JUDGMENT Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present jail appeal was admitted by this Court on 24.09.2012 and an Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the Court on behalf of the accused appellant. 2. The aforesaid criminal jail appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 06.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 10/2010 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/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case emanates from the complaint (Ex.P/1) dated 03.07.2010 lodged by Khinvaram (P.W. 1) who was brother of the deceased Smt. Jaita wherein it was stated that his sister was married to Lichman Ram 20 years ago. His sister was having one daughter, namely, Indra aged 20 years and one son, namely, Munna aged 04 years. His sister was staying with her children in the Dhani built in their agricultural field. On 03.07.2010 at around 7.00 A.M., his niece Indra telephoned him that her mother was assaulted by her father resulting into her death. On getting this information, he along with other villagers went to the Dhani of his sister where they found that Jaita was lying in a pool of blood with injuries having sustained on her neck and head. His niece Indra informed them that her father inflicted injuries to her mother by "Chosangi" resulting into her death on the spot. 4. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No. 130/2010 was registered at Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused-appellant on 03.07.2010. 5. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 6. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/21 documents were exhibited. 8. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/21 documents were exhibited. 8. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated by Khinvaram. However, the accused did not produce any evidence in his defence. 9. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 06.07.2012. Hence this appeal. 10. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused- appellant has submitted that the accused-appellant was falsely implicated in the present case as there was no reason for him to kill his wife. The prosecution miserably failed to bring on record the evidence which conclusively shows that the offence alleged was committed by the accused-appellant. 12. He further submits that there were material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The recovery of weapon of offence i.e. "Chosangi" was also effected from an open place vide Ex.P/8. 13. He further submits that in the postmortem report (Ex.P/19), the cause of death was shown to be asphyxia due to throttling, whereas, in the statement of P.W. 8 - Dr. Dilip Soni, it has come on record that there were no finger marks on the neck of the deceased which shows that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was not getting corroboration from the medical evidence on record. 14. Learned Amicus Curiae on the strength of these arguments submits that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that present appellant was guilty of the offence alleged in the present case and therefore, the trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the alleged offence as above vide Judgment dated 06.07.2012. 15. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the testimony of P.W. 9 - Smt. Indra was a clinching evidence as she was the eye-witness and deposed the true version of the incident. 15. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the testimony of P.W. 9 - Smt. Indra was a clinching evidence as she was the eye-witness and deposed the true version of the incident. There was no reason to disbelieve the ocular evidence of P.W. 9 - Indra as she was daughter of the deceased and the accused- appellant and her presence on the place of incident was also quite natural as she had come to her parental house for her delivery. He further submits that the recovery of the dead body of Jaita Devi was made from the Dhani of the accused-appellant. Besides this, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were getting corroboration from the medical evidence in the form of statement of P.W. 8 - Dr. Dilip Soni who explained the injuries present on the body of the deceased and the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) wherein the cause of death of the deceased was mentioned to be asphyxia due to throttling combined by the head injury sustained by her. All the injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further submits that the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. "Chosangi" was effected vide Recovery Memo (Ex.P/8) on the information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/20). The F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/21) wherein the articles which were sent for examination including the weapon of offence i.e. "Chosangi" having bloodstains of "B" group matching the blood group of the deceased, completes the chain of circumstances establishing that it was none other than the accused-appellant who committed the offence alleged in the present case. On the strength of these submissions, he prays that no interference in the judgment dated 06.07.2012 passed by the learned trial court convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is warranted in the present case. 16. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as judgment dated 06.07.2012 impugned herein. 17. P.W. 1 - Khinvaram who lodged the first information report and brother of the deceased Smt. Jaita Devi deposed before the learned trial court that his sister Jaita Devi was married to the accused-appellant Lichman Ram Jat for last 20 years. Jaita Devi was having one daughter, namely, Indra and one son, namely, Munna. 17. P.W. 1 - Khinvaram who lodged the first information report and brother of the deceased Smt. Jaita Devi deposed before the learned trial court that his sister Jaita Devi was married to the accused-appellant Lichman Ram Jat for last 20 years. Jaita Devi was having one daughter, namely, Indra and one son, namely, Munna. She was staying with her husband Lichman Ram in the Dhani at Gopalpura. His sister was being abused and beaten up almost every day by accused-appellant Lichman Ram after consuming liquor. In the morning at around 7.00 A.M., his niece Indra telephoned him that her mother was assaulted by her father Lichman Ram by "Chosangi" resulting into her instantaneous death. On getting this information, he along with Bhanwar Lal, Shanker Lal and Chenaram went to the house of Jaita Devi where they saw that body of Jaita Devi was lying in a pool of blood having injuries on her neck and head. He lodged the complaint (Ex.P/1) in the police station. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt credibility or veracity of his version in the examination-in-chief. 18. P.W. 2 - Shanker Lal who accompanied Khinvaram (P.W. 1) deposed that on reaching the house of Jaita Devi, they saw that she was lying in a pool of blood and on being asked, Indra informed them that her father had killed her mother by strangulating her neck and assaulting her by "Chosangi". 19. P.W. 3 - Bhanwar Lal also stated almost on the same lines as P.W. 2 - Shanker Lal. 20. P.W. 8 - Dr. Dilip Soni who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased described the injuries with their dimensions sustained by the deceased Jaita Devi. He further stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased Jaita Devi were ante mortem and the cause of death was injury sustained by her on the head and asphyxia. 21. P.W. 9 - Indra Devi stated that she had come for delivery at her parental house at Gopalpura. On 03.07.2010 in the morning, while she was sleeping in the hut, she heard the noise of cries of her mother. On coming out of her hut, she saw that her father was assaulting her mother by Jei (Chosangi). When she ran towards her mother, her father left the place and fled away from the place of incident. On 03.07.2010 in the morning, while she was sleeping in the hut, she heard the noise of cries of her mother. On coming out of her hut, she saw that her father was assaulting her mother by Jei (Chosangi). When she ran towards her mother, her father left the place and fled away from the place of incident. Her mother sustained injuries on her head and neck and died on the spot. She came back to her hut and telephoned her maternal uncle Khinvaram and informed him about this incident. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross- examination of this witness so as to doubt credibility or veracity of his version in the examination-in-chief. 22. P.W. 14 - Sanjeev Swami was the investigation Officer who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected the recoveries, collected the samples. P.W. 13 - Rajesh Bishnoi who was another Investigation Officer stated that he sent the articles for examination to the F.S.L. and recorded the statements of witnesses. He further stated that after conducting the investigation, as prescribed in law, he submitted his report before the court of competent jurisdiction. 23. The postmortem report is Ex.P/19 wherein the cause of death was shown as throttling combined by head injury. The recovery memo of weapon of offence i.e. "Chosangi" is Ex.P/8, which was recovered on the information given by the accused- appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/20). The F.S.L. Report is Ex.P/21 showing that the articles which were sent for examination including the weapon of offence i.e. "Chosangi" were having bloodstains of "B" group matching the blood group of the deceased. 24. The statement of P.W. 9 - Indra is clear, specific and worth credence in the present case and being the daughter of the deceased and the accused-appellant, her presence at the place of incident was quite natural as she had come for delivery to her parental house. The testimony of this witness shows that the relationship between the deceased and the accused-appellant was not very cordial as they often fought with each other almost every day and on the date of incident, the accused-appellant assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries on her head and neck with Jei (Chosangi) resulting into her death on the spot. The testimony of this witness shows that the relationship between the deceased and the accused-appellant was not very cordial as they often fought with each other almost every day and on the date of incident, the accused-appellant assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries on her head and neck with Jei (Chosangi) resulting into her death on the spot. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the ocular evidence of P.W. 9 - Indra Devi as the same version was deposed by P.W. 1 Khinvaram, P.W. 2 - Shanker Lal and P.W. 3 - Bhanwar Lal who stated that on reaching the place of incident, they saw the dead body of Jaita Devi lying in a pool of blood with injuries inflicted on her head and neck. 25. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Anil Phukan v. State of Assam reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 1796 has observed as under:- "Indeed, the conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eye-witness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye-witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then, the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto" 26. The testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses was very well corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of statement of P.W. 8 - Dr. Dilip Soni who described the injuries with their dimensions sustained by the deceased Jaita Devi and also stated that the said injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Further, the cause of death shown in the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) also corroborated the version of the eye-witness P.W. 9 - Indra Devi as well as other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 - Khinvaram, P.W. 2- Shanker Lal and P.W. 3 - Bhanwar Lal. Further, the cause of death shown in the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) also corroborated the version of the eye-witness P.W. 9 - Indra Devi as well as other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 - Khinvaram, P.W. 2- Shanker Lal and P.W. 3 - Bhanwar Lal. It has further come on record that on the information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with respect to the weapon of offence i.e. "Chosangi" (Ex.P/20), the same was recovered vide Recovery Memo (Ex.P/8). The same was sent for F.S.L. along with other recovered articles. The F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/21) shows that the bloodstains on the weapon of offence were of "B" group matching the blood group of the deceased. The sequence of chain of circumstances, ocular evidence, medical evidence, recovery and the F.S.L. Report conclusively make us to believe that the prosecution had been able to complete the chain of circumstances in such a fashion that it was none other than the accused- appellant who murdered his wife Jaita Devi and by leading evidence had also been able to prove the allegations leveled against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 27. The argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that there were no finger marks on the neck of the deceased is of no help as on a complete reading of the statement of P.W. 8 - Dr. Dilip Soni and the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) show that the cause of death was head injury sustained by the deceased which was ante mortem in nature and asphyxia due to strangulation. Therefore, merely saying that the finger marks on the neck of the deceased were absent is of no significance as the medical evidence which has come on record conclusively goes to show that the injuries sustained by the deceased were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 28. The recovery of weapon of offence was on the information given by the accused-appellant having bloodstains of human origin with blood group "B" matching the same with the blood group of the deceased is also getting corroborated with the statement of eye-witness P.W. 9 - Indra Devi and therefore, the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it was recovered from an open place has no force and is liable to be rejected. 29. 29. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 06.07.2012 passed by the trial court convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. deserves to be upheld. 30. Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. The judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the learned trial court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.