As per Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 12-9-2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) in Sessions Trial No. 107/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused! appellant Surajlal has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

Deceased Kuntibai was sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of appellant Surajlal, sister-in-law (Jethani) of Sanmat Bai (PW-2) and mother of Ram Kumar (PW-6). On the date of incident, i.e., 20-8-2007 deceased Kuntibai, Sukhlal (PW-l), Sanmat Bai (PW-2) and Kalawati (PW-4) were sowing paddy crop in the field of Sukhlal (PW -1). Sukhlal (PW -1) went to Daihan and left their cattle in the Daihan and thereafter he came back to his field. When he reached near the field, he heard shout of his wife Sanmat Bai (PW-2) that the appellant was drowning the deceased in the pond (Talab). He reached near the pond and saw that the appellant was drowning the deceased into the water. He entered into the water and took the deceased out of the pond. At that time, the deceased became unconscious. The deceased was taken to her house, where she died. Sukhlal (PW-1) lodged First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.-P/1) at Police Station Sonhat where Crime no. 63/07 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant. Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/2) to 'Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/3) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Community Health Center (CHC), Sonhat for postmortem examination vide Ex.-P/11. Doctor N.P. Bhargav (PW-12) conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.-P/16) in which he opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning and cardio respiratory arrest and mode of the death was homicidal in nature.

In further investigation, spot map (Ex.-P/4) was prepared by the Investigation Officer and Panchnama (Ex.-P/5) was also prepared. Gamchha of the appellant was seized vide Ex.-P/6.

Another spot map was prepared by Patwari Yogesh Kumar Gupta (PW-5). The appellant was arrested vide Ex.-P/7.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur), who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sukhlal (PW-1), Sanmat Bai (PW-2), Heerasai (PW-3), Smt. Kalawati (PW-4), Patwari Yogesh - Kumar Gupta (PW-5), Ramkumar (PW-6), Rajkumar (PW-7), Kotwar Heerasai (PW-8), Santlal (PW-9), Assistant Sub-Inspector Avtaru Ram Manik Puri (PW10), Constable Narendra Manhar (PW-11), Doctor N.P. Bhargav (PW-12) and Head Constable Raghunath Singh Maravi (PW-13). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

4. Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not been able to' prove that the appellant committed murder of the deceased. Sukhlal (PW-l), Sanmat Bai (PW-2), Kalawati (PW4) and Ramkumar (PW-6) are related to each other and they are highly interested witnesses. Their evidence is not reliable and is full of contradictions. He further argued that the appellant had no' motive to' kill the deceased. He further argued that the appellant himself entered into' the Pond for saving the life of the deceased and he tried to' bring the deceased out of the tank (pond). He has been falsely implicated by Sukhlal (PW-1), Sanmat Bai (PW-2) and Kalawati (PW-4). Hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

5. On the other hand, Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the co