The testimony of related witnesses is admissible and credible if substantiated by corroborating evidence; the mere relationship does not diminish its evidentiary value.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.11.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.829/2012 whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional R.I.

2. According to the prosecution story on 11.04.2012, Sheetal (PW-7) who is daughter of deceased and accused came to the house of her grandfather (Nana) at 5:30 P.M. and stated that appellant is beating her mother. Thereafter, grandfather Gorelal (PW-5) and grandmother Sundarbai (PW-6) came along with Sheetal (PW-7) to the house of the appellant and saw that appellant assaulted his wife Aarti with knife and she was lying on the floor fully covered with blood. The appellant pushed Gorelal and Sundarbai and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, Gorelal (PW-5) went to the police station Khajrana with his granddaughter and lodged the FIR. The Police came on the spot and enquired the matter. The Investigating Officer prepared the Lash Panchnama and thereafter send the body of the deceased for postmortem and arrested the accused, seized his clothes and blooded knife.

3. After due investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant before the concerned Court of Magistrate. After committal, the case was sent to the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore for trial.

4. The appellant abjured the guilt and sought trial. In turn, prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses. After completion of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Appellant took defence that he has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the case. He also took the defence that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident, but he did not examine any witness in his defence. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence and sentenced him as mentioned above.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant filed this appeal and submitted that trial Court has committed grave error in not considering the fact that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that Sheetal PW-7 is a child witness and is tutored. She stated in the cross examination that at the time of incident she was playing outside the house and Gorelal (PW-5) and Sundarbai (PW-6) are interested witnesses but there are so many omissions and contradictions in their statements. The seizure of clothes and knife was not duly proved. In FSL report blood group was not mentioned. So the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that prosecution has proved its case with direct evidence which is corroborated by the medical evidence and the FSL report and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The first question arises before this Court is whether the death of deceased was homicidal in nature or not?

9. Kulwant Singh (PW-12) C.S.P., Investigating Officer stated in examination-in-chief that on the date of incident i.e. 11.04.2012 he reached on the spot for enquiry of the Merg. He prepared the Panchnama of the dead body of the deceased/victim which is Ex.P-13 and prepared application for postmortem Ex.P-12 and send the body for postmortem. Dr. Deepak Gawli (PW-