JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred present criminal appeal under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2010 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge Indore (M.P.) in S.T.No. 846/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; and under section 307 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with usual default stipulation. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that deceased Neera alongwith her two daughters Ashima Vyas and Astha Vyas was residing at Martand Niwas Indore. In the same building at first floor, appellant Rohan and his father Prakash Choudhary also resided. The owner of said building is Pramila Choudhary who is mother of deceased Neera. On 9.5.2009 at about 8 pm while deceased Neera alongwith her mother Pramila (PW-2) was in her bedroom and her daughters Ashima and Astha were watching T.V. in different rooms, at that time, appellant Rohan by wearing hand gloves in his hands alongwith his friend juvenile Ayush came there. At about 9 o’clock when Neera went to kitchen for preparing tea, at that time Rohan also went inside the kitchen. On being attacked, deceased cried. On hearing this, Astha went to kitchen and she also cried. Pramila and Ashima rashly went to kitchen and saw that Neera and Astha both were in injured condition. Neck of Neera was cut and blood was oozing out. Astha sustained injury over her neck and face, two blood stains knives were lying there. Both victims were taken to MY Hospital Indore, where Neera was declared brought dead. During investigation, it has been gathered that appellant and co-accused juvenile Ayush caused injury by knife to deceased Neera and injured Astham. Dr. Chirag Doshi (PW-18) conducted MLC of Astha and found incised wound over her neck and other parts of the body. 3. Prosecution case in further is that Dr. A.K. Lanjevar (PW-22) conducted MLC of deceased Neera and found cut injuries over her neck and trachea respiratory tube and right cervical blood vessel has been found cut and as per his opinion, death of deceased is homicidal in nature and due to excessive bleeding on vital part. 3. Prosecution case in further is that Dr. A.K. Lanjevar (PW-22) conducted MLC of deceased Neera and found cut injuries over her neck and trachea respiratory tube and right cervical blood vessel has been found cut and as per his opinion, death of deceased is homicidal in nature and due to excessive bleeding on vital part. During investigation, Sub Inspector Anis Khan (PW-26) and Pavan Mishra (PW-27) prepared a spot map. The seized two blood stained knives, blood stained hand gloves, one pair of hand glove, school bag of Ayush, wrapper and soap have been also recovered. They recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and recovered two knives and its purchase bill from his possession. Blood stained cloth has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. FIR has been registered and appellant has been arrested. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was later on transferred to 2nd ASJ Indore. Thereafter trial Court on the basis of allegation made in the charge sheet framed charges under section 302 and 307 read with section 34 of IPC. The case of accused Ayush, being a juvenile, was transferred to the JJ Board Indore. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. 5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as twenty eight witnesses and exhibited documents from Ex.-P/1 to P/45, but defence did not examine any witness. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted the appellant under Section 302 and 307 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is neither legal nor proper nor correct. Trial Court was wrong in drawing unwarranted inferences and in not considering the material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution could not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction of the appellant is bad in law. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside and appellant be acquitted from all the charges. 7. Prosecution could not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction of the appellant is bad in law. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside and appellant be acquitted from all the charges. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the prayer made by supporting the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of this appeal by submitting that trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence available on record in detail came to the conclusion that the deceased was murdered by the present appellant. Trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the appellant is guilty of the offences under section 302 and 307 of the IPC, therefore, present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the entire record of the trial Court with due care. 9. We find that the following questions have emerged for consideration : (i) Whether, the death of deceased Neera is homicidal in nature or not? (ii) Whether, the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased or not and caused injury to victim Astha with an intention to kill her? 10. In the instant case, first of all, it is to be considered as to whether death of deceased Neera was homicidal in nature. Dr. A.K. Lanjevar (PW-22) has performed postmortem of deceased. According to him rigor mortis was present over the body and there were external injuries over her body which are as under:- (i) Incised wound with clear cut margin below chin, 6 cm below chin on mid of neck size 7x6x3 cm by which trachea respiratory tube and right cervical blood vessel has been found cut; (ii) 2 cm below injury No. 1, middle part of neck incised wound size 7x0.5 cm skin deep found. (iii) below 4 cm of injury no. 1, muscle deep wound size 7x1x1 cm found; (iv) Over right mid clavicular line 4x3x1 cm sized muscle deep wound has been found. (v) 13 cm below and 6 cm left of xiphisternum 2x0.5x0.2 cm size deep wound was found. (vi) deffensive wound over mid of left ring finger size 1x0.5x1 cm tendon deep. (vii) contusion and abrasions on the lower part of the left leg was found. 11. (v) 13 cm below and 6 cm left of xiphisternum 2x0.5x0.2 cm size deep wound was found. (vi) deffensive wound over mid of left ring finger size 1x0.5x1 cm tendon deep. (vii) contusion and abrasions on the lower part of the left leg was found. 11. The postmortem report is Ex.P-41 and as per his opinion cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhagic as a result of injury to the organ of neck and injuries are homicidal in nature. 12. The appellant did not challenge the statement of Dr. A.K. Lanjevar, his postmortem report (Ex.P41), query report (Ex.P-42 to Ex.P-44). Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 13. Dr. Ajit Rana (PW-14) who has conducted the MLC of victim Astha stated in his statement that he found six injuries over the body of victim Asthan which were as under:- (i) Incised wound over the right side of neck size 10 cm x 1 cm; (ii) Incised wound on the right chick size 3 cm x 0.5 cmx muscle deep. (iii) incised wound over right side of face size 2.5 cm X 0.7 cm x muscle deep; (iv) incised wound on the left hand inside and nearby the wrist size 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep x bone deep. (v) incised wound on left thumb size 1 cm x 0.3 cm x deep to subcutaneous tissue; (vi) incised wound on the left thumb (vii) incised wound on the right parietal side of head sixe 8 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep. Blood was oozing out from all the injuries and as per his opinion injuries were caused during last six hours and his MLC report is Ex. P16. The testimony of other witness was not challenged by appellant during cross examination, therefore, on the basis of statement of Doctor Ajit Rana and MLC report Ex.P-16 it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that injured Astha sustained seven incised wound on different part of her body. But the question is as to whether appellant was the author of the crime. 14. Pramila Choudhary (PW-2) in her statement deposed that at the time of incident accused Rohan came at her home alongwith his friend by wearing hand gloves in his hands. He took Neera inside the kitchen by stating that he has some work with her. But the question is as to whether appellant was the author of the crime. 14. Pramila Choudhary (PW-2) in her statement deposed that at the time of incident accused Rohan came at her home alongwith his friend by wearing hand gloves in his hands. He took Neera inside the kitchen by stating that he has some work with her. After hearing hue and cry of Neera, when her both daughters went inside the kitchen they found that Neera sustained injuries by knife and fell down on the floor. Astha also sustained injury on her neck by knife and accused Rohan went outside and stand there. 15. Injured and eye witness Astha (PW-8) also corroborated that at the time of incident Rohan took her mother Neera inside the kitchen and when she reached inside the kitchen after hearing cry of Neera she saw that Rohan put his one hand over the mouth of her mother and caught hold one foot long knife in his another hand. Accused Rohan gave a blow of knife over neck of her mother, when she tried to intervene, then friend of Rohan, Aaysh got injured her by means of knife. Blood was oozing out from wounds. They took her mother to MY Hospital but later on her mother died. 16. Ashima (PW-7) is also an eye witness. She deposed that at the time of incident Rohan came in their home with his friend and when her mother deceased went to kitchen for making tea, then Rohan also went inside the kitchen, after hearing cry, when she reached inside the kitchen she found that her mother and sister both were injured and Astha told her that Chintu (nickname of Rohan) fell down her mother inside the room. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are so many material contradictions and omissions in the statements of Pramila Choudhary (PW-2), Ashima (PW-7) and Astha (PW-8). All of them belong to the same family and they are close relatives, therefore, their statement cannot be relied upon. 18. It is noteworthy that whole incident took place inside the house of deceased, therefore, presence of her daughter, Ashima, Astha and mother Pramila who are her family members are quite natural at the time of incident and there is no reason to make doubt their presence at the place of incident. 19. 18. It is noteworthy that whole incident took place inside the house of deceased, therefore, presence of her daughter, Ashima, Astha and mother Pramila who are her family members are quite natural at the time of incident and there is no reason to make doubt their presence at the place of incident. 19. From perusal of testimony of these witnesses, this court is of the considered view that learned trial court has rightly considered that such contradictions and omissions are trivial in nature and same are neither material nor sufficient to discard their testimony wholly. 20. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of A. P. v. 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 a whole contains the ring of truth, the evidence cannot he doubted.” 21. The Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. 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 v. State of M.P reported in 2016(3) MPLJ(Cri.) (SC) 410] 22. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to disbelieve the testimony of eyewitnesses Pramila Choudhary (PW-2), Ashima (PW-7) and Astha (PW8). Ocular testimony of eye witness cannot be discarded lightly [see : Darshan Singh v. State of M.P reported in 2016(3) MPLJ(Cri.) (SC) 410] 22. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to disbelieve the testimony of eyewitnesses Pramila Choudhary (PW-2), Ashima (PW-7) and Astha (PW8). It is true that Pramila Choudhary is grand-mother of Astha and Ashima and all of them are related with same family, their statement appears to be trustworthy and reliable since their statement are well corroborated by medical evidence available on record and also corroborated by evidence of Investigating Officer Anis Khan (PW-26) and Inspector Pawan Mishra (PW-27) who has registered Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) on the same day. 23. The facts mentioned in Dehati Nalish (ExpP-1) are duly proved by testimony of Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-1). Dehati Nalishi has been lodged promptly within an hour. Hence this Court is not inclined to treat the aforesaid Dehati Nalishi as a concocted one. 24. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Chandrasekar and another v. 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. 25. It is important to note that appellant has taken a plea in his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. that Manjeet Singh used to come to her Buvas’ home and due to which his father takes objection, therefore, due to the aforesaid enmity he has been falsely implicated in this matter. But Manjeet Singh (PW-5) denied about his intimacy with the deceased Neera. The appellant did not examine his father Prakash to prove the aforesaid fact in his defence. Even otherwise it appears that Astha (PW-8) admits in her cross examination that prior to incident there was some dispute regarding the property between her family and family of accused. Pramila Choudhary (PW-2) also admits in her cross examination that her husband executed a will prior to his death and police has taken copy of the aforesaid will during investigation. Therefore, above evidence shows that enmity regarding the property dispute lead to the occurrence. 26. Pramila Choudhary (PW-2) also admits in her cross examination that her husband executed a will prior to his death and police has taken copy of the aforesaid will during investigation. Therefore, above evidence shows that enmity regarding the property dispute lead to the occurrence. 26. Sub Inspector Anis Khan (PW-26) deposed in his statement that just after the incident he has recovered gloves from the ground floor vide seizure memo (Ex.P-20) and on the same day he has arrested accused Rohan by arrest memo (Ex.P-14) and thereafter he has recovered certain articles from possession of appellant Rohan by seizure memo (ExP-47). Sub Inspector Anis Khan also recovered blood stained cloths from possession of accused Rohan. From the un-rebutted evidence of Ramesh Chandra Gupta (PW-10), it is also proved that prior to the incident accused Rohan purchased the knives and hand gloves which were used in the aforesaid incident. The appellant contended that at the ime of incident he was not present on the spot but appellant did not produce any cogent evidence regarding his alibi at the time of incident on any other place from the place of occurrence, therefore, the appellant has failed to prove his alibi. 27. Furthermore, looking to the statement of eye witness and injured witness which are duly corroborated by statement of Dr. Ajit Singh Rana (PW-14) and Dr. A.K. Lanjvar (PW-22) and postmortem report (Ex.P-41), query report (Ex.P-43) and MLC of victim (Ex.P-16) it is established that there is no delay in lodging Dehati Nalishi. However looking to the impeachable testimony of all the eye witnesses and the corroborative medical evidence and the seizure of the weapon and blood stained cloths from possession of appellant, according to us, the trial court did not commit any error in holding that appellant has murdered deceased by means of knife and with intention to kill the victim Astha, he gave repeated blow of knife’s over the various body parts of victim Astha. Therefore, this court is not inclined to take a different view that of taken by the trial court. We find that learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under section 302 and 307 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. 28. For the reasons cited above, this appeal is devoid of any merit and substance and is hereby dismissed. We find that learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under section 302 and 307 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. 28. For the reasons cited above, this appeal is devoid of any merit and substance and is hereby dismissed. The conviction of appellant under section 302 and 307 read with section 34 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The appellant who is in jail shall remain in jail to undergo the remaining part of jail sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the record of the court below to the concerned trial court for information and necessary action.