JUDGMENT :

In this appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants have assailed the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T.No. 145/04. The appellants were found guilty for committing offence under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and for this they are sentenced with RI for life with default stipulation. They are also found guilty for offence under section 324/34, Indian Penal Code for which they are sentenced with RI for six months with default stipulation.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 26-6-2004 at around 11.30 A.M, the complainant Rajendra Singh lodged a report in P.S. Badamalehra against the appellants stating that at around 10.00 A.M., he went to market to purchase vegetables. He reached back his home at around 11.00 A.M. He found that in front of his house, a quarrel is taking place between his mother and the appellants. Appellant No. 1 stabbed his mother Laadkunwar on her stomach and on her neck. Appellant No. 2 attacked Laadkunwar by sickle (Hasiya). As per FIR, the blow by sickle caused injury on her hand. During incident, Sunita, Ram Singh and other persons reached to the place. Deceased Laadkunwar was taken to the hospital. She died before reaching to the hospital.

3. During trial, Rajendra Singh, Son of deceased Laadkunwar entered the witness box as P.W.1 and narrated the same story which was reduced in writing in the shape of FIR. He deposed that appellant No. 1 stabbed Laadkunwar by knife. She was stabbed on her stomach and neck. He further deposed that appellant No. 2 used sickle and assaulted on the left hand of the deceased. In addition, he deposed that appellant No. 1 attacked him also when he tried to save her mother. He sustained a knife injury near his left shoulder.

4. In addition, Sunita (P.W.3) daughter-in-law of deceased, Rajendra Sharma (P.W.4), Ram Singh (P.W.5) who reached at the place of incident also entered the witness box. Dr. K. P. Bhamoriya (P.W.8) deposed her statement and proved the post-mortem report. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below opined that there are minor discrepancies in the statement of witnesses which will not have any material bearing on the outcome of the case. The main allegation is satisfactorily established. It is proved beyond doubt that the appellants, with common intention, murdered deceased Laadkunwar.

5. Shri S. Mukherjee, learned amicus curiae contended that the appellants were falsely implicated by the prosecution. He contended that the impugned judgment is based on the evidence of Rajendra Singh (P.W.1). The said witness was son of the deceased and on the basis of such interested witness, the appellants cannot be held guilty. For the same reason, he submits that the statement of Sunita (P.W.3) daughter-in-law of deceased cannot be a reason to hold the appellants guilty. It is submitted that Rajendra Singh (P.W.1) and Sunita (P.W.3) deposed that appellant No. 1 stabbed deceased Laadkunwar thrice where as the report shows that there were seven knife injuries. Shri Mukherjee submits that as per spot-map (Nazri Naksha), there is no water tap and, therefore, the story of the prosecution is not trustworthy. Reliance is also placed on the forensic report which shows that on sickle, no blood stains were found. It is urged that on Exhibit ‘B’ and ‘E’, no blood stains were found. On Exhibit ‘D’ (knife), sufficient blood was not found for the purpose of classification. It is also argued that the incident is the outcome of sudden quarrel and the prosecution failed to show any previous enmity and motive on the strength of which appellants could have been convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code.

6. Per contra, Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate supported the judgment. By taking this Court to various depositions recorded by the Court below, it is urged that the reasons given by the Court below are based on credible evidence.

7. No other point is pressed by learned counsel