JUDGMENT : Shiv Shanker Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant, Ram Prakash against the judgment and order dated 11th September, 1984 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1982 (State vs. Ram Prakash) under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Gursahaiganj, District-Farrukhabad, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. We have heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record. 3. Initially hearing in the matter was concluded on 2nd November, 2022 and 10th November, 2022 was fixed for delivery of judgment. While preparing the judgment it was noticed that the Session Court after convicting the accused-appellant has sentenced him to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. without passing any order on the aspect relating to fine. 4. Once the concerned court of Session convicts an accused under Section 302 I.P.C., it was required to pass order in respect of the sentence and fine both. In the facts of the present case, however, no order has been passed with regard to fine. Because of the said reason, we adjourned the present case on 10th November, 2022 in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to learned Amicus curiae appearing for the accused-appellant on this aspect. 5. On 14th November, 2022, we heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned A.G.A. for the State on the said issue. 6. The prosecution story, as reflected from the records, is as follows: On the written report of the informant- P.W.-2 Ram Babu dated 3rd November, 1981 (Exhibit-Ka/1) scribed by Muneshwar Dayal (son of the informant), a first information report (Exhibit-Ka/2) has been lodged on 3rd November, 1981 at 11.35 a.m. against the accused-appellant alleging therein that about 4-5 years back, he solemnized the marriage of his daughter with the accused-appellant. After marriage, the daughter of the informant (since deceased) and his son-in-law i.e. accused-appellant often used to fight with each other. There were incidents when the informant went to the place of the accused-appellant to take her along with him to his place but the accused-appellant did not send her with him. After marriage, the daughter of the informant (since deceased) and his son-in-law i.e. accused-appellant often used to fight with each other. There were incidents when the informant went to the place of the accused-appellant to take her along with him to his place but the accused-appellant did not send her with him. It is further alleged that about two months ago, the daughter of the informant i.e. the deceased delivered twin girls both of whom died after some time. After coming to know about the sad demise of his twin grand-daughters, the informant came to the place of accused-appellant along with his son to take his daughter (deceased) with him to his place and when the informant-P.W.2 and his son Muneshwar Dayal requested repeatedly, the accused-appellant refused to send her along with them. On the next day in the morning at about 09:00 a.m. when the daughter of the informant i.e. deceased started to get ready to go with the informant and Muneshwar Dayal, the accused-appellant abused her and stopped her from going with them. The deceased, however, said that she would not stay with him and would go at any cost on which the accused-appellant threatened her to face dire consequences if she disobeyed him. While the informant with his son Muneshwar Dayal were sitting outside the house on the platform, waiting for his daughter, they heard alarm/screams of the deceased for saving her. The informant and his son ran inside the courtyard and saw that the accused-appellant was hitting the deceased with a sickle (reaping hook) in the room. Seeing the same, the informant and Muneshwar Dayal shouted on which Hanumant Lal son Dhanuk, Shiv Ram son of Ram Lal Lodhi, Ram Gopal, Ram Vilash Bhurji, Ram Kishor son of Mathuri Lal and many other people came and they also saw the accused-appellant hitting the deceased with sickle. Due to the injuries of the sickle sustained by the deceased, she died on the spot. All persons present on the spot including the informant and Muneshwar Dayal caught the accused-appellant along with said sickle and handed him over to the two Police constables who were on patrolling at that time. 7. Due to the injuries of the sickle sustained by the deceased, she died on the spot. All persons present on the spot including the informant and Muneshwar Dayal caught the accused-appellant along with said sickle and handed him over to the two Police constables who were on patrolling at that time. 7. After collecting the blood stained sickle and blood stained vest (Baniyan) wore by the accused-appellant, which were marked as Exhibit-Ka/4 and Exhbit-Ka/5, the Investigating Officer reached the spot and collected the blood stained and plain earth and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. 3rd November, 1981 between 11.35 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. and the statements of witnesses were taken on the inquest report (Exhibit-Ka-8). The inquest witnesses opined that since the cause of death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by her from sickle, the post-mortem was necessary. 8. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent to Mortuary. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. 4th November, 1981 at 03:30 p.m. by Dr. K.K. Agarwal (P.W.-5). In the opinion of P.W.-5, the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage due to following ante-mortem injuries : "1. Incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x cartilage deep on the outer side of left Pinna. Direction from upward to downward. Cartilage was cut. 2. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/10" x skin deep on the Supraclavicular fossa of the right side. 3. Stab wound 1" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep on the upper part of left breast. Direction front to back and inward. 4. Stab wound on the lower side of left breast areola 3/4" x 1/2"x chest cavity deep. Direction front to back and upward. 5. Incised wound 1" x 4/10" x muscle deep on the right side of chest mid axillary line 6" below the axilla. Tapering inward. 6. Stab wound 1 x 1/2" x chest cavity deep on right side of chest in mid axillary line 2" below injury No.5. Direction right to left. 7. Stab wound 11/4" x 3/4" x abdominal cavity deep on the right hypochondrium. Direction front to back downward. 8. Incised wounds 1/2" x 1/4" to 3/10" x 2/10"x muscle to bone deep on the palmer aspect of the left hand medial four fingers. Placed transversally. 9. Direction right to left. 7. Stab wound 11/4" x 3/4" x abdominal cavity deep on the right hypochondrium. Direction front to back downward. 8. Incised wounds 1/2" x 1/4" to 3/10" x 2/10"x muscle to bone deep on the palmer aspect of the left hand medial four fingers. Placed transversally. 9. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4"x muscle deep on the back of the left forearm 2 1/2" above the wrist joint. Wound in long axis of forearm. 10. Stab wound 3/4" x 1/2" chest cavity deep on the back of right side chest 5" below the right shoulder. Direction back to front. 11. Multiple incised wound 1/4" x 1/2" x bone deep, 1/2" x 2/10" x skin deep in an area of 10" to 6" on the back of the chest and the lumbar region. 12. Incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the front of the right thigh. 2" above the knee joint in long axis. 13. Incised wound 2" x 3/4" x bone deep on the shin of the right leg 5" below the knee joint. Wound in transverse plane. 14. Two incised wounds 3" apart 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep and 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the right hip. 15. Abrasion 4/10" x 3/10" on the outer malleolus of left foot." 9. The investigation proceeded and after completion of statutory investigation in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet (Exhibit-Ka 18) dated 30th November, 1981 against the accused-appellant. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance of the offence on the charge-sheet and as the case was triable by the court of sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions resultantly, the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1982 (State vs. Ram Prakash) under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Gursahaiganj, District-Farrukhabad. 10. On 14th October, 1982, the learned Trial Court framed following charges against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 504 I.P.C. : "I. K.K. Verma, 1st Addl. Session Judge, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, hereby charge you Ram Prakash as follows: That you on 3.11.81 at about 9 A.M. in village Mirpur, Police Station Gursahaiganj Distt. Farrukhabad, committed murder of Smt. Usha Devi by inentnionally and knwoingly causing her death by sickle (HANSIA) and thereby committed an offence of punishable U/S 302 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court. Farrukhabad, committed murder of Smt. Usha Devi by inentnionally and knwoingly causing her death by sickle (HANSIA) and thereby committed an offence of punishable U/S 302 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court. And I hereby direct you that you be tried by this court on the aforesaid charge. 11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied upon documentary evidence, which were duly proved and consequently marked as Exhibits. The same are catalogued herein below:- "(i) Written report dated 3rd November, 1981 (Exhibit-Ka/1) of the informant-P.W.2, which has been scribed by P.W.-3 ; (ii) The first information report dated 3rd November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-Ka/2; (iii) Recovery memo of blood stained sickle (Hansia) dated 3rd November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-ka/4; (iv) Recovery memo of blood stained vest (Baniyan) dated 3rd November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-ka/5; (v) Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth dated 3rd November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-ka/16; (vi) Inquest report (Panchayatnama) dated 3rd November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-Ka/8; (vii) Site plan with Index dated 3rd November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-ka/15; (viii) The post-mortem/autopsy report dated 4th November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-Ka-7; (ix) Report of chemical examiner of 9th July, 1982 has been marked as Exhibit-ka/19; (x) Report of Chemical Examiner and Serologist dated 27th July, 1982 has been marked as Exhibit-ka/20; (xi) Extract examination of the P.W.-1 Ram Bilas; and (xii) Charge-sheet dated 30th November, 1981 has been marked as Exhibit-Ka/18." 12. The prosecution also examined total nine witnesses in the following manner:- "(i) P.W.-1 Ram Bilash, resident of village of the accused-appellant, who is said to be eye witness; (ii) Informant/P.W.-2, namely, Ram Babu, father of the deceased, who is also said to be an eye-witness; ; (iii) P.W.-3, namely, Ram Kishor resident of village of the accused-appellant, who is also said to be an eye-witness; (iv) P.W.-4, namely, Constable-697 Krishnapal Singh, who was on patrolling duty on the date and time of incident and took the accused-appellant to the Police Station along with blood stained sickle; (v) P.W.-5, namely, Constable-360 Padam Singh, who prepared the Chik first information report (Exhibit-ka/2) and has also made entry in that regard in Generl Diary (Exhibit-ka/3); (vi) P.W.-6, namely, Dr. K.K. Agarwal, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report (Exhibit-ka/7); (vii) P.W.-7, namely, Sub-Inspector Hori Lal Yadav, who has investigated the case." 13. After recording of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence were put to the accused-appellant for confronting with the same under Section 313 Cr.PC. In his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant denied his involvement in the commissioning of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Accused appellant Ram Prakash has specifically stated before the trial court that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. He has further stated that on the date of occurrence, when he was in his field, some unknown persons had raided his house in the early morning, when it was still dark and they had inflicted injuries to his wife. No witness has however been adduced from the defence. 14. The trial court after relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and recording its finding, has come to the conclusion under the impugned judgment of conviction that the prosecution in this case has been able to establish beyond all shadow of doubt that for a very petty reason the accused committed the murder of his innocent wife whose only fault was her insistence to go with her father for a while for a change because her newly born twin daughters had recently died. The accused lost his temper on this trifling matter and gave numerous blows with his sickle on his wife resulting in her death. The trial court has not accepted the plea of the defence that on the date of incident, when he was in his field some persons entered into his house in early morning and they had assaulted his wife due to which she died. After recording a finding in that regard the trial court has opined that the defence version is palpable false because no report or any incident of dacoity was lodged by any member of the family of the accused and also because none from the village of the accused has come forward to support this version. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, the trial court has held that the accused-appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. for the murder of the deceased i.e. his wife. As such, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, the trial court has held that the accused-appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. for the murder of the deceased i.e. his wife. As such, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence. It is against this judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court that the present jail appeal has been filed on the ground that conviction is against the weight of evidence on record and against the law and the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant is too severe. 15. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, Mr Raj Kumar Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant submits that: (i) As per the autopsy report of the deceased, semi-cooked food in the small intestine and fecal matter in the large intestine of the deceased were found by P.W. 6 and he also found that there was no urine in the bladder of the deceased meaning thereby that deceased must have eaten food six hours ago i.e. between 3.00 a.m. to 4.00 a.m., which does not seem to be correct. Therefore the time of death of the deceased, as per the prosecution i.e. at around 09.00 is also questionable. Therefore, it appears to be correct that the deceased must have died in the early morning, i.e. between 3.00 a.m. and 4.00 a.m. (ii) The accused-appellant has not committed the said offence but by dacoits or some one who entered into his house between 3.00 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. in the early morning for looting the property when it was dark and in absence of the accused-appellant when he was in his field. (iii) Neither P.W.-2/informant nor his son Muneshwar, who has not been adduced as one of the prosecution witness, had seen the incident on their own eyes as they were not present at the crime of scene, when occurrence was going on. It is impossible to believe that when a married woman (deceased) was killed by her husband (accused-appellant) and instead of saving her, her father (informant/P.W.-2) and brother (Muneshwar) stood watching and asking for help from others. It is impossible to believe that when a married woman (deceased) was killed by her husband (accused-appellant) and instead of saving her, her father (informant/P.W.-2) and brother (Muneshwar) stood watching and asking for help from others. (iv) The case of the prosecution that the informant/P.W.2 and his son Muneshwar stayed at the in-law's place of the deceased for taking her along with them is also doubtful, as in Indian civilization, especially in a Hindu Brahmin family, no father or brother stays with his married daughter or sister at her in-law's place for three days. Therefore, the presence of the informant/P.W.-2 and Muneshwar at the time of incident is doubtful. (v) The applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution and he has no intention or motive to commit the said offence. (vi) There were contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. (vii) The prosecution version that the accused-appellant has assaulted the deceased by a sickle is also doubtful as the sickle is a curved weapon and only one of its side is sharp. When as matter of fact the injuries found by the doctor at the time of post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased could not have been inflicted by it. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be quashed. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Apart from the above, in the alternative learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that since the incident in question occurred on a spur of moment and in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel, the same would be covered under the 4th Exception to Section 300 I.P.C., which reads as under : "Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." Learned Amicus Curiae, therefore, submits that if this Court finds the accused-appellant guilty of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, he be punished under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Amicus Curiae has placed reliance upon following judgments of the Apex Court, Allahabad High Court : (a) Dildar Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in JT 1992 (4) SC 19; (b) Baldev Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1996 AIR 372; (c) Mer Dhana Sida vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1985 SC 386 ; (d) Dalip Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1993 SC 2302 ; (e) Kansa Behera Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1987 AIR 1507; (f) Satye Singh & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 15th February, 2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2374 of 2014' and (g) Ashiq Lal Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1997 Legal Eagle (Ald) 35. 16. On the other-hand, Mr. Arun Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, supporting the judgment and order of conviction, submits that the first information report has been lodged promptly naming the accused person; there is clinching evidence to support the prosecution's case; the incident in which the deceased is alleged to have been murdered by the accused-appellant Ram Prakash, occurred at about 09:00 a.m. i.e. in broad day light; there are three eye witnesses of the alleged incident; one circumstantial witness; the place of occurrence has not been disputed by the defence; and the accused-appellant has strong motive or intention and the same has also been explained by the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 17. To bolster the aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A. has invited the attention of the Court to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mekala Sivaiah vs. State of Andhara Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 887, whereby the Apex Court in paragraph nos.25 and 26 has held as follows : "25. The facts and evidence in present case has been squarely abefornalyzed by both Trial Court as well the High Court and the same can be summarized as follows: i. The prosecution has discharged its duties in proving the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. ii. When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from the appellant would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. iii. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his testimony. iv. The deceased has been attacked by the appellant in broad daylight and there is direct evidence available to prove the same and the motive behind the attack is also apparent considering there was previous enmity between the appellant and PW-1. 26. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in juxtaposition with the judgments referred to above and upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were right in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court." (Emphasis added) Mr. Arun Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State has also placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court and Patna High Court : (a) Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak vs. State of Gujurat reported in 1998 0 Supreme (SC) 836; (b) Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By the Public Prosecutor & Anr. reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 1628; and (c) Ram Nath Nonia vs. State of Bihar reported in 1999 0 Supreme (Pat) 778. Vs. State Rep. By the Public Prosecutor & Anr. reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 1628; and (c) Ram Nath Nonia vs. State of Bihar reported in 1999 0 Supreme (Pat) 778. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A. submits that as this is a case of direct evidence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. As such the present jail appeal filed by the accused appellants who committed heinous crime by murdering the deceased is liable to be dismissed. 18. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the original records of the court below as well as the impugned judgment and order of conviction challenged before us. 19. The only question which is required to be addressed and determined in this jail appeal is whether the conclusion of guilt arrived at by the learned trial court and the sentence awarded is legal and sustainable under law and suffers from no infirmity and perversity. 20. Before entering into the merits of the case set up by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State qua impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court referred to above, it is desirable for us to record statements of the prosecution witnesses in brief. 21. P.W.-1 Ram Bilas who is resident of village of accused-appellant has stated that he knew the accused-appellant who killed his wife. It is further stated that on the date of incident at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. when he was coming to his house from his field and as soon as he reached the door of the house of one Pandit Radhey Shyam, he heard a loud sound and entered into the house of the accused-appellant, where he saw that the relatives of accused-appellant i.e. his father-in-law and brother-in-law were standing behind the accused-appellant who had a sickle in his hand which was full of blood. The other villagers, namely, Hanuman and Shiva, Raj, Ram Kishore, Ram Gopal were also there. The relatives of the accused-appellant caught him and brought him out. Wife of the accused-appellant was lying on the ground, blood was flowing from her body. The other villagers, namely, Hanuman and Shiva, Raj, Ram Kishore, Ram Gopal were also there. The relatives of the accused-appellant caught him and brought him out. Wife of the accused-appellant was lying on the ground, blood was flowing from her body. Soon after two constables reached the spot and with their help the accused-appellant was taken to the Police Station by P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar. However, P.W.-1 has stated that he did not see the accused beating his wife with a sickle. As such he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he has, however, conceded that his house was quite close to the house of the accused-appellant and that he had no enmity with him. However, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defence, he stated that some litigation was going on between the accused-appellant and his cousin brother, namely, Benchay Lal (son of sister of his father). He has also stated that at the time of incident the other brothers of the accused-appellant were not present but his mother was present on the spot and she was crying. He has also stated that the clothes wore by P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar had also some blood stains on them. He did not admit the defence version of the incident. 22. P.W.-2, Ram Babu, father of the deceased and father-in-law of the accused-appellant, who is main witness of the incident, has supported and corroborated the entire prosecution story as is unfolded in the first information report and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. etc. He has stated that on the date of incident, as the deceased started to get ready to go with him, he came out from the house and sat on the platform along with his son Muneshwar. After some time, the voice of his daughter came from inside of the house to save her. The villagers of the village of the accused-appellant, namely, Shivaram, Ramkishore, Ramvilas Ramgopal, Hanumant were near the platform at the time of the incident. Hearing the noise, P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar went inside the house where they saw the entire incident. 23 P.W.-3 Ram Kishor who is also said to be an eye witness has supported the entire prosecution story. Hearing the noise, P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar went inside the house where they saw the entire incident. 23 P.W.-3 Ram Kishor who is also said to be an eye witness has supported the entire prosecution story. He has stated in his examination that at 09.00 a.m. when he went to Lajjaram's house to ask for a bull, he heard the scream of P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar and entered into the house of the accused-appellant and saw that the accused was hitting the deceased by a sickle. At that time Shivram, Ramvilas, Hanumantlal also came. After sustaining such injuries of sickle the deceased fell down on the ground and died. After this, as soon as the accused-appellant came out of the room, P.W.-2 grabbed him along with sickle and brought him out. At the same time constables Krishnapal and Virendra came to the spot and the accused-appellant was handed over to them. He has also been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defence but he has not changed his version. 24. P.W.-4 Constable-697 Krishnapal Singh, has stated that on the date of incident, he was returning to the Police Station after patrolling at around 09.15 a.m. and on the way seeing the crowd at the door of accused-appellant he stopped there and reached his door and saw that P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar were sitting holding the accused-appellant. Ramprakash. There was a sickle on which blood was present. He has further stated that on inquiry, P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar told him as to how the deceased was killed by the accused-appellant. P.W.-4 had taken the accused-appellant to the Police Station along with P.W.-2, where he lodged written report. P.W.-4 returned to the place of occurrence along with Investigating Officer (P.W.-7) and after completion of necessary formalities, he took the body of the deceased to Mortuary at Fatehgarh, which is 35 to 36 kilometres away from the village of accused-appellant for post-mortem. 25. P.W.-5 Constable-360 Padam Singh has stated that on the basis of written report of P.W.-2/informant (Exhibit-ka/1) scribed by son of the informant Muneshwar, he has prepared the chik first information report (Exhibiit-ka/2). He has also proved the said chik first information report. He has also proved the recovery memos (Exhibit-ka/4 and Exhibit-ka/5) of blood stained sickle and vest of the accused, which were taken in possession by the Police. 26. P.W. -6 Dr. He has also proved the said chik first information report. He has also proved the recovery memos (Exhibit-ka/4 and Exhibit-ka/5) of blood stained sickle and vest of the accused, which were taken in possession by the Police. 26. P.W. -6 Dr. K.K. Agarwal, who conducted the autopsy of the body of the deceased on 4th November, 1981 at 3.30 p.m. P.W.-6 has stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient for causing her death which must have been either instantaneous or must have occurred within an hour of the injuries sustained. P.W.-6 has also stated that at the time of autopsy he found that the stomach of the deceased was empty. There was semi-cooked food in the small intestine and fecal matter and gasses in the large intestine of the deceased. In the opinion of P.W.-6 the death of the deceased must have been occurred at about 09.00 a.m. on 3rd November, 1981 with six hours margin either away. 27. P.W.-7 Sub-Inspector Hori Lal Yadav, has stated that on the date of incident, he was posted in Police Station Gursahaiganj. The investigation of this case was handed over to him. At the police station itself, he took the statements of the accused-appellant and the informant/P.W.2. After taking the statement of the witness Muneshwar (son of the informant) and taking necessary documents from the police station, he reached the crime scene and after inspecting the same, he prepared the site plan (Exhibit-ka/15), the inquest report of the dead body (Exhibit-ka/8), other documents, namely letter to the CMO and RI, sketch of the dead body and chalan (Exhibit-Ka/9 and Exhibit-ka/14) and handed over the dead body of the deceased. 28. Having noticed the facts of the case as also the evidence led in the matter we proceed to deal with the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 29. The first submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae that timing of the death of the deceased as per the prosecution i.e. 09:00 a.m. is doubtful, is liable to be rejected on the ground that the autopsy report of the deceased clearly shows that the deceased was done to death at about 09.00 a.m. on 3rd November, 1981. In the cross-examination, P.W. 6 has clearly stated that there could have been a difference of six hours either way. In the cross-examination, P.W. 6 has clearly stated that there could have been a difference of six hours either way. There are circumstances to hold that the murder did not take place at about 4.00 or 5.00 a.m. Apart from the above, all the eye-witnesses have stated that the occurrence took place at about 9.00 a.m. as also the circumstantial evidence has also supported the same. The presence of semi-cooked food and fecal matter in the small and large intestines of the deceased respectively does not help the defence to shift the time of death. As per the prosecution, the deceased must have been very sad because of refusal of her husband i.e. accused-appellant to allow her to go with her father, she might have taken meal late in the night because of quarrel with her husband. Even otherwise, only the presence of semi cooked food in the small intestine of the deceased was not enough to change the time of occurrence. 30. The second submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae that the alleged offence has not been committed by the accused-appellant and the same has been committed by some one else or dacoits for looting the property of the accused-appellant, has also no legs to stand on the ground that there is no direct or indirect evidence on record from which it is established that the said offence has been committed by dacoits or some one else. If the offence has been committed by dacoits or some burglars for looting the property of the accused-appellant in the early morning i.e. around 04.00 a.m. when it was dark, some sort of information must have been lodged either by the accused-appellant or any other member of his family at the Police Station much earlier or some news must have been in the knowledge of the villagers and eye-witnesses. From the injuries found on the body of the deceased by P.W.-6 at the time of post-mortem, it is impossible to believe that the same have been inflicted by a dacoit or some one else. From the same it seems that the same have been inflicted by an indignant man. 31. From the injuries found on the body of the deceased by P.W.-6 at the time of post-mortem, it is impossible to believe that the same have been inflicted by a dacoit or some one else. From the same it seems that the same have been inflicted by an indignant man. 31. To the third submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae that neither P.W.2 nor his son Muneshwar had seen the occurrence by their own eyes as they did not came forward to save their daughter and sister respectively, when the accused-appellant was assaulting the deceased, we may record that it is a common knowledge that when a person is killing someone with a sharp edged weapon, no ordinary person who does not have any weapon, will try to save that person, as there will be apprehension of danger of his own life and only way to save that person is to raise alarm and gather the crowd. Therefore, the mere fact that P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar did not try to save his daughter and sister respectively, their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. Even otherwise, from the eye-witness account of P.W.-1 and other witnesses accounts, the presence of P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar at the time occurrence is established. 32. To the forth submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae that any Brahmin father or brother who does not drink water of the place of in-law's of his married daughter or sister, then how can they stay there for three days?, the same has only been stated to be rejected on the ground that in today's world and after more years of independence of this Country, it does not go down the throat. If this was a matter of pre-independence then it could have been accepted but in today's era, this cannot be accepted. When there is direct and clinching evidence, no such presumption can be taken in this case. 33. Qua the fifth submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae, we may notice that for false implication of the accused-appellant by the prosecution in the present case, the defence has completely failed to prove as to why he has been implicated in the present case. Neither any documentary nor oral evidence in that regard has been produced by the defence. Qua the fifth submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae, we may notice that for false implication of the accused-appellant by the prosecution in the present case, the defence has completely failed to prove as to why he has been implicated in the present case. Neither any documentary nor oral evidence in that regard has been produced by the defence. The next plea taken by the defence that the accused-appellant has no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence has no legs to stand on the ground that he had clear intention and motive to do the same. It is borne out from the prosecution version that due to death of the twin daughters of the deceased, she was sad and for a while for a change, she insisted the accused-appellant to permit her to go with her father, the accused-appellant lost his temper on this trifling matter and gave numerous blows with his sickle on his wife resulting in her death. As per the post-mortem report, as many as 15 injuries were found on different parts of her body. The number was even larger if multiple incised wounds at serial nos. 8 and 11 and two incised wounds at serial no.14 are taken into account. It would mean that there were as many as twenty injuries on the deceased body. The injuries were on different parts including hand, thigh, hip, back, chest and the face. They must have been inflicted by a man more in anger than a person who had gone to commit dacoity. 34. So far as the sixth submission made by learned Amicus Curiae that there is contradictions in the statements of the witnesses especially P.W.-2 is concerned, this Court may record that the contradictions, which are sought to be projected by the defence in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are minor contradictions and the same cannot be the basis to discard the entire evidence, where P.W.-2 is an interested eye witness, P.W.1 and P.W.3 are independent eye-witnesses and the medical evidence has fully supported the prosecution case. 35. It is settled law that in all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. 35. It is settled law that in all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. 36. Qua the last submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae that the injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of incident have not been caused by a sickle, we have carefully examined the post-mortem report and the statement of the P.W.-6. We find no infirmity in the opinion of the doctor that the shape and nature of the injuries would depend on the manner in which the weapon was used by the assailant and the manner in which the injured tried to ward off the blows. The P.W.-6 has opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a sickle. 37. It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but can not be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in relying on the said evidence. It is also well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. 38. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. 38. Further it is well settled that in case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant and only in case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. In a case in which the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances proves the guilt of the accused, the same would not get weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. The motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye witnesses is available. 39. In Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80, the Apex Court has opined that a motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. 40. The alternative submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae is that the incident in question occurred on the spur of the moment without any premeditation and therefore, even if the earlier submissions are not accepted, yet the husband (accused-appellant) could at best be punished under Section 304 I.P.C. and punishment of 10 years' imprisonment would suffice. This argument of the learned Amicus Curiae proceeds on the ground that the case in hand would fall under Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. and therefore, the punishment would suffice under Section 304 I.P.C. in place of Section 302 I.P.C. 41. The law is settled that conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. could be altered to Section 304 I.P.C., if the case falls in any of the ingredients of Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C., Exception-4 would be attracted. Necessary ingredients to be attracted for Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. to be invoked would be that the incident occurred without premeditation; in a sudden fight; in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel; without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 42. Necessary ingredients to be attracted for Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. to be invoked would be that the incident occurred without premeditation; in a sudden fight; in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel; without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 42. The evidence has been analyzed by us in the facts of the case. We are of the view that the case in hand would clearly not fall within Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. only for the reason that the offender has acted in a most cruel and unusual manner while committing the offence. 43. The law is well settled that all ingredients of Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. must be met before it is made applicable in a given case. One of the ingredients of Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. is that the offender has not acted in a cruel and unusual manner. 44. In Pulicherla Nagaraju [Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 444 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500], the Apex had an occasion to consider the case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the intention to cause death. It was observed and held by this Court that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free-for-all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows." 45. Evidence brought on record in the facts of the present case clearly shows that the accused-appellant objected to wishes of his wife (deceased) to visit her parental house and when the deceased insisted to go with her father, the accused-appellant assaulted her with sickle and caused as many as 15 blows. The injuries have been noticed in the post-mortem report, which would clearly show that the accused-appellant acted in a cruel and unusual manner in assaulting his own wife repeatedly on account of which she died. The act of the accused-appellant, in our considered opinion, would tantamount to acting in a cruel and unusual manner, which would clearly oust the applicability of Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. in the facts of the present case. 46. Except the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh (Supra), all other judgments relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae in support of the said alternative submission, have no application in the facts of the present case. So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh (Supra), the facts were some what distinct. The deceased in that case was allegedly tortured in the Police Station and was later thrown on the road. It was in that context that the Apex Court treated the act to fall in Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C., as against facts occurring in the case of Dalip Singh (Supra). The act of the accused-appellant in this case however depicts cruelty on his part in inflicting 15 blows repeatedly on his own defenseless wife. Not only the accused-appellant acted with knowledge that such injuries would prove fatal but the manner of causing such injuries also depicts cruelty 47. The manner, in which the multiple wounds have been caused in a fit of rage by the offender against his wife, clearly reflects that the offender's act is cruel and the offence has been committed by him in an unusual manner. The injuries on the victim/deceased clearly show that the offender acted with extreme cruelty and inflicted injuries for after another on her person, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased/victim was his own wife and was not armed. Her insistence to go with her father cannot justify such extreme barbaric act on part of the accused-appellant. 48. The injuries on the victim/deceased clearly show that the offender acted with extreme cruelty and inflicted injuries for after another on her person, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased/victim was his own wife and was not armed. Her insistence to go with her father cannot justify such extreme barbaric act on part of the accused-appellant. 48. On the cumulative analyze on facts raised before us, our conscious does not permit us to grant benefit to the accused-appellant of placing his act in Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C. or to award punishment other than what has been awarded by the trial court. 49. In the present case intention/motive as well as direct evidence of three eye witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 and one circumstantial witness i.e. P.W.-4 are available. From the records, it is apparent that P.W.-1 i.e. an independent eye witness had reached the place of occurrence on the alarm of P.W.2 and his son and had seen the accused with a sickle in his hand. The sickle had blood stains on it. The accused-appellant was caught hold by P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar and the deceased was lying dead in the nearby room. Though this witness has been turned hostile but this part of his evidence is admissible and there is no reason for disbelieving him on this point. P.W.-2, an interested eye witness, who is the father of the deceased and his presence at the crime of scene is natural, he along with his son went to the house of the accused-appellant in order to take back the deceased to his house for a change because her newly born twin daughters had died about two weeks back. P.W.3 who is an independent eye-witness, is the next door neighbour of the accused-appellant. His presence too at the spot was natural. They have fully corroborated with the prosecution case and have stated that they have seen the accused-appellant inflicting the sickle blows on the deceased. Similarly, the statement of P.W.-4 who had reached the place of occurrence ten minutes after the incident is reliable. He was on patrolling. When he along with his companion Constable Virendra Singh reached the place of occurrence he found the accused in the custody of P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar and a blood stained sickle lying nearby. This too is a strong corroborative piece of evidence. 50. He was on patrolling. When he along with his companion Constable Virendra Singh reached the place of occurrence he found the accused in the custody of P.W.-2 and his son Muneshwar and a blood stained sickle lying nearby. This too is a strong corroborative piece of evidence. 50. From the aforesaid facts, which have been noted herein above, we find substance in the submissions made by the learned A.G.A. that this is a case of direct and clinching evidence like three eye witnesses of the incident, namely, P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 and one circumstantial witness i.e. P.W.-4.The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution evidence. The incident occurred in broad day light i.e. at 09:00 a.m. The first information report lodged by the informant is prompt, which was lodged at 11.35 a.m. on 3rd November, 1981 i.e. two hours and thirty five minutes of the incident. The accused-appellant had also motive to commit such offence. The incident and the place of incident were not disputed by the defence side. 51. As already discussed above, we find that both the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 and circumstantial witness i.e. P.W.-4 have satisfactorily explained about their presence at the places of occurrence. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony. The police documents and statements of Investigating officer including arrest of accused-appellant and recovery of sickle and vest of the accused-appellant having blood stains as well as medical evidence fully support the prosecution version. 52. Taking cumulative effect of the evidence, we are in respectful agreement with the finding recorded by the trial court and it was fully justified in convicting the appellant. Accordingly, we confirm the order of trial court. 53. The appeal has no substance and the same is dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he be taken into custody for serving the remaining sentence. 54. Now coming to the question of fine, we find it to be mandatory where punishment is awarded under Section 302 I.P.C., as per Section 302 I.P.C. For ready reference, Section 302 I.P.C. reads as follows : "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine." 55. 54. Now coming to the question of fine, we find it to be mandatory where punishment is awarded under Section 302 I.P.C., as per Section 302 I.P.C. For ready reference, Section 302 I.P.C. reads as follows : "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine." 55. From perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is clear that any accused, who commits any murder shall be punished with death or life imprisonment and fine shall also be imposed against him. While awarding sentence of death or life imprisonment, fine should be read together. Before the word "fine", the word "shall" is used and therefore, the imposition of fine is mandatory while awarding death or life sentence to any accused, who committed murder. 56. Accordingly, in addition to life imprisonment, while affirming the judgment of trial court, we also impose fine of Rs.10,000/- upon the accused-appellant. It is also clarified that in case of default in payment of the said fine, he has to undergo six months additional imprisonment. 57. The dismissal of this criminal appeal however shall not prejudice the rights of the accused-appellant to apply for remission, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law on merits. 58. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered in the case by Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae, who would be entitled to his fee from the High Court Legal Service Authority. 59. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who shall transmit the same to the Jail Superintendent concerned for information of the accused-appellant henceforth.