Prosecution witnesses Kaushalya (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3) were minor children of the couple, who were in their early teens.Sumrati Bai (PW-5) has a field adjacent to that of accused Chhotelal.At about 11;00 a.m. on 2.2.2006, accused Chhotelal and deceased Rampayari Bai were in their field.Their minor children Kaushalya (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3), who were 12 and 13 years old respectively, were also present.Sumrati Bai (PW-5) was working in her field along with Tijjo Bai @ Tidko Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7).At that time, accused Chhotelal started to beat his wife with wooden handle of a pickaxe.When Sumrati Bai tried to intercede on behalf of deceased Rampayari Bai, the accused Chhotelal told her off by claiming that Rampayari Bai was his wife; therefore, he was entitled to do anything to her and Sumrati Bai had no right to intervene in the matter.He chased Sumrati Bai away.The accused inflicted 11 wounds upon the deceased.As a result, she died on the spot.The accused dumped her body on the embankment between his field and that of Sumrati Bai and left.(19-06-2017) Per C.V. Sirpurkar, J:This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandla, District Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 47/2006, whereby accused/appellant Chhotelal was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife Rampayari Bai and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-.In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.The prosecution case before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Rampayari Bai was wife of accused Chhotelal.Thereafter, Ashish, son of the accused, reported the matter to Darniya Bai, who lodged the FIR in Police Station Mandla at about 6:30 p.m. the same day.During investigation, on the disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, handle of the pickaxe was recovered from his possession.During serological examination conducted in Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, human blood was found on handle of the pickaxe.The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.In his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he stated that he was innocent and the prosecution witnesses had falsely implicated him for claiming Rs.20,000/- from the Panchayat.The trial Court held that prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Rampayari Bai had died a homicidal death as a result of shock caused by multiple injuries over her body.Aforesaid injuries were caused by the accused with intent to cause her death; therefore, appellant was convicted and sentenced as herein above stated.During the course of arguments, no serious challenge has been mounted on behalf of the appellant with regard to the finding that the appellant had caused death of accused Rampayari Bai by inflicting multiple blows with handle of a pickaxe.Learned counsel for the appellant has specifically invited attention of the Court to the cross- examination of Kaushalya (PW-2), the daughter of the couple, who had admitted therein that at the time of the incident, her mother had consumed alcohol and was in an inebriated state.Her father had taken meals to the field for her and was trying to cajole her to take the same.However, she refused; whereon, her father remonstrated with her that she consumes liquor and creates a scene Thereafter, he had struck a blow to her head with handle of the pickaxe.In view of aforesaid admission made by Kaushalya Bai (PW-2) in her cross-examination, it has been contended that no intention by the appellant to cause death of his wife was discernible in the facts and circumstances of the case.Consequently, it has been prayed that the conviction of the appellant be converted from the Section 302 of the I.P.C. to Section 304 (Part- II) thereof and the sentence of life imprisonment be reduced to the period undergone by the appellant in custody.Learned Penal Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that 4 Cr.A.No.271/2007 appellant had intentionally caused such injuries to his wife as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.On perusal of the record and due consideration of rival contentions, we are of the view that this criminal appeal against conviction must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:It may be noted at the outset that the case of the prosecution is based upon the solid foundation of as many as 5 eye witnesses.Though minor, two of them are children of the appellant.Third eye witness Sumrati Bai owns the field which is adjacent to that of the appellant.Remaining two witnesses Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) had gone to the field of Sumrati Bai as labourers.As such, their presence on the spot was quite natural.None of the aforesaid witnesses can be said to have any axe to grind against the appellant.In aforesaid backdrop, when we examined the statements of eye witnesses, we find that all five of them have supported the prosecution case.Sum and substance of their testimony is that Kaushalya Bai (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3) were present at their parent's field along with deceased Rampayari Bai and appellant Chhotelal.Sumrati (PW-5), Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) were also present in the field of Sumrati Bai.At that time, the appellant assaulted the deceased with wooden handle of a pickaxe and caused numerous injuries to her on head, face, chest, stomach and thigh.Kaushalya Bai and Ashish tried to protect their mother but the appellant chased them away.Sumrati Bai (PW-5), Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) tried to intercede on behalf of the deceased but the appellant did not pay any heed to them.He threatened to beat Sumrati Bai.Unable to watch this merciless thrashing, Sumrati Bai and her companions went away.During cross-examination and arguments before the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant had tried to contrive discrepancy by contending that some of the witnesses have stated that the injuries were caused by the handle of a 'gaiti' and some others 5 Cr.A.No.271/2007 have stated that injuries was caused by the handle of a 'kudali'; however, it has rightly been held by the trial Court that there is no basic difference between the handle of 'gaiti' on one hand and handle of a 'kudali' on the other.The thickness of the handle depends upon the central hole of the iron piece of the implement.Whether Chhotelal had accompanied the deceased to the field at 7:00 a.m. or had gone there later at 11:00 a.m. with his daughter, is immaterial.Moreover, Kaushalya Bai was a 12 years old rustic child.As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of 5 eye witnesses, who have all supported the prosecution case, as none of them springs from a tainted source.Thus, the trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the aforesaid 5 eye witnesses and holding that it was appellant Chhotelal, who had inflicted 11 injuries that were found on the person of the deceased.In such a situation, it would be natural for any husband to get annoyed; however, the moot question is whether every annoyance caused by a wife amounts to provocation to her husband giving him license to beat her mercilessly with a dangerous weapon? The answer to this question would be an emphatic and resounding no.There were three other injuries in the chest and stomach region.As a result, the liver had been ruptured.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code