JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. In this criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant, Gurbachan Singh S/o. Shri Dalip Singh, u/s. 374Cr.P.C., the judgment dated 27th of September, 2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Trial Court') in Session Case No. 58/2007 is under challenge, whereby the trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as infra: "302 of IPC: Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment." 2. As per facts of case, complainant P.W.1 Rajesh Singh, submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) on 22.08.2007 before the S.H.O., Police Station Gharsana, at government hospital where his mother Smt. Gyano Bai was admitted, alleging therein that his father Gurbachan Singh is habitual drinker and often demanded money from his mother and on denial, usually gave beatings and also make harassment to the family members. It was also alleged by the complainant that about four days before the date of occurrence, his father accused-appellant Gurbachan Singh returned from the house of his grandfather and continuously made quarrel and harassment to his mother Gyano Bai. On 22.08.2007 the complainant went to his working place, at about 12:30 pm, in the afternoon, where he received a telephonic message from his sister P.W.2 Simran Kaur that their father i.e., accused-appellant gave fatal blow on the head of their mother Gyano Bai and to come there at the earliest. On receiving the aforesaid information, the complainant P.W.1 Rajesh Singh immediately rushed to the house and found his mother Gyano Bai in unconscious condition. At that time, P.W.6 Darshana Kaur also came on the spot and both of them took the injured Gyano Bai to the Government hospital where after the primary examination, the doctors declared Smt. Gyano Bai dead. 3. Upon the aforesaid written complaint, an FIR No. 251/2007 was registered against the appellant and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 of IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gharsana District Sriganganagar from where the case was committed for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh but subsequently, was transferred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh for trial. 4. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh but subsequently, was transferred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh for trial. 4. For framing charges against the accused appellant, an opportunity was granted to the accused-appellant and after hearing parties, the trial court framed charge against the accused appellant for the offence u/s. 302 IPC, to which the accused appellant denied and claimed trial. 5. In the trial, statements of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 30 documents along with 6 articles were exhibited in support of prosecution case. 6. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, statements of accused appellant were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegation of prosecution and claimed that he is innocent. However, no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the accused-appellant in his defence. 7. The learned trial court, finally heard the arguments of both the sides and vide judgment dated 27th of September, 2008 convicted the accused appellant for the offence u/s. 302 of IPC and passed the sentence, as referred above. The judgment impugned is under challenged in this appeal. 8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that finding of conviction in the judgment impugned dated 27th September of 2008 passed by the learned trial court is based upon improper finding and without considering the entire evidence on record in right perspective, therefore, the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. While inviting our attention towards the statement of P.W.2 Simran Kaur, the daughter of deceased and appellant, it is submitted that presence of the said witness is seriously doubtful because there is material contradiction in her statement recorded during investigation and during trial. 9. It is argued that learned trial court committed grave error of law to give finding of guilt against the accused appellant because the trial court has failed to consider the defence version which is more probable than the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that as per site plan, it is mentioned that occurrence took place upon the place mark "X" and a coat (Charpai) is lying there but no blood was found upon the land where coat (Charpai) was lying so also no blood was found upon the floor, therefore, the whole prosecution case become doubtful. It is submitted that as per site plan, it is mentioned that occurrence took place upon the place mark "X" and a coat (Charpai) is lying there but no blood was found upon the land where coat (Charpai) was lying so also no blood was found upon the floor, therefore, the whole prosecution case become doubtful. The recovery of weapon i.e., iron rod (Sabal) is not based upon trustworthy and reliable evidence because blood group has not been proved upon the iron rod (Sabal), which is said to be recovered from the appellant, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. 10. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that there is no evidence of "motive" except the fact that accused appellant was consuming liquor and demanding money regularly from his wife, deceased Gyano Bai and upon refusal, inflicted injury upon her body to kill her but this fact is far from truth because marriage of accused appellant with deceased Gyano Bai was solemnized 19 years back and they are having number of children from their wedlock. The whole prosecution story is based upon the testimony of eye witness P.W.2 Simran Kaur, minor daughter of deceased but there is no other evidence to corroborate her statement because no independent witness is produced before the court to prove the incident and motive. According to the learned counsel for the accused appellant, the whole prosecution case is based upon the testimony of child eye-witness P.W.2 Simran Kaur who was said to be present at the time of occurrence but in the cross examination, it is accepted by her that before recording of her statement by the police, her maternal uncle and Nana, father of the deceased Gyano Bai already reached. Therefore, obviously, the aforesaid child witness P.W.2 Simran Kaur was tutored by them. The FIR (Ex. P/1) was filed by P.W.1 Rajesh, son of the deceased, in which it is stated by him that incident was reported on telephone by his sister, P.W.2 Simran Kaur. Therefore, it is obvious that FIR was filed by the hearsay witness who was not present on spot. 11. The FIR (Ex. P/1) was filed by P.W.1 Rajesh, son of the deceased, in which it is stated by him that incident was reported on telephone by his sister, P.W.2 Simran Kaur. Therefore, it is obvious that FIR was filed by the hearsay witness who was not present on spot. 11. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that whole prosecution story is doubtful because the whole prosecution case is based upon the testimony of child eye-witness P.W.2 Simran Kaur, who was alleged to be present at the time of occurrence. The statements under Section 161 of CrPC of P.W.2 Simran Kaur were recorded on 23.08.2007 but those statement has not exhibited during trial, therefore, the statement of P.W.2 Simran Kaur has wrongly been relied upon by the learned trial court so as to hold the accused appellant guilty, therefore, the finding of the conviction recorded upon the testimony of sole child eye witness P.W.2 Simran Kaur without corroboration by any independent witness. The allegation levelled by her has not been proved by the medical evidence. Therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and the accused appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the written report (Ex. P/1) was filed by P.W.1 Rajesh on 22nd of August 2008 at about 1:30 pm at Police Station Gharsana. In the written report (Ex. P/1), the facts were narrated by the complainant P.W.1 Rajesh as reported to him by his sister P.W.2 Simran Kaur. In the statement, the previous conduct and behavior of the accused appellant has also been narrated by him. As per allegation of the complainant, prior to the incident, the conduct of the accused appellant was quarrelsome with deceased and other family members because the accused appellant is regularly consuming liquor and not doing any work. He was demanding money regularly from his mother Gyano Bai and upon refusal, give beatings to his mother. Meaning thereby, right from initial stage of marriage, the conduct of accused appellant was very bad towards the family. According to learned Public Prosecutor, it is beyond imagination that a daughter will give false evidence against her own father unless and until some motive exists. Meaning thereby, right from initial stage of marriage, the conduct of accused appellant was very bad towards the family. According to learned Public Prosecutor, it is beyond imagination that a daughter will give false evidence against her own father unless and until some motive exists. In this case, the child eyewitness P.W.2 Simran Kaur, daughter of deceased was present alongwith other children at the time of occurrence. The said child eyewitness categorically made allegation in her statement on oath during trial and said that my father used to beat my mother and on the date of incident, the accused appellant made demand of money to purchase liquor but the deceased Gyano Bai refused to give money, therefore, the accused appellant caused injury upon her head and other parts of the body of deceased by iron rod (Sabal) when she was sleeping under a tree on a coat. It is also stated that soon after the occurrence, she made mobile call to his brother P.W.1 Rajesh who came on the spot alongwith Darshana/PW.6, residing near the house of the accused appellant and they took the injured Gyano Bai to the hospital but in the hospital, she died. The other witness and doctors proved the incident. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the testimony of child eyewitness P.W.2 Simran Kaur so as to held accused appellant guilty. The witnesses P.W.3 Harbans Singh, P.W.4 Resham Singh, P.W.5 Narayan Singh (Father-in-law of the accused appellant), P.W.7 Jarnail Singh (witness of the recovery of iron rod - Sabal), P.W.8 Hukma Bai (mother of the deceased Gyano Bai) categorically supported the prosecution story and upon perusal of the statements of these witnesses, it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that although other three witnesses P.W.6 Darshna, P.W.10 Jora Singh, neighbour of the accused appellant and P.W.11 Sarjit Singh turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case but there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of child eyewitness P.W.2 Simran Kaur because her allegations are supported by the other witnesses of investigation including P.W.15 SHO Hari Ram Jakhad and P.W.16 ASI Vijay Kumar because the investigation conducted by them so as to prove the case against the accused appellant. In view of above arguments, it is submitted that the instant criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant may kindly be dismissed. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the finding of convict based upon entire evidence led by the prosecution. 16. Admittedly, P.W.1 Rajesh is the son of the accused appellant Gurbachan Singh. In the written report (Ex. P/1), allegations were levelled by him against the accused appellant as narrated by his sister Simran Kaur as P.W.2, eyewitness of the said incident. The witness P.W.1 Rajesh being son of the accused appellant gave statement with regard to conduct and behavior of the accused appellant with the family members. His statement is supported by the eye witness P.W.2 Simran Kaur who was present at the time of occurrence took place in which accused appellant inflicted injury by iron rod (Sabal) upon the body of the deceased Gyano Bai. 17. P.W.2 Simran Kaur, 14 years daughter of the deceased, who was present at the place of occurrence gave following statements which reads as under:- ^^esjh eEeh ls esjs ikik us iSls ekaxs tks fd 'kjkc ihus ds fy, ekaxs tc esjh eEeh us euk dj fn;k fQj esjh eEeh pkjikbZ ij uhe ds uhps lks jgh Fkh rc esjs ikik us yksgs dh lCcy ls esjh eEeh ds flj ij pksV ekjhA esjs ikik ?kVuk ls igys esjs nknk ds ikl ?kVuk ls igys xkao x;k Fkk tks 7&8 fnu jgdj vk;k FkkA esjs ikik ?kVuk ls nks fnu igys vk;k Fkk gekjs ?kj esa esjs nknk ds ikl tkdj vkus ds ckn ikik esjh eEeh ds lkFk cgqr T;knk yM+us yx x;k FkkA eSusa HkkbZ dks Qksu fd;k vkS crk;k fd eEeh us ikik us yksgs dh lCcy ls flj esa pksV ekjh gS] esjs HkkbZ ds ikl eksckbZy gS ua- eq>s /;ku ugh gS ?kj esa dkWih ij fy[kk gqvk FkkA eEeh ds pksV yxus ds ckn mlds [kwu vk;k rFkk esjh eka FkksM+s&FkksM+s lkal ys jgh FkhA esjk HkkbZ tc vk;k vkSj esjh cqvk n'kZuk tks iM+ksl es jgh gS oks esjs HkkbZ ds lkFk esjh eEeh dks gkLihVy ys x, ogka mlus lkal rksM+ nhA^^ 18. PW-3 Harbans Singh is the brother-in-law of the accused appellant and brother of the deceased. PW-3 Harbans Singh is the brother-in-law of the accused appellant and brother of the deceased. He has also categorically made allegations about the conduct and bad behavior of accused appellant with his sister Gyano Bai and supported the allegation that the accused appellant was consuming liquor regularly. The witness Harbans Singh has proved Panchnama (Ex. P/3), recovery memo of iron rod (Ex. P/12), map of the place from where weapon of offence was effected (Ex. P/13) so also Ex. P/14 whereby the accused appellant identified the place of occurrence to the police. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness solely on the ground that he is close relative of the deceased Gyano Bai. 19. P.W.4 Resham Singh is the witness before whom Ex. P/2, Ex. P/4, Ex. P/5, Ex. P/6 & Ex. P/7 were prepared at the place of occurrence and clothes of deceased Gyano Bai were taken in the possession in the government hospital vide Ex. P/7. 20. P.W.5 Narayan Singh is Father-in-law of the accused appellant. This witness has also corroborated the allegation of consuming liquor by the accused appellant and said that so many times, he has asked the accused appellant that do not beat your wife and stated before the court on oath that incident of killing of Gyano Bai was reported to him by P.W.2 Simran Kaur. A detailed cross examination was made from him in which this witness categorically stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized 19 years back but on the date of incident, as reported by P.W.2 Simran Kaur, the accused appellant inflicted injuries by iron rod (Sabal) resulting into the death of deceased Gyano Bai. 21. P.W.6 Smt. Darshna, residing near the house of the deceased, though turned hostile but specifically said that on the date of incident, the daughter of the accused appellant P.W.2. Simran Kaur came to her house and informed about the incident but stated that no information was given by her with regard to involvement of accused appellant. 22. P.W.7 Jarnail Singh has proved the recovery memo of iron rod - Sabal (Ex. P/12) and map of the place of recovery (Ex. P/13) so also Ex. P/14 of the place of occurrence upon information of the accused. 23. P.W.8 Hukma Bai is the mother of deceased Gyano Bai and mother-in-law of the accused appellant. 22. P.W.7 Jarnail Singh has proved the recovery memo of iron rod - Sabal (Ex. P/12) and map of the place of recovery (Ex. P/13) so also Ex. P/14 of the place of occurrence upon information of the accused. 23. P.W.8 Hukma Bai is the mother of deceased Gyano Bai and mother-in-law of the accused appellant. The said witness deposed in her statement that marriage of her daughter was solemnized 20 years back with the accused appellant. The accused appellant was consuming liquor. My daughter was maintaining his children, so many times, the accused appellant was instructed by her not to make quarrel with the deceased but the conduct of the accused appellant did not change. The said witness P.W.8 Hukma Bai stated that the son of my daughter P.W.1 Rajesh informed us that my father has inflicted injuries to my mother by iron rod (Sabal), therefore, she died. 24. P.W.9 Navneet Arora is the photographer, who has proved the fact that photographs Ex. P/10 & Ex. P/11 were taken by him during investigation. 25. P.W.10 Jora Singh and P.W.11 Sarjeet Singh, neighbor of the accused appellant, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 26. P.W.12 HC Bhalu Ram, P.W.13 Constable Jagdish Prasad, P.W.14 Dr. Madan Mohan, P.W.15 CI Hari Ram Jakhad and P.W.16 ASI Vijay Kumar has proved the whole investigation conducted by the police. All these witnesses categorically stated before the Court that investigation was conducted in the fair manner for the incident took place in the house of the deceased on 22nd of August, 2007 in which the accused appellant inflicted injuries by iron rod (Saba) to the deceased Gyano Bai which resulted into death of Gyano Bai.. 27. P.W.14 Dr. Madan Mohan who was working on the post of medical officer at Primary Health Centre at Gharsana conducted the post mortem and gave its report Ex. P/22. The said witness categorically stated before the court that at the time of examination of the dead body of Gyano Bai, seven injuries were found upon her body out of which only injury No. 5 was simple in nature. The relevant part of the statement of P.W.14 Dr. P/22. The said witness categorically stated before the court that at the time of examination of the dead body of Gyano Bai, seven injuries were found upon her body out of which only injury No. 5 was simple in nature. The relevant part of the statement of P.W.14 Dr. Madan Mohan about his opinion for cause of death is as follows:- ^^eSa fnukad 23-8-07 dks fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh lkeqnkf;d LokLFk; dsUnz ?kM+lkuk esa dk;Zjr FkhA ml jkst iqfyl izfrosnu ij esjs }kjk e`Ÿkdk KkuksckbZ dh yk'k dk iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-23 rS;kj dh xbZ ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj] lh ls M+h e`R;q ds lac/k esa esjh jk; gS] bZ ls ,Q e`Ÿkdkj ds vkbZ pksVksa dk fooj.k gSA bZ ls ,Q esa vkbZ pksVs e`R;q ls iwoZ dh FkhA th ls ,p esa e`Ÿkdk ds vaxks dk ckgzk o vkarfjd ijh{k.k dk fooj.k vafdr gSA e`Ÿkdk dh igpku mlds iq= jkts'k flag us dh Fkh ftldk vadu vkbZ ls ts Hkkx esa vafdr gS ,oa e`Ÿkdk dk uke ds ls ,y Hkkx gSA 'ko dk ijh{k.k esjs }kjk fnu 23-8-07 dks lqcg 7%20 ij fd;k ml le; e`R;qq dh vof/k 16 ls 24 ?kaVs ds chp dh FkhA e`Ÿkdk ds flj esa pksVs vkbZ gqbZ Fkh flj dh gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ Fkh lHkh pksaVs dqankyk gfFk;kj dh Fkh dqy pksVksa dh la[;k 7 Fkh tks flj vkSj eqag ij FkhA e`R;q dk dkj.k esjh jk; esa flj ij o eqag ij vkbZ pksVks ds dkj.k flj o fnekx es pksV yxus ds dkj.k gqbZ FkhA ftles vf/kd jDr L=k; e`R;q dk dkj.k jgk FkkA pksV la-1 rk 7 es ls dsoy pksV la-5 lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh Fkh 'ks”k pksVs xaHkhj izd`fr dh FkhA^^ 28. Upon assessment of entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the testimony of child eyewitness P.W.2 Simran Kaur daughter of deceased and other witnesses cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that they are close relatives of deceased and accused appellant. All the witnesses has corroborated the allegation of eye witness P.W.2 Simran Kaur and proved the prosecution case. 29. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused appellant. None of the grounds raised by learned counsel for the accused appellant deserves acceptance because the entire prosecution case is based upon the testimony of P.W.2 Simran Kaur, daughter of deceased and accused appellant. 29. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused appellant. None of the grounds raised by learned counsel for the accused appellant deserves acceptance because the entire prosecution case is based upon the testimony of P.W.2 Simran Kaur, daughter of deceased and accused appellant. The trial court has recorded finding upon the entire evidence available on record that prosecution has proved its case about the occurrence took place in the house of accused appellant in presence of children. In that incident, accused appellant caused injuries to his wife Gyano Bai by iron rod (Sabal) in which there is no illegality. 30. Accordingly and in view of discussion, this Court is of the opinion that finding of guilt arrived at against the accused appellant by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar vide judgment impugned dated 27th of September, 2008 is, based upon sound appreciation of evidence on record, therefore, no interference is called for. 31. Resultantly, the present criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant is hereby dismissed.