JUDGMENT : MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Katghora, District-Korba (CG), in ST No.55 of 2012 whereby and where under the appellant/accused has been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months. 2. Prosecution story, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that a morgue intimation was given in the Police Station Katghora on 5.5.2012 at 19:15 hrs. by Hirmat Kumari (PW1) that in an incident of assault on 5.5.2012 at about 6:00 pm in the evening, appellant- Ram Prasad assaulted Janaki with the axe and murdered. After recording morgue intimation (Ex.P1), FIR in Ex.P-14 was registered in the Police Station- Katghora by Station House Officer V.S. Maravi (PW12) on the report of Hirmat (PW1) wherein, it was stated that at about 6:00 pm in the evening, when first informant Hirmat Kumari, Lata Kumari and Janaki were coming back from the electricity office, the appellant intercepted on the way, he was holding an axe. It is further stated that the appellant assaulted Janaki with axe on various parts of her body. After having registered FIR, the police also prepared an inquest over the dead body and the dead body was sent for postmortem. Dr. H.D. Dahire (PW10) conducted postmortem and prepared a report in Ex.P-9, in which, on the basis of examination of injuries, it was opined that cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage and head injury and vital organ injury of brain. Police took the appellant in custody and his memorandum was also recorded in Ex.P-5 in the presence of witnesses namely Harihar Singh (PW2) and Veeru Singh (PW4) and thereupon, the blood stained clothes and the axe alleged to be used in commission of offence was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-6 in the presence of same witnesses. Thereafter, the police recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses and after completing usual investigating, filed charge sheet before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the police recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses and after completing usual investigating, filed charge sheet before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. On the basis of material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant that on 5.5.2012, appellant assaulted Janaki and murdered and thereby committed offence under Section 302 IPC, which the appellant abjured. He was put to trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. Appellant denied all the circumstances and stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated. No defence witnesses was examined. 3. The learned trial Court, relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly eyewitness account of Hirmat (PW1) and Lata (PW5), postmortem report (EX.P-9), evidence of Dr. H.D. Dahire (P.W.10) as also recovery of weapon from the appellant, held the appellant/accused guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as described above. 4. Assailing correctness and validity of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. He submits that the testimony of Hirmat (PW1) and Lata (PW5) are not reliable and trustworthy as they are interested witnesses. In cross-examination, Hirmat (PW1) admitted that she has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. The manner in which the incident has been narrated is contradictory in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination. It is also argued that even if it is held that the appellant assaulted his wife, in the circumstances of the case that the main operative reason for the appellant could be that the wife was not returning to matrimonial house, it cannot be said that there was an intention to cause death. Therefore, in these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant may be altered to that under Section 304 Part-II and as the appellant has already undergone more than 6 years of RI, sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Therefore, in these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant may be altered to that under Section 304 Part-II and as the appellant has already undergone more than 6 years of RI, sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and argues that present case is a full proof case where the prosecution story has been duly proved by reliable testimony of Hirmat (PW1) and Lata (PW5). Their evidence do not suffer from any contradiction or omission. Their evidence is also corroborated from the medical evidence with regard to nature of injury, assault. FIR was promptly lodged immediately after the incident. He would lastly argue that the manner in which the appellant has brutally assaulted his own wife by dangerous weapon like axe on most vital part of the body, can only lead to conclusion that the appellant had all the intention to murder his wife. Therefore, conviction does not warrant any interference. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Court below. 7. The FIR lodged by Hirmat (PW1) has been proved from the evidence of the prosecution and both Hirmat (PW1) as well as Investigating Officer V.S. Maravi (PW12) have proved lodging of FIR in Ex.P-14. Morgue intimation (Ex.P-1) has also been proved by the aforesaid two witnesses. The prosecution story as stated in the FIR and morgue intimation is that in the evening of 5.5.2012, while Hirmat, deceased Janaki and Lata were returning from electricity office, near Budaguggu, they were intercepted by the appellant. The appellant was holding an axe. The appellant thereafter repeatedly assaulted Janaki and she fell down. 8. The prosecution case rests on the eyewitness account of Hirmat (PW1) and Lata (P.W.5). Hirmat (PW1) in her evidence has very emphatically stated regarding the incident by stating that when she along with Janaki was returning from electricity office, appellant was found sitting near a well on way. Near Budaguggu, the appellant approached from the other side of the road and caught hold of her sister Janaki and stated that now where would she go. Thereafter, he wielded axe and assaulted on Janaki due to which her sister fell down. Near Budaguggu, the appellant approached from the other side of the road and caught hold of her sister Janaki and stated that now where would she go. Thereafter, he wielded axe and assaulted on Janaki due to which her sister fell down. This witness requested the appellant not to assault her sister and thereafter she ran away from the spot towards her house to inform others and by that time, the appellant had already killed her sister. This witness further states that later on, when she came back at the spot along with Asamniyabai and Rambai and many other persons, she saw that there were number of injuries on temporal neck, forehead, hand and ear and she died. This witness has been subjected to detailed cross-examination wherein this witness remained emphatic on her statement regarding the manner in which the incident happened. She also stated that there was a dispute between the appellant and Janaki and she was not residing with the appellant for last two years. She has also stated that though the appellant had gone to bring his wife back, Janaki refused to go back along with the appellant, for the reasons that the appellant used to beat her. In paragraph-9 of her cross-examination, however, she admits that she has not seen the appellant assaulting her sister. However, this would not render her testimony unreliable in so far as approach of the appellant at the spot, wielding of axe and her sister felling down is concerned. She also states that at the spot, Lata was also present. She has confirmed the presence of the appellant at the spot along with an axe and making an attempt of assault on his own wife Janaki. 9. Lata (P.W.5) is the other eyewitness who has clearly stated regarding the incident. She has deposed that when she along with deceased and Hirmat were coming back from electricity office, the appellant was trying to catch them and near mango tree, he caught hold of Janaki and Janaki was making an attempt to run away, but the appellant pushed her on the ground and then assaulted her with the help of axe. She further deposed that when she attempted to rescue, the appellant warned her not to intervene. She further deposed that when she attempted to rescue, the appellant warned her not to intervene. The aforesaid material evidence of this witness has remained un-controverted in her cross-examination and she has denied suggestion that incident did not happen in her presence and that no assault was made by the appellant. There is no reason why this Court should not place full reliance on the testimony of this witness Lata. 10. Thus, evidence of Hirmat (PW1) and Lata (PW5) proves that it was the appellant who had assaulted Janaki with the help of axe. The ocular testimony of the aforesaid two eyewitnesses is fully corroborated from the medical evidence. Dr. H.D. Dahire (P.W.10) who conducted the postmortem has also proved his postmortem report in Ex.P-9. 10. Thus, evidence of Hirmat (PW1) and Lata (PW5) proves that it was the appellant who had assaulted Janaki with the help of axe. The ocular testimony of the aforesaid two eyewitnesses is fully corroborated from the medical evidence. Dr. H.D. Dahire (P.W.10) who conducted the postmortem has also proved his postmortem report in Ex.P-9. Before the Court, he has stated that dead body was brought to him and he conducted postmortem and following injuries were found by him: ^^¼1½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 3 xq.kk 1 bap cka;s rjQ nk<+h esa Fkk tks fd gM~Mh rd xgjk Fkk ,oa cka;s rjQ dk esfYMcu cksu VwVk gqvk FkkA ¼2½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 2 xq.kk 1 bap cka;s rjQ ds lhus esa Åijh Hkkx ij fLFkr Fkk tks fd Hkqtk ds ikl FkkA ¼3½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 3 xq.kk 1-5 bap cka;s rjQ Hkqtk ds e/; Hkkx ij fLFkr FkkA ¼4½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 2 xq.kk 1 bap cka;s QksjvkeZ ij fLFkr Fkk tks fd gM~Mh rd xgjk Fkk ,oa jsfM;l ,oa vukZ gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ FkhA ¼5½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 5 xq.kk 1-5 cka;s VsEiksjy ij fLFkr Fkk tks fd gM~Mh rd xgjk Fkk ,oa VsEiksjsy isjkbZVy czksu ÝsDPkj Fkk ,oa czsuikVZ dVs gq, Hkkx ls ckgj fudyk gqvk FkkA ¼6½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 2 xq.kk 1@2 cka;s rjQ flj ds ihNs Hkkx ij fLFkr FkkA ¼7½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 3 xq.kk 1 bap cka;s rjQ dku ds fiNys Hkkx ij fLFkr FkkA ¼8½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 8 xq.kk 2 bap cka;s rjQ xys ds fiNys Hkkx ij fLFkr Fkk tks fd gM~Mh rd xgjk Fkk ,oa nwljk ,oa rhljk ljokbZdy gM~Mh Hkh VwVk gqvk FkkA ¼9½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 2 xq.kk 1@2 bap nka;s rjQ Hkqtk ds fiNys Hkkx ij fLFkr FkkA ¼10½ dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 1 xq.kk bap nkfgus rjQ gFskyh ds vaxwBs ikl fLFkr FkkA** The internal injuries found by him were also stated as below: ^^4- vkarfjd ijh{k.k ij fuEufyf[kr y{k.k ik;s x;s Fks & flj ds isjkbZVy ,oa VsEiksjy cksu cka;s rjQ dk vfLFkHkax FkkA efLr"d pksV okys Hkkx ij dVdj ckgj fudyk gqvk FkkA QsQM+s cka;s ,oa nk;as iSy FksA g`n; ds nksuks pascj [kkyh FksA isV ds vanj v/kipk HkksT; inkFkZ FkkA NksVh vkar esa ipk gqvk [kkuk FkkA cM+h vkar esa ey Fkk ,oa ;d`r] Iyhgk ,oa xqnkZ isy FkkA ew=k'k; [kkyh FkkA ckgjh ,o vkarfjd tusfUnz;ka lkekU; FkhA mijksDr lHkh pksVsa fdlh /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ Fkh ,oa eqR;q iwoZ dh Fkh ,oa e`R;q dh vof/k 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA e`rdk ds igus gq, diM+s ftlesa [kwu tSls /kCcs fn[kkbZ ns jgs Fks tks fd dRFkk jax dk lkM+h Cykmt ,oa isVhdksV gYdk dkyk uhyk jax dk vaMj fo;j lhycan dj jklk;fud ijh{k.k dh lykg fn;k x;k ,oa lhycan dj iqu% dkULVscy dks lkSai fn;k x;kA** The opinion of the doctor, as deposed by him, is as below: ^^5- vfHker & esjs erkuqlkj e`frdk dh e`R;q vR;f/kd jDrL=ko ,oa flj ij pksV ,o uktqd vax cszu tSls ij pksV ds dkj.k lnesa ls gqbZ Fkh tks gR;kRed Ád`fr dh FkhA esjs }kjk rS;kj iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ÁŒihŒ 9 gS ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA** 11. The aforesaid evidence on record clearly proves that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by an axe on vital parts of her body. That is what has been stated by the two witnesses that the appellant was holding an axe and that with the help of axe, he assaulted the deceased. Further, it is also found that the appellant inflicted as many as ten injuries on vital part of the deceased like neck, chin, chest, cervical bone. The brain matter had also come out. Therefore, it is clearly a case of a brutal murder by the appellant of his own wife. 12. The memorandum of the appellant and seizure of axe have also been duly proved by the prosecution with the help of evidence of seizure witnesses of memorandum and seizure namely Harihar Singh (PW2) and Veeru Singh (PW4). 13. Though learned counsel for the appellant sought to make out a case of commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II, the circumstances and manner in which the appellant assaulted the deceased, we are not at all convinced that the case would be covered under any of the exception to Section 300 IPC. 14. In the result, we do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.