JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has filed present criminal under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ' Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment dated 04/05/2000 passed in Sessions Trial no. 89/1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 304(part-II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of six months. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 06/04/1999 at about 6-7 a.m. complainant Mansingh along with deceased Babulal went to their field situated at village Tanda. Near their field, field of Devisingh was also situated. Appellant Narayansingh, co-accused Kamalsingh and Devisingh came there. A mango tree was situated in the field of the deceased Babulal. By passing cart of the accused persons, some branches of mango tree were broken. The deceased objected and on this, appellant Narayan Singh inflicted 3-4 injuries by his stick, due to which, the deceased fell down unconsciously. The appellant Narayansingh and other co-accused persons fled away from the spot. The deceased Babulal was taken to District Hospital, Shajapur and got admitted there. Complainant Mansingh lodged FIR at police station - Shajapur. After primary treatment, the deceased was referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, but during treatment, on 12/04/1999, he succumbed to death. Accordingly, merg case no.22/1999 was registered at police station - Sanyogitaganj, Indore. Dr. Ravindra Choudhary (PW-8) conducted postmortem of the deceased and opined that the deceased died of coma due to head injuries. Fracture of vault of skull was found. FIR was registered against the present appellant and other co-accused persons. The Investigating Officer Bhanuprakash Samadhiya (PW-10) prepared spot map; arrested present appellant and a wooden stick was recovered from the possession of the appellant. As per query report, the fracture of skull may be caused by such wooden stick. 3. After completing the entire investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Shajapur, which later on, was transferred to the Special Judge, (Additional Sessions Judge), Shajapur. The Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, on the basis of allegations made in the charge- sheet, framed the charges under sections 302 of IPC, in alternate section 302/34 of IPC. Present appellant and other co- accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, on the basis of allegations made in the charge- sheet, framed the charges under sections 302 of IPC, in alternate section 302/34 of IPC. Present appellant and other co- accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring charges, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and placed the documents i.e. Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/20 on record. The defence of the appellant and other co-accused persons are of false implications and some defence was also taken in their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, but they did not examine any witness as defence witness. After completion of the trial, the trial Court, on appreciation of evidence available, passed the impugned judgment. Accordingly, co-accused Kamalsingh and Devisingh were acquitted from all the charges, while convicting present appellant under section 304(Part-II) of IPC and sentencing as stated herein above. 4. Present appellant has preferred present appeal on several grounds by stating that the judgment passed by the trial court is erroneous in facts and law. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has examined only interested witness for the incident. The complainant is the sole witness of the incident, hence his evidence ought to be scrutinized reasonably, but the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant Mansingh (PW-1) has inimical terms with the appellant. There are so many material contradictions, omissions and improvements made by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, hence the benefit of doubt ought to have given to the appellant. The trial Court has imposed severe punishment upon the appellant without considering his tender age, therefore, present criminal appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record in detail and rightly convicted and awarded the sentence to the appellant. The trial Court has not committed any mistake in holding that the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under section 304(Part-II) of IPC, therefore, present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parteis and perused the entire records of the trial Court in detail. 7. The trial Court has not committed any mistake in holding that the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under section 304(Part-II) of IPC, therefore, present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parteis and perused the entire records of the trial Court in detail. 7. In the present case, first of all, it is to be considered as to whether death of the deceased Babulal was homicidal in nature or not? Dr. Kapil Sahay (PW-5), who conducted MLC of the deceased, has stated in his statement that he found two injuries, (i) contusion with swelling over the left parietal region (size 7cm x 6 cm) and (ii), contusion with swelling over the right fronto parietal region (size 7.5 cm x 7 cm). As per his opinion, both the injuries are caused by sharp and edged object/weapon within six hours. His MLC report is Ex.-P/2. Earlier, the patient/deceased was admitted in District Hospital, Shajapur and referred for surgical expert. Dr. Kailash Jonwal (PW-9) also stated in his statement that on 06/04/1999, after examination of x-ray of the deceased, he prepared Ex.-P/7 and found fracture of vault of skull. Testimony of both these witnesses were not challenged by the appellant during their cross-examination, therefore, on the basis of treatment and MLC report given by Dr. Kapil Sahay and Dr. Kailash Jonwal, it has been duly proved that the deceased sustained bony injuries over his head. 8. Dr. Ravindra Choudhary (PW-8) has performedthe postmortem of the deceased vide Ex.-P/6. According to him, rigor mortis was present over the body. On the right parietal region, stitches wound curved with eight stitches and rubber drain was present admeasuring 9.5 cm. Brownish blackish eccaymcin mirroundly was found. On the left parietal region, a stitched wound of 9 cm. and stitches curved wound with rubber brain was also found there. During internal examination, there was liner fracture over the left parietal region and one more fracture on the left parietal region and also four stitches long linear fracture over the right parietal region and 5 cm long linear fracture over the right parietal region. Blood clots were also found there. As per his opinion, deceased Babulal died of coma due to head injuries and all the injuries are sufficient to cause death in normal course. Blood clots were also found there. As per his opinion, deceased Babulal died of coma due to head injuries and all the injuries are sufficient to cause death in normal course. During the postmortem, total four fracture on the left parietal and right parietal region have been found. Head is the vital part of the body and all the findings are of homicidal nature of death, therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence given by Dr. Ravindra Choudhary, therefore, it is rightly held by the trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and caused by injuries on his head and all these injuries were sufficient to cause his death in normal course. 9. The prosecution has examined the complainant Mansingh as the sole eye witness. Mansingh (PW-1) has stated in his statement that at the time of the incident, he was doing farming work in his field, at that time, appellant Narayansingh alongwith Kamalsingh and Devisingh case there with cart. When they tried to pass their cart near the mango tree, deceased Babulal objected that it may cause loss to his mango tree. On that, appellant Narayansingh abused him and inflicted him by wooden stick, due to which, deceased Babulal sustained 3-4 injuries over his head. He fell down on the spot in unconscious condition. When the complainant made hue and cry, appellant Narayansingh and other co-accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he brought deceased Babulal in unconscious condition to District Hospital, Shajapur along with Daryasingh, Nirbhaysingh, Madhusingh, Ramesh and Dulesingh. Thereafter, they lodged FIR at police station- Shajapur vide Ex.-P/1. After sometime, the deceased Babulal was referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, where he died during treatment. 10. The testimony of Mansingh (PW-1) is duly corroborated by Daryavsingh (PW-2) and Nirbhaysingh (PW- 4). Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there are so many contradictions and omissions in their testimony but after perusal of the testimony of these witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that the said contradictions are trivial in nature and neither material nor sufficient to wholly discard their testimony. 11. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. 11. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. Pullugummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddyd reported in (2018) 7 SCC 623 has held as under:- 'Discrepancies which do not shake the credibility of the witnesses and the basic version of the prosecution case to be discarded. If the evidence of the witnesses as as whole contains the ring of truth, the evidence cannot he doubted.' 12. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Chhaakkilal and others and Ramveer and Chhaakki Lal and another reported in 2018 (4) Crimes 238 (SC) has observed that finding recorded by trial Court is entitled to great weight. The same cannot be interfered with unless vitiated by serious error. It is also observed that the evidence as a whole having a ring of truth cannot be discarded merely because the maker is a related witness. Conviction can be based on evidence of solitary eye witness. It is further observed that omissions or lapses in investigation cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case which is otherwise credible and cogent. Ocular testimony of eye witness cannot be discarded lightly [see : Darshan Singh Vs. State of M.P reported in 2016(3) MPLJ(Cri.) (SC) 410] 13. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to disbelieve the testimony of eye-witness Mansingh and other two witnesses. It is true that Mansingh (PW-1) is neighbour of the deceased and he further admits that along with deceased Babulal and other persons, he is facing trial in the case of scuffle before the Court of CJM, but being a neighbour, his presence on the spot was quite natural. His version is also trustworthy and reliable and it is also well corroborated by the evidence of the Inspector Bhanuprakash Samadhiya (PW-10), who registered the FIR (Exhibit-P/1) on the same date. 14. The facts mentioned in the FIR are duly proved by the testimony of Mansingh (PW-1), Daryavsingh (PW-2) and Nirbhaysingh (PW-4). FIR was launched promptly within three hours. Hence, this Court is not inclined to treat the aforesaid FIR as concocted one. 15. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Chandrasekar and another Vs. 14. The facts mentioned in the FIR are duly proved by the testimony of Mansingh (PW-1), Daryavsingh (PW-2) and Nirbhaysingh (PW-4). FIR was launched promptly within three hours. Hence, this Court is not inclined to treat the aforesaid FIR as concocted one. 15. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Chandrasekar and another Vs. State reported in (2017) 13 SCC 583 has held as under:- 'Witness being related to deceased, not a ground to reject his testimony just requiring greater scrutiny and caution in considering the same. False implication negated. The intention to cause death alongwith motive stands established.' 16. It is important to note that the appellant himself admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that there is an old enmity of his father Devisingh with the Mansingh and others, therefore, he contended that he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Animosity is a double edged sword, while it cannot be basis of false implication, it can also be a basis of crime. ( See : Ruli Ram and another Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 7 SCC 691 ). In the instant case, there is no foundation established for the plea of false implication advanced by the appellant and on the other hand, evidence shows that enmity has led to the occurrence. 17. It is the settled principal of criminal jurisprudence that guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt and not all the doubts. In the instant case, the appellant did not examine any witness in support of his contention before the trial Court, therefore, in absence of the evidence, appellant has failed to prove that he has been falsely implicated in this matter due to previous enmity, otherwise, on the basis of the evidence available on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is a sufficient motive for causing the death of the deceased. Although the appellant had no intention to cause death of the victim, but in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that he had only knowledge that such blow may cause injury resulting into death of the victim. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 304(part-II) of IPC. 18. Although the appellant had no intention to cause death of the victim, but in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that he had only knowledge that such blow may cause injury resulting into death of the victim. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 304(part-II) of IPC. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of eye-witness Mansingh is duly corroborated by the evidence of Nirbhaysingh and Daryavsingh and also coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. Kapil Sahay (PW-5), Dr. Kailash Jonwal (PW-9) and Dr. Ravindra Choudhary (PW-8), Therefore, this Court is not inclined to take a different view that of taken by the trial Court because the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and gave a finding about the guilt of the appellant. It is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of offence under Section 304(Part-II) of the IPC. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for charge under Section 304(Part-II) of the IPC. There is no illegality in finding that the appellant is responsible for committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 19. So far as the period of sentence awarded by the trial Court is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of 05 years rigorous imprisonment cannot be said to sever and disproportionate to the offence committed by the appellant. A brutal attack perpetuated by the appellant who took the law in his own hands and ruthlessly assault a person, do not deserve for mercy of the Court. 20. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. 21. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 20/07/2022 so as to undergo sentence awarded to him. If he fails to do so, the trial Court shall take necessary steps including issuance of warrant of arrest for his production before the Court so as to undergo the sentence awarded to him. 22. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned trial Court for necessary action. Certified copy as per rules.