RAKESH KUMAR, J.:–The sole appellant, who is son of the deceased and it was alleged that he had killed his mother, is before this Court by way of filing the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’). 2. The appellant by judgment dated 03-08-2010 has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and by order dated 07-08-2010, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand). In case of default in payment of fine, he has been sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri Arun Kumar Sinha, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Judge’) in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2009/508 of 2009 (arising out of Kasma P.S. Case No. 53 of 2008). 3. Short fact of the case is that on 23-10-2008, the officer incharge of Kasma Police Station at 08:30 AM recorded fardbeyan of Shakuntla Devi (P.W.3), daughter-in-law of deceased. The said fardbeyan was recorded in the house of Jagdish Paswan (father-in-law of informant) in Mobarakpur (Aurangabad). In the fardbeyan, the informant disclosed that on preceding date i.e. 22-10-2008, her husband had gone out of station for doing some electrical work and the informant with her mother-in-law (deceased), children and gotni (wife of her husband’s brother) were staying in the house. Her devar (younger brother of her husband) Subhash Paswan (appellant) was also in the same house. Her devar was jobless and often, he used to create nuisance in the house and demand money from his mother and father for consumption of liquor and he was also regularly having drink. On 22-10-2008, the informant in the night after taking meal with her children, gotni Usha Devi (P.W.2) and nanad (husband’s sister) Kiran Devi (P.W.1) was sleeping on terrace. In the same night, her devar Subhash Paswan (appellant) with his mother Mandodri Devi (deceased) was sleeping by way of closing door in a room on the ground floor. In the night at about 12:00 hrs., the informant heard cry, then she got down and went near the room where her motherin- law was sleeping with her devar Subhash Paswan (appellant). In the night at about 12:00 hrs., the informant heard cry, then she got down and went near the room where her motherin- law was sleeping with her devar Subhash Paswan (appellant). She asked her brother-in-law (appellant) to open the door, but it was not opened and the appellant started abusive language and threatened the informant and since there was no other male member, she returned back and slept. In the morning, on 23-10-2008 at about 05:00 AM, it was noticed that her mother-inlaw had already died and after noticing the informant and others, the appellant started fleeing away, however on chase, he could be apprehended by Sheo Narain Paswan (P.W.6) and chowkidar Sadhu Sharan Paswan (P.W.5). She also noticed some mark on the person of the deceased. The informant claimed that the appellant had murdered his own mother. The said fardbeyan was read over to her and after finding it correct, she put her right thumb impression (R.T.I.) on the bottom of the fardbeyan and as a witness to the fardbeyan, Sheo Narain Paswan (P.W.6) put his signature. 4. On the basis of said fardbeyan, on the same date i.e. on 23-10-2008 at about 10:30 AM, a formal F.I.R., vide Kasma P.S. Case No. 53 of 2008, was registered for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against sole appellant. The appellant in the morning itself was apprehended by P.W.5 and P.W.6. Police after getting information, which was received on the same date i.e. on 23-10-2008, arrived and recorded fardbeyan of the informant and then, inquest report was prepared and dead body was sent for its post-mortem examination. Thereafter, the investigating officer recorded re-statement of the informant and during investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses, who have been examined in this case as prosecution witnesses. After finding the case true and collecting sufficient material, the police on 30-11-2008 submitted chargesheet against the sole appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C., whereupon, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on 10-12-2008 took cognizance of the offence. The case was committed to the court of sessions on 03-01-2009 and as such, it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2009. On 30-01-2009, charges were explained and framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C., which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. The case was committed to the court of sessions on 03-01-2009 and as such, it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2009. On 30-01-2009, charges were explained and framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C., which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, to prove its case on behalf of the prosecution, altogether nine witnesses were examined. Out of nine witnesses, P.W.1 Kiran Devi (daughter of deceased and own sister of the appellant), P.W.2 Usha Devi (daughter-in-law of deceased and bhabhi of appellant) and P.W.3 Shakuntla Devi (informant, daughter-in-law of deceased and bhabhi of appellant) in their evidence, have supported the prosecution case in toto. P.W.5 Sadhu Sharan Paswan and P.W.6 Sheo Naraian Paswan, besides their evidence on the point that while the appellant was fleeing away, he was apprehended by them, P.W.5 is also witness to the dead body challan and P.W.6 has proved the fardbeyan. P.W.7 Akhileshwar Mahto is a co-villager and he is one of the witness to the inquest report. Similarly, P.W.8 Bidhi Chandra Paswan is another inquest witness. P.W.4 Dr. Sabahuddin had conducted post-mortem on the dead body and P.W.9 Tej Narain Mandal is the investigating officer of the case. 6. Sri Bachan Jee Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, after placing entire evidence, has argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He has emphasized that in the case, there is no eye-witness and as such, there was possibility that deceased might had been killed in other manner, than as has been elaborated by the prosecution. He further submits that there was no cogent material on record to suggest that the appellant was having any motive to kill his own mother and in absence of any motive, there is no reason for application of Section 302 of the I.P.C. He further submits that the injury found on the person of the deceased does not support the prosecution case and as such, according to him, it is a fit case, in which, this Court by way of extending benefit of doubt may interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence. 7. Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposing the appeal has argued that the prosecution case is crystal clear. 7. Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposing the appeal has argued that the prosecution case is crystal clear. He submits that the case has not only been supported by the daughters-in-law of deceased, but own daughter of deceased, who happens to be own sister of the appellant, has supported the prosecution case. Sri Mishra has further argued that it is true that in this case, there is no exact witness to the actual occurrence, but connected circumstance categorically establishes that it was onlyand- only appellant, who was involved in the murder of his own mother. He has argued that the oral evidence has also been corroborated by the medical evidence and as such, the judgment of conviction and sentence may not be interfered with. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined entire evidence on record and after going through the same, prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment of conviction and sentence warranting interference. However, before proceeding, it would be necessary to cursorily discuss the evidences, particularly evidence of P.W.1 (own sister of the appellant and daughter of the deceased) namely Kiran Devi. 9. Kiran Devi (P.W.1) in her evidence, in consonance with the facts disclosed in the fardbeyan, has deposed that in the night at about 10:00, while she was sleeping on roof alongwith informant (P.W.3) and Usha Devi (P.W.2), she heard the cry, which was coming from the ground floor. Thereafter, she alongwith others went there, but she too was threatened by the appellant and door was not opened. Cry of mother was heard, thereafter she returned and in the morning, while she went inside the room, it was noticed that her mother was lying dead and on the person of deceased, there were certain marks and at the same time, she saw the appellant fleeing away from the room, however; on chase by P.W.6, he could be apprehended. 10. Almost in similar manner, P.W.2 Usha Devi (another daughter-in-law of deceased) too has deposed. Similarly, the informant/P.W.3 Shakuntla Devi, who happens to be daughter-inPatna law of deceased, has reiterated what she had stated in the fardbeyan. 11. 10. Almost in similar manner, P.W.2 Usha Devi (another daughter-in-law of deceased) too has deposed. Similarly, the informant/P.W.3 Shakuntla Devi, who happens to be daughter-inPatna law of deceased, has reiterated what she had stated in the fardbeyan. 11. Though, in their evidence, there are some inconsistencies to the extent that one of the witness had said that while after hearing cry, they went near the room, the room was opened by the appellant and they were threatened, but some of the witnesses had said that without opening the door of the room, from inside the room, the appellant started abusing, but such inconsistency appears to be natural. Though in the fardbeyan, the informant has disclosed that it was 12:00 in the night, whereas other witnesses have said that occurrence had taken place at 10:00 in the night. Such discrepancies are not sufficient to outrightly reject the entire prosecution case. In the evidence, it has come that the appellant was a drunkard and he was in the habit of abusing his parents and demanding money for consumption of liquor and as such, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 may not be ignored and circumstances, shown by those witnesses, are sufficient to show that it was complete chain of circumstances. It is case of the prosecution that inside room with the deceased, the appellant was alone in the room, there were none other. Besides this, while the appellant was fleeing away, he was apprehended by P.W.5 Sadhu Sharan Paswan (chowkidar) and his nephew P.W.6 Sheo Narain Paswan. There is no reason why their evidence can be excluded, since they are independent witnesses. 12. P.W.5, besides his evidence on the point of apprehending the appellant while fleeing away, he was witness, who was asked by the investigating officer to carry the dead body for post-mortem examination alongwith dead body challan. This witness has proved the dead body challan, which was marked as Ext.2. 13. P.W.6 Sheo Narain Paswan (nephew of P.W.5) has deposed that while the appellant was fleeing away, he was also there in apprehending him. He has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.3. 14. P.W.7 Akhileshwar Mahto is a co-villager and he is witness to the inquest report. 13. P.W.6 Sheo Narain Paswan (nephew of P.W.5) has deposed that while the appellant was fleeing away, he was also there in apprehending him. He has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.3. 14. P.W.7 Akhileshwar Mahto is a co-villager and he is witness to the inquest report. Similarly, P.W.8 Bidhi Chandra Paswan, a co-villager and independent witness, has proved his signature on the inquest report and signature of P.W.7 and P.W.8 on the inquest report has been exhibited as Ext.4 and Ext. 4/1 respectively. 15. P.W.4 Dr. Sabahuddin on 23-10-2008 was posted as Deputy Superintendent in Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad and on the same date at 2:15 PM, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased namely, Mandodari Devi (mother-inPatna law of informant and own mother of appellant). During postmortem examination, he had noticed following facts:— “1. An area of lacerated bruise left front of the chest with fracture in 3rd, 4th and 5th rib. 2” x 1/2” x 1” (on dissection left lungs ruptured with bleeding). The above injury is ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard & blunt substance. 2. Bruise on right front of the chest- ½” x ½” x ½” (ante-mortem in nature). Cause of death:- Death is caused due to all above injury especially injury no. 1. Time elapsed since death and post-mortem done - within 24 hours.” 16. He proved the post-mortem report marked as Ext.1. In cross-examination, suggestion was given, as if, deceased died due to fall from the cot, which was denied and reiterated by this doctor that in such situation, there was no possibility of such injury. 17. On examination of evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Sabahuddin and post-mortem report, it is apparent that the deceased had received two bruise injury on her chest - one on left side and another on right side and ribs had also broken. 18. P.W.9 Tej Narain Mandal on 23-10-2008 was posted as Sub-inspector of Police in Kasma Police Station and he had conducted investigation in the case. During his evidence, he proved (i) the endorsement on the fardbeyan marked as Ext.5, (ii) formal F.I.R. marked as Ext.6 and (iii) inquest report, marked as Ext.7. During his evidence, it has come that after registering the F.I.R., he recorded re-statement of the informant as also the statement of those witnesses, who have been examined as prosecution witnesses. During his evidence, he proved (i) the endorsement on the fardbeyan marked as Ext.5, (ii) formal F.I.R. marked as Ext.6 and (iii) inquest report, marked as Ext.7. During his evidence, it has come that after registering the F.I.R., he recorded re-statement of the informant as also the statement of those witnesses, who have been examined as prosecution witnesses. It is not a case that any of the material witness was withheld by the prosecution. Though, after recording statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. from the defence side, two witnesses were examined as defence witnesses i.e. Jagdish Paswan (D.W.1) and Indrajeet Kumar Singh (D.W.2), but on going through the evidence of defence witnesses, we do not find any force in the defence. On going through the evidence of defence witnesses, it appears that a case was tried to be made out, as if, deceased had died her natural death and this was the reason that D.W.2 (Indrajeet Kumar Singh) was introduced, who was formal witness, to bring on record certain medical prescriptions. 19. On examination of entire evidence and the fact that while the deceased was raising alarm and crying inside room, there was none else but the appellant, which fact has been corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3. Subsequently, in the morning, the circumstance that the appellant was fleeing away and apprehended shows the connectivity of the appellant with the crime in question. The death of deceased was not natural, but she died due to injuries, which were found on her chest. Doctor in his evidence had suggested that those injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Besides this, while the appellant was fleeing away from the room, he was apprehended by the chowkidar (P.W.5) of the village as well as P.W.6 and both the witnesses have truly deposed during the trial. Oral evidence has also been corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. evidence of P.W.4 and post-mortem report i.e. Ext.1. 20. After going through the entire evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge has committed no error in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence and as such, there is no reason to interfere with the same. 21. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 03-08-2010 and sentence dated 07-08-2010 passed by the learned Addl. 20. After going through the entire evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge has committed no error in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence and as such, there is no reason to interfere with the same. 21. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 03-08-2010 and sentence dated 07-08-2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2009/508 of 2009 (arising out of Kasma P.S. Case No. 53 of 2008) is, hereby, approved and appeal stands dismissed.