JUDGMENT & ORDER : M. Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Biswanath, in Sessions Case No. 34/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for having killed his first wife. 3. The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted for the death of his first wife, as there is no evidence to prove that the appellant had killed his first wife. Further, after the death of his first wife, his two daughters from the first wife are suffering, as he was the one looking after his two daughters from his first wife. However, as he is in jail, the effect of his incarceration is felt by his daughters. As such, he should be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. He also submits in the alternative, as there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill his first wife and as the incident had occurred from a quarrel/provocation, which led to him being deprived of his self control, a case under Section 304 Part-II IPC was attracted. Thus, the appellant, at best, should have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC, as the incident had occurred due to the appellant being provoked by his first wife, which began with a heated quarrel. 4. The learned Addl. PP, on the other hand, submits that the daughter of the appellant (pw-2) had seen the appellant (her father) assaulting her mother with an iron rake. She had also seen her stepmother (appellant’s second wife) hitting her mother with a stick. PW-2’s mother having died due to the injuries sustained by her, which was caused by the rake, there was no infirmity in the conviction of the appellant by the learned Trial Court under Section 302 IPC. 5. She had also seen her stepmother (appellant’s second wife) hitting her mother with a stick. PW-2’s mother having died due to the injuries sustained by her, which was caused by the rake, there was no infirmity in the conviction of the appellant by the learned Trial Court under Section 302 IPC. 5. The facts of the case in brief is that the informant (PW-1), who is the elder brother of the deceased, had submitted an FIR dated 19.03.2022, to the Officer-in-Charge of Gohpur Police Station, stating that his sister had got married to the appellant about 25 years ago. However, the appellant had married for the second time about a year ago. Since then, the appellant began to subject his sister (appellant’s wife) to physical and mental abuse. On 17.03.2022, the appellant and his second wife grievously injured the informant’s sister by hitting her with a rake and they did not take her to hospital. On 18.03.2022, the informant’s sister was taken to hospital at around 1 a.m. in the night, where she was declared dead. Though the informant’s sister was taken home, the informant was not informed about the same. As people from the Magoni village informed him, he had gone to the place of occurrence and saw the injury marks on the dead body of his sister. 6. Pursuant to the FIR, Gohpur P.S. Case No. 41/2023 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered. Thereafter, investigation was initiated by the police and after investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his second wife under Sections 302/34 IPC. 7. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge under Sections 302/34 IPC against the appellant and his second wife, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 12 Prosecution Witnesses and after examining the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC., the learned Trial Court came to a finding that there was no evidence against the second wife, in respect of the assault made on the deceased (first wife) and accordingly, she was acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC. However, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was accordingly convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant has thus filed the present appeal. 9. However, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was accordingly convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant has thus filed the present appeal. 9. The informant (PW-1) in his evidence has stated that the appellant had married his sister (first wife) 25 years ago and had recently married the second wife. On 17.03.2022, the appellant had grievously injured his first wife by hitting her head with an iron rake. On noticing her critical condition on 18.03.2022, she was taken to Gohpur Hospital, where she died. Thereafter, on being informed that his sister had died and as the dead body of the informant’s sister was being prepared for cremation, the informant prevented the cremation and informed the police about the death of his sister. The police then came and took the dead body of his sister to the police station. PW-1 further stated that the rake that was used in the crime was seized from the house of the appellant. PW-1 however stated in his cross-examination that the rake that he saw in the Court was not the seized rake. 10. The deposition of PW-2, who is the daughter of the appellant and the first wife, aged about 12 years, is to the effect that her father killed her mother with a rake on 17.03.2022. She stated that her father assaulted her mother with a rake, while her stepmother assaulted her mother with a stick. She also stated that she was at home during the time of the incident and saw her father assaulting her mother with a rake. She also stated that the incident occurred both during day and night. Blood oozed from her mother’s head and her mother was taken to the hospital later. She also stated that the rake used by her father had a long handle. 11. The evidence of PW-3, who is the elder sister of PW-2, is to the effect that she was informed by the villagers of Magoni village that her mother had died. On going home with her maternal uncle (informant), she saw her mother’s dead body. Further, PW-2 told her that their father had hit their mother’s head with a rake and kicked her. PW-3 further stated that her father had been assaulting her mother earlier also. On going home with her maternal uncle (informant), she saw her mother’s dead body. Further, PW-2 told her that their father had hit their mother’s head with a rake and kicked her. PW-3 further stated that her father had been assaulting her mother earlier also. PW-3 denied the suggestion that her mother was unwell and that her mother had died a natural death. 12. The evidence of PW Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 8 are to the effect that on hearing about the incident, they had gone to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased, with injury marks on the dead body. Further, PW-2 had informed them that her father (appellant) had killed her mother. 13. The evidence of PW-7 is to the effect that on hearing the news about the death of the first wife of the appellant, he went to the house and saw the body of the deceased with injury marks. 14. The evidence of PW-9 is to the effect that he heard that the appellant had killed his first wife and that PW-2 had stated that her father had injured her mother. 15. The evidence of PW-10 is to the effect that he heard that the appellant had killed his first wife. On going to the place of occurrence, the elder daughter of the appellant (PW-3) handed over a joboka (rake) to the police and told the police that the appellant had hit her mother with the said weapon. She also identified the joboka in the Court. 16. The evidence of PW-12, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, is to the effect that on 19.03.2022, he was working as the Second Officer at Gohpur Police Station, when he received information over phone that a person had expired in Magoni village. GD Entry No. 553 dated 19.03.2022 was registered and he was directed to visit the place of occurrence. He accordingly visited the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the first wife of the appellant. He also stated that he brought the dead body, which was kept in the courtyard, for conducting the post-mortem examination. He recorded the statement of the informant and PW-8. He made the sketch map and also seized the iron joboka (rake). On completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and his second wife under Sections 302/34 IPC. He recorded the statement of the informant and PW-8. He made the sketch map and also seized the iron joboka (rake). On completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and his second wife under Sections 302/34 IPC. He also identified the rake in the Court. 17. The evidence of PW-12, who is the Doctor, is to the effect that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 19.03.2022. His finding, based on his examination, is to the following effect:- “Right mazilla found swollen two old bruises (5 x 0.5) cm, 2 cm apart from each other blackish in colur pointing towards the medial conthus of the right eye. Both thighs bear blackish bruises, differently through the ant. lateral aspect. Buttocks, Infra scafular region of various size (3 x 0.5) cm to (6 x 0.5) cm. Dislocation of C4 and C5 found. II. Examination of Cranium & spinal canal: Scalp, Skull and vertebrae: Scalp- Blackish bruise over rt. Maxililer (5 x 0.5) Skull- Fracture RA maxilla Vertebrae- Dislocation of C4 and C5 Membrane- congested Brain- contested. Spinal cord- haemorrhagic at C4 and C5 ” In the opinion of PW-12, the deceased had died due to cardio respiratory failure, as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased. 18. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC shows that his defence against the evidence that had been adduced against him, was to the effect that the case was false and that he had been falsely implicated in the said case. 19. As can be seen from the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court, PW-2, who was the daughter of the appellant and his first wife, was an eye witness. She had seen the assault made on her mother by the appellant with a rake. This evidence given by PW-2 has not been shaken by the appellant during his cross-examination. It is not the case of the appellant that PW-2 was not an eye witness or that PW-2 had fabricated a false case. No reasons have been forthcoming, as to why the PW-2 would have implicated her father with a false case. The above, in our view, points only to the fact that there was nothing to doubt the truthfulness of the evidence given by pw-2, as regards the assault made by the appellant on his first wife with a rake. No reasons have been forthcoming, as to why the PW-2 would have implicated her father with a false case. The above, in our view, points only to the fact that there was nothing to doubt the truthfulness of the evidence given by pw-2, as regards the assault made by the appellant on his first wife with a rake. As such, we find the evidence of PW-2 to be truthful and inspires the confidence of the Court. 20. No doubt the testimony of a child witness would have to be closely considered, as they are susceptible to tutoring. However, it is not the case of the appellant that PW-2 has been tutored. 21. With regard to the stand of the appellant that the appellant could have been at best convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and that Section 302 IPC was not attracted to the case, we are unable to find any grounds or reasons in the evidence, showing that any of the Exceptions 1 to 5 of Section 300 IPC are attracted to the facts of the case. On the other hand, we find that Clause 1 to 4 of Section 300 IPC are attracted to the case in hand. The appellant used the iron rake to hit the head of the deceased. The doctor’s evidence also shows that there were bruises or fracture on the scalp of the deceased, besides there being dislocation and hemorrhage at C4 and C5 of the vertebrae/spinal cord. It also appears from the injuries on the deceased that the assault on the deceased had been going on for some time. 22. In the case of Gurmail Singh & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , reported in (2022) 10 SCC 684 , the Apex Court has held that in order to make culpable homicide as murder, the act by which death is caused should fall not only under any one or more of the clauses Firstly to Fourthly under Section 300, IPC but they should also not fall under any of the five Exceptions to Section 300 IPC. As such, in order to make the present case culpable homicide not amounting to murder, we have to see whether the case falls under any of the Exceptions 1 to 5 of Section 300 IPC. 23. As such, in order to make the present case culpable homicide not amounting to murder, we have to see whether the case falls under any of the Exceptions 1 to 5 of Section 300 IPC. 23. In view of all the above reasons and the fact that none of the Exceptions 1 to 5 of Section 300 IPC is attracted to the facts of this case, the appellant has not made out a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 24. We are aware that the children of the appellant would be in a lot of trouble, if we uphold the conviction made by the learned Trial Court, as it could lead to a lot of physical and mental suffering for the children. However, when the law provides the punishment to be given on a crime being proved beyond all reasonable doubt, we have to go by the law laid down. As such, though we are sympathetic to the plight that the children will have to suffer due to the absence of their father, we do not find any ground to take a different view than the view of the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, as we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Trial Court, the appeal stands dismissed. 25. Send back the TCR.