JUDGMENT

Hirdesh, J. -- 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.12.2014 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone (West Niman) in Session Trial No.151/2014 whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with fine of R.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one year additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. According to prosecution story, on 9.3.2014 at 07 a.m., PW-1 Ramesh was informed on a phone call from village that his mother Chanibai has been killed by his father. Then after, on the information received by him he went to village- Baazaar Khodra at his home and saw that his mother was lying dead and there were so many injuries on her mouth, neck and other parts of the body. His younger brother-Amar Singh and sister- Laxmibai told him that their father assaulted their mother by a heavy stick (Khatia kaa Sewala) due to which mother has died.

3. After receiving the information, police lodged F.I.R. under section 302 of IPC (Ex.P-1) and arrested the accused and after taking the statements of the prosecution witnesses prepared Laash Naksha Panchaayatnama and sent the dead-body for postmortem. After completing the investigation, police filed charge-sheet before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bheekhangaon and as the case was triable by sessions Court, the same was transferred to the sessions Court.

4. The appellant abjured his guilt and by taking plea of innocence claimed for trial. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution produced six prosecution witnesses. The trial Court also recorded the statements of the accused u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence also examined one witness DW-1 Naan Singh. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the trial Court is bad in law and contrary to law and facts and the evidence of the case. The evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffer from serious infirmity. He further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Tusari, who is child witness, having so many contradictions and omissions. Other witnesses are not eye witnesses and having full contradiction so it is submitted that trial Court has committed error in relying upon the testimony of the witnesses, hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted form the charges.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond any doubt so conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference.

7. Now, the question arises before this Court, whether the findings of the trial Court, conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 is erroneous in the eye of law and facts.

8. Another question arises before this Court whether the death of the deceased Chani Bai is homicidal or not.

9. PW-1 Ramesh is son of the deceased and he stated in examination-inchief that after receiving information he reached his house at village-Baazaar Khodra where he saw dead-body of his mother and also saw injuries on mouth, neck and other parts of the body of his mother. He informed the police and lodged F.I.R. Ex.P-1. Police prepared Laash Naksha Panchaayatnama and sent the dead-body for postmortem.

10. PW-10 Hari Prasad Yadav, officer-in-charge, police station- Chainpur stated in his examination-in-chief that on 9.3.2014, he was posted at police station-Chainpur. He lodged F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) on the information given by PW-1 Ramesh. He reached the spot and prepared Laash Naksha Panchaayatnama and sent the dead-body for postmortem. PW-6 Dr. Banshi Mourya stated that he was posted on 10.3.2014 as medical officer at community he