The omissions in the inquest report, such as the absence of the accused's name and the details of the incident, are not fatal to the prosecution's case, as the object of the inquest proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death, and not to record the details of the incident.

1. - This appeal has been filed by accused Meghraj alias Bhhotiya who has been convicted by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur under S. 302 I. P. C. for Committing the murder of his own wife Pushpa.

2. Pushpa deceased was first married to Ramdeo. The couple last rest dead at Lucknow in U. P. Ramdeo and Pushpa's marriage resulted in birth of two daughters and one son, one of them being P. W. 1 Savitri. Ramdeo expired. Pushpa then came to Jodhpur. Pushpa after coming to Jodhpur resided with the accused as Natayat along with three children from his earlier husband Ramdeo.

3. On March 25, 1979, the accused took a Malia on rent from Mohanraj (P. W. 5.) Pushpa and the three children started living in this Malia.

4. On March 27, 1979 at about 4 P. M. in the afternoon, it is alleged that the accused had an altercation with Pushpa on the paternity of the child which was in the womb of Pushpa, as accused suspected that she was carrying child to the womb of some other person who was the real father. It is alleged that the accused suggested Pushpa that she must have abortion but Pushpa refused, as according to Pushpa it was the accused who was the father of this child and no one else.

5. It is alleged that thereafter the accused committed murder of Pushpa in the Malia where she was sleeping and which was witnessed by her daughter Savitri. It is also alleged that accused made extra judicial confession before Baldeo and Baldeo thereafter went to the Police Station Khanda Falsa and lodged the first information report Ex. P. 1. in which the entire incident was mentioned. The S. H. O. registered the case and then conducted the investigation. On the completion of the investigation, the S. H O. filed the chargesheet and after commitment to Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution hearing both the evidence of the parties convicted the accused for the murder of Pushpa as mentioned above.

6. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of P. W. 1 Savitri and P. W. 2 Baldeo.

7. The learned Amicus Curias has challenged the finding of the trial court.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused at length and perused the record and also the reply of the Public Prosecutor.

9. An important feature of this case is that the entire case depends upon the testimony of P. W. 1 Savitri daughter of the deceased. Savitri is said to be 12 years of age at the time of the alleged murder of her mother,

10. She was an eyewitness to the entire incident as the entire family of the accused, Savitri, Savitris mother Pushpa and other two children were living in one Malia.

11. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that Savitris statement fails to inspire confidence because she has changed her version. Her testimony is inconsistent which is improbable and further she has not been corroborated by Baldee (PW 2). It was pointed out that Savitri in her statement in examination-in-chief gave the story that when the deceased was injured by the accused she wanted to cry but she was stopped by the accused on the threat that she would also be killed. Thereafter the accused remained sitting for sufficient time. During that time he called his brother in the nearby house and the brother was not available. He asked brothers wife to get car for taking Pushpa to hospital. This version has not been corroborated by any other evidence and in cross-examination the story given is contradictory according to the Amicus Curiae. It was then pointed out that according to the cross-examination-version when she cried Baldeo and other persons came inside the Malia who were attracted by her cries and then the people collected outside the house. It was pointed out that this version is not only inconsistent with the earlier version given in the examination-in-chief. Further Baldeo's version is absolutely different because according to Baldeo the accused came to his shop and made extra judicial confession on account of which he along with accused went to