Awasthi, J. --1. This appeal under section374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “The Code”) has been preferred by the appellant against judgment of conviction dated 28.5.2010, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 285/2009, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and usual default stipulation.

2. The facts necessary to be stated for disposal of the instant appeal are that on 3.9.2009 at about 3.30 p.m., complainant Lakhanlal was doing rectification work of electricity in his house, at that time he heard the voice of his neighbour, appellant- Babulal, who was hurling abuses, when he came outside and saw that Babulal was abusing Kamlabai, the mother of the complainant. When Kamlabai stopped Babulal from hurling abuses, he gave a ‘latti’ blow at her head and as a result she sustained injuries, squatted on the ground and succumbed on the spot. The accused/appellant escaped from the place of occurrence.

3. FIR of the incident was lodged by complainant Lakhanlal at police-station Shujalpur, district Shajapur. Police registered a case for offence under section 302 of IPC. Sub-Inspector Sunita Mandloi went to the spot and she prepared ‘lash panchnama’ of deceased Kamlabai and the dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem. Dr. Ashish Dubey(PW11) conducted post-mortem and found that the deceased died due to fracture sustained by her on parietal bone. During the investigation, Investigation Officer Upmanyu Saxena(PW12) reached the spot and he prepared spot map (Ex.P-5) and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The appellant was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement (Ex.P-8) a ‘latti’ was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P-9). On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it was transferred to Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Shajapur.

4. The appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that his land is situated nearby the land of complainant and complainant wanted to take his land therefore, a false case was lodged against him. In defence he examined Ramsingh (DW1). The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that witnesses of the case did not support the prosecution version. The statement of the witnesses are self-contradictory and there are many variations, contradictions omissions in their statement. Despite of that the trial Court has committed error in believing their testimony. In these circumstances, counsel prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence.

6. Per contra, learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction by submitting that the learned trial Court, on proper evaluation of evidence, has recorded conviction and that the same does not call for any interference.

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

8. First of all, it is to be considered as to whether, death of the deceased Kamlabai was homicidal in nature or not? In this regard, evidence provided by Doctor Ashish Dubey (PW11), is important, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Kamlabai and gave a report Ex.P-10. He found following injuries on the body of the deceased:

1. Hemotoma approximately 6cm in diameter over the right parietal region.

2. Two abrasions of 0.3 x 0.3 cm size each over contral aspect of right elbow.

On opening the body of the deceased, a depressed fracture was found on the right side of parietal bone extending towards occipital region. Clotted blood was found on the skull and at various blood vessels. According