the case of Atmaram and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Cri. Appeal 2003/2008 dated 10-5-2012. The Apex court in para 22 of its judgment has described the following version :— 22. The case before us is quite similar to the case of Rayavarapu Punnayya (supra). 22. The Apex court in the case of Atmaram and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Cri. Appeal 2003/2008 dated 10-5-2012. The Apex court in para 22 of its judgment has described the following version :— 22. The case before us is quite similar to the case of Rayavarapu Punnayya (supra). The cumulative effect of all the injuries was obviously known to each of the accused, i.e., all the injuries inflicted were bound to result in the death of the deceased which, in fact, they intended. Furthermore, the doctor, PW14, had opined that the deceased had died because of multiple injuries and fracture on the vital organs, due to shock and haemorrhage. In other words, even as per the medical evidence, the injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. 23. In the present case, testimony of PW1 Sai Singh, PW2 Bhathiya, PW3 Firangiya, PW6 Nabi Bai, PW7 Dr. Govind Dewda, are true and trustworthy because PW6 was present at the spot when the incident occurred and noticed the fact that it was the present appellant, who caused injuries to deceased – Kalusingh. 24. Instant case of murder of one and injury to Nabi Bai PW6 in the attack by the appellant – accused. Occurrence was a result of enmity. There is plausible and cogent evidence establishing motive of appellant. PW1 Saysingh, PW2 Bathiya and PW3 Firangiya have spoken in one voice overt act of accused. The evidence of PW6 Nabi Bai – injured witness cannot be doubted. Specific role assigned by injured eye-witness PW6 as to how appellant assaulted the deceased. In view of the appellant’s specific role in incident of having struck fatal blow being established. The appellant’s presence and role in the incident is narrated in detailed by injured eye-witness PW6 Nabi Bai. Injuries of the deceased and injured eye-witness are corroborated by the medical evidence. Ocular testimony of the injured eyewitness found trustworthy. 25. Hence, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, find no error in the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal lacks of merit and hence fails and is hereby dismissed.