JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal under Section 374(2) has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.34/2010, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the complaint dated 14.08.2010 submitted by Bishna Ram (P.W. 11) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh stating therein that his sister Jeewani Devi was married to Kalu Ram Naik at village Dabli Rathan 20 years ago. She had four children i.e. three daughters and one son. Eldest girl was 15-16 years of age. His brother in law Kalu Ram was staying with his family in a separate home from his brothers. He often assaulted his sister Jeewani Devi and the kids after consuming liquor. On 13.08.2010 at around 6:00 pm, neighbor of his sister called his brother Om Prakash that Kalu Ram had assaulted his sister Jeewani Devi by an axe. His brother called his niece Neetu who informed that her father i.e. accused Kalu Ram had assaulted her mother by an axe causing grievous injuries on the head, hand and near ear resulting into profuse bleeding from her body. Her uncle Chunni Lal and Bisna Ram had taken Jeewani Devi to Hanumangarh Hospital in a Jeep. Chunni Lal informed his brother Lal Chand on telephone that Jeewani Devi had suffered grievous injuries and her condition was precarious and that the doctors had referred her to Bikaner. He requested them to come to Bikaner. On getting this information, the complainant, his brother Lal chand and his wife Soni Devi reached Bikaner in the morning and met Chunni Lal in the hospital, who informed them that Jeewani Devi had passed away and her dead body was kept in the mortuary. When he, his wife and brother saw body of Jeewani Devi, her entire body was bandaged and blood was oozing out from her head. Her sister had been assaulted and killed by accused Kalu Ram by an axe for no reason whatsoever. 3. When he, his wife and brother saw body of Jeewani Devi, her entire body was bandaged and blood was oozing out from her head. Her sister had been assaulted and killed by accused Kalu Ram by an axe for no reason whatsoever. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR No.240/2010 was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Hanumangarh against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offence under sections 302 IPC. 4. Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accusedappellant for the offence under Sections 302 and the same was read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents in its support. 6. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial he stated that a false case had been registered against him. When he was in his agricultural field, some known person came to his house and wanted to take away his wife. When he reached home, he saw the unknown person running away after assaulting his wife. He followed him. His brother in law, in connivance with the police personnel had falsely implicated him in the present case because of enmity. He had not assaulted his wife. 7. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 22.11.2011 for the offence under section 302 IPC. Hence, this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there exist material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record reliable and clinching evidence for convicting the appellant for the offences alleged. 10. He further submits that there are no signatures on the first page of the written report (Exp.1) filed by the Bishna Ram (P.W.11) which creates a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. 11. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record reliable and clinching evidence for convicting the appellant for the offences alleged. 10. He further submits that there are no signatures on the first page of the written report (Exp.1) filed by the Bishna Ram (P.W.11) which creates a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. 11. He further submits that the date of the incident and lodging of the FIR was 14.08.2010 but the FIR was sent to the concerned Magistrate after a delay of one day i.e. on 15.08.2010 and for this delay, there was no explanation. 12. He further submits that statement of PW14 Neetu is not convincing and trustworthy as there are number of discrepancies and contradictions in the same. She stated that she along with her sister were besides their mother in the Bikaner hospital for two days, whereas, the deceased Jeewani Devi expired and her dead body was cremated on 14.08.2010. 13. Learned counsel further submits that Neetu (PW14) stated that she had gone to her maternal house at 2 GB and stayed there for 5-7 days. In the light of this statement, affixing signatures by her on 14.08.2010 on the site plan (Ex.P/12) prepared by the police appears to be forged as she was not present at her residence at Dabli Rathan. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that as per the recovery memo (Ex.P/6), recovery of bloodstained axe was made from the house of the accused on 16.08.2010. The same also appears to be doubtful as the police reached the place of the incident i.e. house of the deceased on 14.08.2010 but did not look out for the weapon of offence which fact itself creates doubt on the recovery. 15. On the strength of the submissions made, the learned counsel prays that the judgment dated 22.11.2011 is required to be set aside and also prays for acquittal of the appellant from the offence alleged. 16. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supporting the judgment dated 22.11.2011 has submitted that prosecution was able to prove the allegations leveled against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that ocular evidence of PW14 Neetu is trustworthy & worthy of reliance clinching. He further submits that she being daughter of the accused and the deceased will not give a false statement to implicate her own father. He further submits that ocular evidence of PW14 Neetu is trustworthy & worthy of reliance clinching. He further submits that she being daughter of the accused and the deceased will not give a false statement to implicate her own father. He further submits that merely picking up few stray lines from the statement of PW14 Neetu will not shake the credibility of this witness as the same gets substantially corroborated from the medical evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that information given by the accusedappellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exp.31) followed by recovery of weapon of offence (Exp.6) further corroborated the statement of the prosecution witnesses particularly the statement of PW14 Neetu. He further submits that although, PW11 Bishna Ram was declared hostile but he in his cross examination admitted the fact that whatever he stated in the statement under section 161 Cr.PC to the extent that when he went to the house of his brother, his niece Neetu was crying and his brother Kalu Ram was running away from the spot, was correct, therefore, in these circumstances, he submits that the appeal of the appellant is having no force and the same is required to be dismissed. 17. Having considered the submissions made at bar and after minutely going through the evidence available on record, we note that PW14 Neetu being the daughter of deceased and the appellant categorically stated upon hearing the cries of her mother, she ran towards her and saw father was assaulting her mother by an axe and when she raised hue and cry then he ran away from the place of incident. Her uncle Chunni Ram, Bishna Ram and other neighbors rushed to the spot and took her mother to the hospital at Hanumangarh (in a vehicle) and from there she was referred to Bikaner. She and her sister accompanied them. They reached Bikaner at around 11:00 pm, where her mother was treated for two days and died. 18. Pw1 Lal Chand stated in his statement that the accused used to assault his wife and children after consuming liquor. He was informed by his brother Om Prakash that the accused had inflicted axe blow to the deceased Jeewani Devi who died because of fatal injuries. 19. Pw2 Sohani Devi also stated on the same lines as stated by PW1. 20. Pw4 Dr. He was informed by his brother Om Prakash that the accused had inflicted axe blow to the deceased Jeewani Devi who died because of fatal injuries. 19. Pw2 Sohani Devi also stated on the same lines as stated by PW1. 20. Pw4 Dr. Vinod Mawadiya stated that while working at Government Hospital, Hanumangarh, he examined Jeewani Devi who had suffered a number of injuries on her body and referred her to the higher center for further treatment. 21. Pw6 Dr. Bhavesh Bohra stated that while working as Medical Jurist at PBM Hospital, Bikaner, he was a member of the Board constituted for conducting postmortem of the deceased. He stated about the injuries suffered by the deceased. He stated that in the opinion of the board, all the injuries were inflicted by sharp edged weapon were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 22. Although, PW11 Bishna Ram was declared hostile but in his cross examination, he stated that whatever he stated in the statement under section 161 Cr.PC from 'C to D' was correct to the effect that on hearing cries of his niece, when he went to the house of his brother Kalu Ram, he saw that his niece was crying and his brother ran away from the house towards the street. 23. Pw12 Mst. Santosh is daughter of the deceased. She also stated almost on the same lines as PW14. 24. Pw17 Ranveer Singh is investigating officer who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet in the matter. 25. Ex.P/14 is postmortem report wherein the cause of death is opined to be 'Coma' due to head injury which was ante mortem caused by a sharp edged weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 26. The prosecution case hinges on the testimony of PW14 Neetu and a close reading of the statement of PW14 inspires confidence as her testimony is unshaken and unambiguous. She categorically stated that her mother was assaulted by her father by an axe causing grievous injuries on her head, hand and near the ear. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital by her uncles and neighbors. They reached Bikaner at around 11:00 pm and thereafter having been treated for some time, her mother succumbed to the injuries inflicted by her father i.e. the appellant. Statement of this witness gets complete corroboration by the medical evidence as Dr. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital by her uncles and neighbors. They reached Bikaner at around 11:00 pm and thereafter having been treated for some time, her mother succumbed to the injuries inflicted by her father i.e. the appellant. Statement of this witness gets complete corroboration by the medical evidence as Dr. Vinod Mawandiya (PW4) and Dr. Bhavesh Bohra (PW6) in their statements gave details of the injuries which fortified the statement of PW14 Neetu. Besides, the postmortem report also corroborated the details of the injuries as stated by PW14 Neetu, therefore, on the strength of statement of Dr. Vinod Mawandiya (PW4) and Dr. Bhavesh Bohra (PW6) and the postmortem report, we are of the considered opinion that statement of PW14 Neetu is worth credence and believable, therefore, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the same is having material contradictions is liable to be rejected. 27. We further note that minor deviations and contradictions of trivial nature cannot vitiate the testimony of PW14 apart from the fact that in our opinion, deviations pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are not factually correct and merely picking up few stray lines here would not result in discarding the statement of star witness. Besides, we note that the counsel for the appellant has frankly conceded on the point that during examination, no pertinent suggestion regarding the alleged defence theory that an unknown assailant entered the house and assaulted Smt. Jeewani Devi was put to P.W. 14 during her crossexamination. 28. So far as argument with respect to the delay in forwarding the FIR to the learned Magistrate is concerned, we find that the FIR was lodged on 14.08.2010 at around 6:00pm and the same was received by Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh on 15.08.2010 at 6:00 pm, therefore, there is no delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate. Moreover, the same cannot be a ground to vitiate the entire the prosecution case when the ocular evidence of a reliable witness is available to support the particular case. 29. We are also of the view that there defence has not been able to point out or establish any reason whatsoever as to why Mst. Moreover, the same cannot be a ground to vitiate the entire the prosecution case when the ocular evidence of a reliable witness is available to support the particular case. 29. We are also of the view that there defence has not been able to point out or establish any reason whatsoever as to why Mst. Neetu being a child of 15 years would venture into falsely implicate her own father in this ghastly offence of the murder of her mother while absolving the real culprit. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjan Dasgupta Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in , (2017) CriLJ 529 (S.C.) has held in Para 20 & 21 as under :- "20. The I.O. after receipt of the information of an offence by R.T. message had arrived at the scene on 17.40 hours, which clearly proves the prompt commencement of the investigation. FIR was dispatched on 22nd June, 2000 which has also been accepted by trial court. When no questions were put to I.O. in his cross-examination regarding the delay in dispatch, at the time of hearing, the accused cannot make capital of the said delay in forwarding the FIR. This Court in Rabindra Mahto and Another v. State of Jharkhand , (2006) 10 SCC 432 has held that in every case from the mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the Court would not conclude that the FIR has been recorded much later in time than shown. It is only extraordinary and unexplained delay, which may raise doubts regarding the authenticity of the FIR. 21. The present is the case, where recording of the FIR on 16th June, 2000 itself has been proved, accepted by the trial court also, thus mere dispatch of the FIR on 22nd June, 2000 from the police station to the Magistrates' Court has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse presumption can be drawn. From the above discussion, we are of the clear view that the FIR was genuine FIR and trial court committed an error in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution and refusing to attach value to the FIR." 31. As far as recovery of weapon of offence is concerned, the same was recovered from the house where the incident took place on 16.08.2010 in furtherance of the information given by the accused-appellant. As far as recovery of weapon of offence is concerned, the same was recovered from the house where the incident took place on 16.08.2010 in furtherance of the information given by the accused-appellant. We find that when the police had already inspected the place of the incident on 14.08.2010 then recovery of bloodstained axe from the same premises was two days later raise a doubt on the recovery. However, mere fact that the recovery of weapon of offence is doubtable would not erase of dilute the sterling worth of the testimony of eye witness i.e. PW14 Neetu in the present case. It is settled principle of law that testimony of ocular evidence is required to be given more credence and reliance has to be placed on it unless, it shows that the witness is unreliable or is not telling the truth and contradictions are of such nature that the statement becomes untrustworthy. In the present case, clinching evidence of PW14 Neetu which is reliable, portraying truthful version of the incident is getting complete corroboration from the medical evidence i.e. statements of Dr. Vinod (PW4), Dr. Bhavesh Bohra (PW6) and postmortem report. Hence, we believe her testimony. Merely because there were no signatures of first informant Bishna Ram on the first page of the written report, will not render the report false and unbelievable as Bishna Ram had affixed his signatures at the end of the written report giving complete details about the incident. 32. We also note that it has come in the statement of the prosecution witnesses that the accused used to assault his wife and kids after consuming liquor. We also note that although PW11 Bishna Ram had been declared hostile but he admitted the part of his primary statement (Ex.17) mentioning about the presence of the accused at the time of the incident that the accused ran away from the place of incident. 33. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh is upheld.