Karanjit Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir

S.K. Gupta, J.—This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-2-1998 propounded by 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Jammu, whereby he has convicted and sentenced Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, son of Dalip Singh, resident of Simbal Camp, Tehsil R.S. Pura,

Jammu, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, u/s 302, RPC and one year's imprisonment under Sections 4/27 Arms Act.

The sheet anchor of the prosecution case stemming out of the record having trait in narration is that on 6-7-1992, Police Post Miran Saheb,

received an information from a reliable source at 2.10 p.m. that during celebration of marriage of daughter of Sangat Singh in his house at Simbal

Camp Tikri, Ward No. 1, Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, accused, actuated with criminal intention, committed a murderous assault on one Ajit Paul

Singh son of Ujagar Singh with a kirch in his possession and caused four injuries, one after the other persistency, on the chest and the abdomen, as

a result of which, the injured fell down in a pool of blood and had been removed to Hospital at Jammu. Hardeep Singh, Sub Inspector, Incharge,

Police Post, Miran Saheb, entered the information in Daily Register and dispatched its copy of the Police Station, R.S. Pura, for registration of the

case under Sections 307, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. ASI Jaswant Singh and Constable Baldev Raj were sent for recording statement of the injured

in the Hospital. Hardeep Singh, Sub Inspector, himself rushed to the spot. Soon after, the injured died in the Hospital and, consequently, the

offence was converted from Section 307, RPC to Section 302, RPC. The dead body of the deceased was taken in custody by the Police and got

its autopsy conducted from PW Dr. Anayat Ullah. A blood sample taken from the body of the deceased was handed over to Jaswant Singh, ASI,

along with blood stained garments of the deceased, which were seized and sealed. The dead body was, thereafter, handed over to the father of the

deceased to perform the last rite ceremonies. The accused came to be arrested by the Police and on his disclosure statement made during

investigation on 9th July, 1992 while in Police custody, weapon of offence, 'kirch', was recovered was recovered at his instance from a Pully

underneath a bridge at the Jammu R.S. Pura road, and seized and sealed it by the Police. After recording the statement of the witnesses and on

conclusion of the investigation, the accused was finally sent up for trial for the alleged offence u/s 302 RPC. The trial Court, on appreciation of the

evidence let in by the prosecution during the currency of the trial and after considering the rival contentions, found the accused guilty under Sections

302, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

Mr. Ajay Kotwal, learned counsel, debated that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, which persuaded the appellant to cause the

murder of the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh by inflicting injuries with a kirch, in the house of Sangat Singh. Neither any scuffle had taken, place nor

there was any provocation prior to the alleged commission of the offence attributed to the accused and, thus, completely improbabilize the

prosecution version. The evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the trial Court is neither trustworthy nor credible to warrant the conviction,

particularly, when the accused was at Poonch at the time when alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place. Even the ocular testimony of the

eye witnesses does not find support from the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances and, thus, entitles the accused to be

acquitted of the offences with which he stands charged. Mr. B.S. Salatia, Senior AAG, on the other hand, argued that the direct evidence of the

eye witnesses relied upon by the prosecution stands corroborated in material particulars by medical evidence. The evidence is consistent only with

the hypothesis that the accused alone had killed Ajit Paul Singh, by causing injuries with a kirch, in broad day light and committed a cold blooded

murder in the house of Sangat Singh during the celebration of the marriage of his daughter.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record meticulously.

It may be pointed out at the first flush that the trial Court in this case has relied upon (i) the testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely, Ujagar

Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Harnam Singh, who happened to be invited in the marriage of the daughter of Sangat Singh, and were

present there at the time of occurrence; (ii) the evidence of Sangat Singh and Tarlok Singh, his son, with regard to the invitation to the deceased,

Ajit Paul Singh, and the accused, Karanjit Singh, and their participation in the marriage; (iii) medical evidence provided by Dr. Anayat Ullah

Sheikh, who conducted the post-mortem examination, and proved the injuries found on the person of the deceased during post-mortem

examination, and his opinion with regard to the infliction of the injuries with the weapon shown to him, firstly, after seizure by the Police during

investigation and, then, in the Court during his evidence and (iv) motive.

As regards the first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused, P.W. Ujagar Singh, who happens to be father of

the deceased, came in the witness box to depose that accused Karanjit Singh came to their house on 5-7-1992 and met the deceased in the

latter's room. After sometime, when the accused, in a fit of rage, left the house, he enquired from his son as to what had transpired between them,

the deceased narrated that the accused wanted to keep him a Cleaner with the truck, which the deceased declined, as the accused had earlier

committed the murder of a person belonging to their 'Baradari' and had been released from the jail recently. The deceased also told him that the

accused got irritated on receiving the reply and extended a threat to his life. It was on 6th July, 1992, the witness along with his son, Ajit Paul

Singh, went to the house of P.W. Sangat Singh to participate in the marriage ceremony of his daughter at 9.00/10.00 a.m. The accused was also

seen there. The witness along with others became busy with the guests in serving meals to them. It was at about 1.45 p.m., accused Karanjit Singh,

saw his son standing near the handpump in the compound of P.W. Sangat Singh alone, raised a 'Lalkara' that to take revenge of his having been

turned out by the deceased from his house yesterday disgracefully, pounced upon him with a kirch and inflicted four injuries on the chest, the

abdomen and other parts of the body, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the ground bleeding profusely. The witness further stated to have

seen the occurrence with his naked eyes along with Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh Rajinder Singh and Narinder Paul Singh, besides others, present

in the marriage on spot. After committing the murderous assault on the deceased, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. The

deceased was removed to the Hospital in injured condition initially on a three wheeler up to the main road and therefrom shifted on a truck, and

admitted in the Emergency Ward. The deceased, however, could not withstand the injuries and succumbed to it soon after. The witness further

stated that the Police arrived in the Hospital and took the dead body of the deceased in custody. After the post-mortem examination, the dead

body of the deceased was handed over to them. He is also a witness to the seizure memos EXPWUS, EXPWUS-1 and EXPWUS-2, vide which

the vial full of blood of the deceased was handed over by the doctor along with the blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased. The seized

articles were sealed on spot and its seal kept on Superdnama of P.W. Rajinder Singh vide memo EXPWUS-3. The witness further stated to have

marked and attested memos EXPWDS-5 and EXPWUS-6, vide which simple soil and blood stained soil were seized by the Police from the spot,

during investigation. This witness further identified and proved the kirch (EXPWUS-1) shown to him in the Court to be the same, which was used

by the accused while committing the murderous assault on the deceased on the fateful day. On cross-examination, the witness stated that he along

with his son, deceased Ajit Paul Singh, went to the house of P.W. Sangat Singh, where the 'Barat' had already reached. He and his son did not

accompany Sangat Singh to the Gurudwara, where marriage ceremony ('Anand Karj') of the daughter of Sangat Singh was being performed. In

fact, he was asked by Sangat Singh to remain at home and look after the invitees. The 'Barat' came back in the house of Sangat Singh at about

11.30 a.m. The meals had been started to be served to the invitees and the 'Baratis' at 11.30 a.m., in which both the accused and the deceased

were also present. It was after the first group consisting of 300-400 people had already taken the meals and second group had yet to occupy their

places, the occurrence took place. The witness was standing outside the 'Pandal' for supervision and at that time, Harnam Singh, Narinder Singh,

Kulbir Singh and Rajinder Singh were also standing with him. He along with Harnam Singh was entrusted the task of supervision and others were

given duty to serve the meals to the invitees and to the 'Baratis'. The witness categorically stated that when the tables were being cleaned, the

accused proceeded towards the deceased standing near a hand-pump under a tree at a distance of about 15 yards from the 'Pandal' and when

raised a 'Lalkara', he got attracted towards that site. It is also in the evidence of this witness that the accused shouted that he will not leave the

deceased alive today, as the deceased had disgracefully turned him out from his house, and ran towards the deceased with a kirch in his hand and

inflicted injuries on him. The witness further deposed that the intervening distance between the accused and the deceased was hardly 3/4 yards,

when 'Lalkara' was raised by the accused. He proceeded towards the place of occurrence when the accused, Karanjit Singh, inflicted the first

blow and before reaching there, the accused inflicted second and third blows by that time. The other witnesses, namely, Harnam Singh, Kulbir

Singh, Narinder Singh and Rajinder Singh also rushed towards the deceased, but before they reached, the accused fled away from the spot.

Harnam Singh also accompanied him in the three-wheeler, in which the deceased was initially taken up to the main road on way to Hospital, where

the deceased was shifted in a truck, in which there were already 50 to 60 persons including P.W. Rajinder Singh. In the meanwhile, the Police

from Police Post, Miran Saheb, reached the Hospital and on enquiry, he narrated that the deceased, his son, was killed by the accused with a

kirch. The witness also stated that while the deceased was being taken to the Hospital on truck, when they reached the Police Post, Miran Saheb,

Harnam Singh occupied the Constable standing outside the Police Post and told that the deceased has been murdered by the accused and they are

shifting him to the Hospital.

P.W. Rajinder Singh is another eyewitness of the occurrence and stated to have participated in the marriage of the daughter of Sangat Singh on

6th July, 1992. He was assigned the duty of supervising the place where the meals had to be served to the invitees. The deceased and the accused

also happened to be there. When the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh, was standing near the water tap, he saw the accused raising a 'Lalkara' and

inflicting 3-4 injuries on the deceased with a kirch in his possession in the abdomen and other parts of the body and, thereafter, took to his heels

from the place of occurrence. The witness stated to have chased the accused for about 200 yards and when he was quite close to him, the latter

gave a blow with his blood stained kirch and he returned back, as the accused had earlier also committed murder and lest he may not kill him also.

The deceased was removed to the Hospital in injured condition in an auto-rickshaw. In the meanwhile, he started his truck standing outside the

house of Sangat Singh and followed the auto-rickshaw and stopped it on the way and shifted the deceased in the truck and proceeded to the

Hospital. The witness further stated that the occurrence had been seen by Harnam Singh, Ujagar Singh, Narinder Singh and also by him. He is also

an attesting witness to the seizure memo, vide which the vial full of blood given by the doctor to the Police was seized and sealed in his presence.

The accused was arrested on 9-7-1992 by the Police on the information provided by him pertaining to the concealment of the accused in village

Maralyan. The accused also made a disclosure statement, EXPWRS, while in Police custody, with regard to the concealment of weapon of

offence and the place where it was kept concealed, in his presence. In pursuance of this disclosure statements, the accused accompanied the

Police and got recovered the kirch from a small bush and handed over to the Police. The kirch was seized vide memo EXPWRS-1 bearing his

signature. The witness also identified the kirch shown to him to be the same, which was used by the accused in the commission of offence, viz.,

causing murderous assault, and seized by the Police at the instance of the accused. The witness further stated to have reached the house of Sangat

Singh between 11.00 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. By that time, the meals had not yet been served. The deceased was son of his brother-in-law related to

him. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that Sangat Singh was not related to him. He was assigned the duty in the store/kitchen and was

supervising the supply of meals. He had parked his truck in the link road at a distance of about 200-400 yards from the house of Sangat Singh. At

the time of incident, he was standing near the place of occurrence, but, however, could not say as to whether the accused inflicted three or four

blows with a kirch, on the deceased. The witness further stated that both the accused and the deceased were present and serving meals to the

'Baratis' in the 'Pandal'. It was after the first group had taken the meals and left the place, the deceased was seen standing under the shadow of a

'kikker' tree near the water tap. He saw towards the accused when latter raised a 'Lalkara' and he was the first person to reach the place of

occurrence. The other witnesses, namely, Ujagar Singh, Harnam Singh and Narinder Singh, were at a distance of 3 to 4 feet from the deceased at

that time. When he followed the accused after committing the crime, P.Ws. Narinder Singh, Kulbir Singh, Harnam Singh also ran after him. When

the accused inflicted a blow upon him, which he escaped, they were at a distance of 15 to 20 feet from him. The Police had also recorded his

statement during investigation. He had seen Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh and one or two more persons removing the deceased in injured

condition to the Hospital in auto-rickshaw. He followed the auto-rickshaw in his truck and had overtaken before it could reach the Police Post,

Miran Saheb. The deceased was shifted in the truck. There were many persons, including mother and sister of the deceased, sitting in the truck

and weeping at that time. He stopped the truck near the Police Post at the instance of the family members of the deceased, and Harnam Singh told

the Policeman standing outside that the deceased had received kirch injuries and was being taken to the Hospital, from the window of the truck. It

is also in his evidence that the Police reached the Hospital soon after that. When the accused was arrested by the Police, Harnam Singh and

Narinder Singh, besides him, were also present. The accused made a disclosure statement when arrested by the Police and accompanied the

Police to a place where he had kept the weapon of offence concealed and got it recovered. The weapon was seized and sealed by the Police on

spot and, thereafter, seal kept on his Superdnama.

In the like manner, P.W. Kulbir Singh also stated to have gone to the house of Sangat Singh on 6-7-1992 to attend the marriage ceremony of

his daughter and saw both the accused and the deceased present there. It was about 1.30 p.m. or 2.00 p.m. when he saw the deceased standing

near the hand-pump and the accused carrying a kirch in his hand and telling the deceased that he would not leave him alive, as the deceased had

turned him out from his house disgracefully yesterday, and inflicted four injuries near the arm pit and the chest of the deceased. The deceased fell

down unconscious after receiving injuries and started bleeding profusely. Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh and Uhjagar Singh were also present , on

the spot. The accused, however, managed to flee away from the spot by scaling the wall. The deceased was put in an auto-rickshaw by Ujagar

Singh, Harnam Singh and Rajinder Singh and removed to the Hospital. He also followed them in the Hospital later on and, on reaching there learnt

that the deceased had expired and dead body was taken for autopsy. The Police had also arrived there by that time. He is also a witness to seizure

memos EXPWRS-5 and EXPWRS-6, vide which blood stained and plain earth were seized and sealed by the Police. In cross-examination, the

witness stated that Sangat Singh, however, is not his relation, but belongs to the same 'Baradari'. When he reached the house of Sangat Singh at

12.30 p.m., the 'Barat' had already arrived there. When the occurrence took place, the first group had already taken meals and the second group

had yet to occupy the seats. When the occurrence took place, Rajinder Singh, Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh were also with him near the hand-

pump and the deceased was about 5 to 7 yards away from them. The deceased was drinking water on the hand-pump at that time and was

attracted when heard the 'Lalkara' raised by the accused and started inflicting injuries on the accused. His statement was recorded by the Police

during investigation and he narrated the entire episode of what has happened in the occurrence and seen/witnessed by him. He also stated that

Rajinder Singh is not related to him. His wife and P.W. Ujagar Singh are brother and sister. The witness further stated that the accused was known

to him since the time he had earlier committed a murder, in which he was, subsequently, acquitted for want of evidence. It is also in his evidence

that accused is a vagabond and extended frequent threats to the witness and nobody dares to give evidence against him out of fear. That Rajinder

Singh. Harnam Singh, Narinder Singh and Ujagar Singh along with others were performing their duties assigned to them by Sangat Singh in the

marriage.

Another eye-witness of the occurrence is P.W. Harnam Singh, who stated that he was in the marriage of the daughter of P.W. Sangat Singh on

6th July, 1992, which he attended. The accused and the deceased were seen present there. It was at about 1.45 p.m., when accused Karanjit

Singh raised a 'Lalkara' from the compound of Sangat Singh, addressed to the deceased that he would not spare him for having disgracefully

turned out the accused from the house on the previous day. He further stated to have got attracted towards 'Lalkara' and saw the accused causing

injuries with a kirch on the ribs of the deceased one after the other. He rushed to the place of occurrence and by the time he reached there, the

accused fled away. He chased the accused, but soon returned to the place where the deceased was lying unconscious bleeding profusely. He

assisted the father of the deceased, Ujagar Singh, in lifting and removing the deceased in injured condition to the Hospital in auto-rickshaw. He

stated that the auto-rickshaw covered about two kilometers, when Rajinder Singh came from behind with his truck, the deceased was shifted in the

truck and when reached the Police Post, Miran Saheb, informed the Police Constable standing outside that the deceased has been murdered with

a kirch and was being taken to the Hospital. The deceased, succumbed to the injuries soon after in the Emergency Ward and his dead body was

taken in custody by the Police, which also had arrived at that time. He is also a witness to Seizure memos EXPWUS-1 and EXPWUS-2, vide

which the wearing apparels of the deceased and sample of blood taken by the doctor from the dead body of the deceased, were seized and

sealed. After post-mortem examination, dead body of the deceased was handed over vide receipt EXPWUS-3 to perform the last rites ceremony.

The witness further stated that while he was sitting in the house of Ujagar Singh, some body informed that the accused is hiding in the Muralian link

road, upon which he along with Rajinder Singh and Narinder Singh proceeded to the Police Post and informed the Police where the accused was

seen in Muralian. The Police rushed to Muralian, spotted the accused and arrested him on 9-7-1992. While in Police custody, the accused

disclosed to the police about the weapon of the offence to have been kept concealed beneath the bridge of Muralian Prem Nagar under a bush.

After recording the disclosure statement EXPWRS by the Police, the accused took the Police to a place near Prem Nagar Bridge and took out a

kirch from the bushes and handed over to the Police, which was seized and sealed in their presence vide EXPWRS-1. The witness further stated

that on 23-6-1994, three boys came to his house at about 10.00 p.m. and inflicted injuries, as he had to appear as witness on the following day

and threatened him to dissuade from appearing as a witness of the prosecution and tendering evidence in the case. The police had also registered a

case about this incident. In cross-examination, the witness reiterated to have told the Police that the accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased

in his presence. When he went to the house of Sangat Singh, he saw P.W. Rajinder Singh was discharging the duty as supervisor in the kitchen and

he met him near the 'Pandal'. The witness further stated that he was standing near P.W. Ujagar Singh when heard the 'Lalkara' of the accused and

they were talking to each other. When the truck was brought by P.W. Rajinder Singh in front of the auto-rickshaw, 2-3 ladies were already sitting

on the- front seat in the cabin of the truck and P.W. Rajinder Singh came out of the truck, lifted the deceased to the front seat of the truck. He,

however, could not recognize the ladies, as he himself was in the auto-rickshaw at that time and, thereafter, he also occupied the front seat in the

cabin of the truck and saw the mother and the sister of the deceased amongst other la-dies in the truck. The doctor declared the deceased dead on

reaching the Hospital. The accused was also standing near a 'kikker' tree close to the water tap at the time he raised the 'Lalkara'. The accused

was at a distance of 10 to 15 feet from him, when he raised the 'Lakara'. People started running here and there, and there was an atmosphere of

chaos and confusion in the house at that time. He also followed the accused along with Rajinder Singh and Ujagar Singh up to a distance of 10 to

12 feet, but then came back to the place of occurrence. The store-room and the 'kikker' tree near the hand-pump were adjacent to each other.

The weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement in the evening but before sun set. The kirch was

a double-edged weapon and one feet in length, stained with blood. After recovery, the kirch was seized and sealed, and marked as 'M' after

having obtained from P.W. Rajinder Singh on whose Superdnama, it was kept earlier by the Police. He saw the accused carrying kirch in his right

hand and caught hold of the deceased with left hand, before running towards that place. The doctor had examined the deceased's dead body in the

Hospital in his presence and saw four injuries on his person. The witness further stated to have met the deceased on the alleged day of occurrence

at 8.00 a.m. and the latter told that the accused came to him with the request to keep him as a Conductor (Cleaner) of his truck, but the deceased

refused, as the accused had already committed a murder. The deceased also told him that soon after his refusal of the proposal by the accused to

become a Conductor with his truck, the accused extended threat to his life and this fact he had narrated to the Police, while recording the

statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C.

Whereas the statement of P.W. Sangat Singh is to the effect that he had invited both the accused and the deceased to attend his daughter's

marriage, besides other people of the 'Baradari'. Sangat Singh further stated to have gone to the Gurudwara for the performance of marriage

ceremony at 10.30 a.m. and returned back at 11.15 a.m. The occurrence had taken place near the water tap, which was in his compound and he

heard at 1.45 p.m. that some one had killed the boy. He rushed to the spot and saw the deceased in injured condition lying on the ground. The

deceased was lifted and removed by Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh. In cross-examination, the witness stated that on reaching the spot, the

deceased was found unconscious. The father, Ujagar Singh, and Harman Singh were also present there. The deceased was removed to the

Hospital by his father and Harnam Singh, and he also accompanied them only up to the main road and came back, as he had to give a send-off to

the 'Barat'. The meals were being served at a place about 15 yards from the place of occurrence.

P.W. Tarlok Singh is the son of Sangat Singh and stated that the deceased and the accused both attended the marriage of his sister, Manjir

Kour, on 6-7-1992. He also stated to have been attracted on hearing the noise that the accused after killing the deceased had fled away from the

place of occurrence. The witness went on spot and saw the deceased lying on ground near the hand-pump. He was removed to the Hospital. In

cross-examination, the witness stated that 50-60 persons were taking meals when he heard the noise and all of them ran towards the place where

the deceased was seen fallen on the ground. The father of the deceased and Harnam Singh, besides P.W. Kulbir Singh, were also present there.

As regards the first contention raised by Mr. Ajay Kotwal that the evidence provided by the witnesses suffers from glaring discrepancies and is

inconsistent and, thus, cannot be accepted unless corroborated by independent evidence, it is pertinent to point out that the discrepancies, which

do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, cannot be given undue importance; moreso, when all the important

probabilities-factor echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. The murder in this case has taken place in broad day light. The eye-

witness were subjected to gruelling cross-examination and the defence has not been able to spin out any infirmity or discrepancy, which may

render their evidence unworthy of reliance. Unless there is any good ground to think that the descrepancies are due to deliberate attempt to depart

from truth, it is unfair to discard their entire evidence. Some differences and discrepancies in detail are generally found in the case of honest

witnesses and unless they are material, the witnesses need not necessarily be disbelieved. Minor discrepancies are possible even in the version of

truthful witnesses and such minor discrepancies only add to the truthfulness of their evidence. In this case, the prosecution rests on the evidence of

four eyewitnesses, namely, Ujagar Singh, Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh and Kulbir Singh. Their presence at the scene of occurrence has been

proved in the testimony of Sangat Singh, who had unambiguously stated that these witnesses were invited to the marriage of his daughter and

participated in the ceremony. It is also proved in the testimony of P.W. Tarlok Singh, son of Sangat Singh, that the accused and the deceased were

also invited and participated in the marriage ceremony of his sister. All the four witnesses have stated in unequivocal terms about the manner in

which the accused assaulted the deceased with the kirch in his hand and inflicted injuries on his chest and abdomen, after raising a 'Lalkara' -- 'not

to leave the deceased alive since the latter had disgracefully turned out him from his house yesterday.' The presence of these eye-witnesses on spot

at the time of occurrence has also been established in their evidence, and having seen the accused causing murderous assault on the deceased and

inflicting injuries on the deceased with the kirch in his possession has also been confirmed in their respective evidence. But P.W. Ujagar Singh, who

happens to be the father of the deceased, has stated with unerring clarity that-the accused raised the 'Lalkara' at 1.45 p.m. when his son, Ajit Paul

Singh, was standing in the compound near the hand pump, after the first group of invitees and 'Baratis' had taken meals and second group was yet

to occupy their seats. The accused raised the 'Lalkara' addressing the deceased that he will not leave him alive since he had turned him out

disgracefully from his house a day before and proceeded towards him and inflicted four injuries on his chest and abdomen with a kirch. This

statement of Ujagar Singh, an eye-witness, further stands fully corroborated in material particulars in the evidence of Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh

and Rajinder Singh present on spot and witnessed the occurrence with their naked eyes. So is also affirmed in the testimony of the other eye-

witnesses. Nothing inherently improbable or unnatural has been trotted out from their pungent cross-examination to cause any speck of doubt on

their veracity. The evidence provided by all the four witnesses, named above, is fair, straightforward, consistent, credible and trustworthy, and

inspires confidence in the Court. Despite their streamline cross-examination, the defence failed to shake their credibility.

While assessing and evaluating the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles, namely, (i) whether in the

circumstances of the case, it was possible for the eye-witnesses to be present at the scene and (ii) whether there is anything inherently improbable

or unreliable. Credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross-examination and

what impression is created by his evidence taken in other context of the case and not by entering into the realm of conjectures and speculations.

On scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Ujagar Singh, we find that they are consistent with one

another so far as the mode and manner, tone and tenor of the occurrence, assault and the place of occurrence, besides the weapon of assault used

by the accused, the number of injuries inflicted and the place where they were inflicted, are concerned, and nothing has been brought out in their

cross-examination to impeach their testimony. Their evidence is further fully corroborated by the medical testimony. The evidence given by these

eye-witnesses regarding the manner of assault is cogent, consistent, and has impressed us as trustworthy. The evidence of these eye-witnesses

coupled with the recovery of kirch and the medical evidence given by Dr. Anayat Ullah unmistakably connects the accused/appellant with the

commission of the crime, i.e., the assault on the deceased, which had resulted in his death. Simply on the score that the distance given by the eye-

witnesses between the accused and the deceased is different, their testimonies do not deserve to be discarded because the evidence of these eye-

witnesses is otherwise convincing and the same stood also corroborated by other facts established by the prosecution. The evidence of the

eyewitness, if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction, though in appropriate cases, the Court may, as a measure of caution, seek some

confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye-witness always is sufficient without anything more, to

warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery

of weapons, etc. at the instance of the accused by the Police. This view stands supported by the Apex Court in Shrishail Nageshi Pare Vs. State of

Maharashtra, .

Apart from that, discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony as is held by the Apex Court in Narotam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Another, . Discrepancies in the testimony of eye-witnesses on material or broad points have to be carefully weighed in arriving at the truth. But

trifling discrepancies, as has been pointed out by Mr. Kotwal during arguments referring to some variance with regard to the distance between the

accused and the deceased, the distance amongst the eye-witnesses between each other, eye-witnesses and the place where the deceased was

standing at the relevant time, should be ignored, as they are often a test of truth. Several persons giving their versions of an occurrence witnessed

by them are naturally liable to disagree on material points. Their powers of observation, expression or memory are not the same, and honest

differences are easily possible. In weighing evidence, it must be remembered that there are discrepancies of truth as well as falsehood, and that a

too minute attention to immaterial discrepancies may lead to serious failure of justice. It was also vainly argued by Mr. Kotwal that though there

were other independent witnesses present, but none including the eye-witnesses intervened to save the accused and, thus, caused a serious dent in

the prosecution case as to its credibility and trustworthiness. We do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. Kotwal for reasons

forthcoming from the record itself that the people were scared of reaching the accused to apprehend him out of fear or to intervene the deceased

to save him, as the accused earlier also had committed a murder and he had recently been acquitted for want of evidence. This fact further stands

strengthened in the evidence of Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Harnam Singh, when they stated to have chased the accused, but white reaching

to apprehend him, the accused gave a blow with the kirch in his hand to these witnesses. But he managed to escape and, therefore, they did not

gather courage to follow him and returned. In such circumstances, the evidence of eyewitnesses could not be rejected merely on the ground that

they did not intervene to save the deceased, and other independent witnesses have not been examined. The reason is obvious. The scare of the

accused, who had earlier also committed a murder, and if the witnesses come forward to give an evidence, may have met the same fate, made

them not to depose against the accused. Even P.W. Harnam Singh, an eye-witness to the occurrence, in his evidence has unambiguously stated

that on 23-6-1994 at about 10.00 p.m., three boys came to his house and inflicted injuries on him as the witness had to appear in the Court on the

next day. It is also in his evidence that those three boys threatened him to refrain from appearing as a witness and in respect of which he got a case

registered with the Police. Nothing was asked to the witness by the defence in cross-examination and, therefore, the fact assumes affirmation. It

was P.W. Harnam Singh, who also stated to have informed the Policeman standing outside the Police Post, Miran Saheb, from the truck, in which

they were removing the deceased to the Hospital, that the deceased had been murdered with a kirch and which entry was made in the Roznamcha

and, subsequently, dispatched to the Police Station, R.S. Pura, and where the case was registered. This fact also finds corroboration in the

testimony of P.W. Rajinder Singh. This clearly shows that the FIR had been based on the information of a person, who had full knowledge of the

occurrence.

Further, the veracity of a witness is adjudged not only from his individual statement, but also from his testimony taken in conjunction with all

other facts brought out in the testimony of the other witnesses. The eye-witnesses, therefore, in our view, have come out with unvarnished truth and

narrated sequence of events as to how and in what manner the occurrence has taken place, viz., accused caused the murderous assault on the

deceased with the kirch in his hand on the fateful day and corroborated each other on all vital points. The question of examining independent

witnesses arises only when the Court has some genuine doubt regarding the evidence and reliability of the witnesses, much less the eye-witnesses,

already adduced and examined in the case. The conclusion of guilt in this case is, therefore, established conclusively on the material placed by the

prosecution, consisting of the unimpeachable and clinching evidence of the eye-witnesses about the occurrence, and the defence has miserably

failed to extract anything from their evidence to render their testimony incredible, unconvincing and unreliable.

It was next contended by Mr. Kotwal, appellant's counsel, that all the four witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to each other,

their evidence is interested and tainted and, thus, without independent corroboration, cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused.

Undoubtedly, the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased. Their presence on spot at the time of occurrence has been proved in the testimony of

Sangat Singh, when he stated to have invited these witnesses and they participated in the marriage ceremony of his daughter. Their presence on

spot at the time of occurrence cannot, therefore, be ruled out. The evidence of these witnesses was recorded immediately after the occurrence by

the Investigating Officer. The information with regard to the commission of the offence, first in point of time, was made by Harnam Singh, an eye-

witness of the occurrence, and which formed the basis for the registration of a case after the report was sent by the Police Post, Miran Saheb to

the Police Station, R.S. Pura against the accused. The witnesses are known to each other and also knew the appellant and the victim. In view of

the consistency in the evidence of these witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded and whittled down merely because they are related and

interested witnesses, as is also held by the Apex Court in Ram Anup Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . Where the evidence of the eye-

witnesses is otherwise credible, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that their evidence is interested or partisan. Evidence of eye-witnesses

cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. Normally, close relations of the deceased are not likely to

falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of their relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such

criticism. The witnesses may be related but that does not mean and imply total rejection of the evidence : interested may be but to implicate the real

culprit and not falsely implicate the innocent person. Nothing has been shown by the defence either from its evidence or from the evidence of

others that those witnesses have any bias against the accused. These are the most natural witnesses to speak about what had happened before

their eyes. Positional importance of these witnesses as witnesses of the occurrence was significant. Relationship, therefore, in our view, is not a

factor to affect the credibility of the witnesses and itself is discernible from the record that even if other witnesses were present, but have not been

contacted and their evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer, the evidence of the related witnesses cannot be discarded, when link after link

is forged so firmly in their credible testimony only leads to manacle the accused inescapably in the commission of the crime, unless a motive is

proved to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person. The mere circumstance that the eye-witnesses and the deceased are closely

related would be of no avail to the defence, rather add to the value of their evidence, because their main concern would be in getting the real

culprit, rather than innocent person, punished.

It is further apt to point out that the evidence of eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased, cannot be rejected when their presence at the

scene of occurrence is admitted by other eye-witnesses. The presence of the relatives at the spot is only natural and corroborates their evidence.

But straightforward and trustworthy evidence of the relations of the deceased needs no corroboration to sustain conviction. Such evidence cannot

be discarded on the sole ground of interestedness in the prosecution case.

The term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or other convicted for some

animus or some other reason. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; and

when in seeing an accused person punished. A witness, who is a natural one and his presence proved by other eye-witnesses at the time of

occurrence, cannot be dubbed as only interested, notwithstanding his relationship with the deceased, which exhibits his concern to see that the real

culprit is punished. The only thing that puts the Court on guard in case of related witnesses is that their evidence be subjected to close scrutiny and

viewed with caution and circumspection. In taking all appropriate cautions while appraising the evidence of the eye-witnesses, who happen to be

relatives of the deceased, and examining its probative value with reference to the entire mosaic of facts appearing from the record, we are clearly

of the view that it is not open for us to reject the evidence without anything more on the mere ground of relationship or favour or possible

prejudice. The contention of Mr. Kotwal on this count, in our opinion, is also devoid of any substance/force to merit acceptance.

Another limb of argument put across by Mr. Kotwal, appellant's counsel, is that medical evidence is in direct conflict with the ocular testimony

of the eye-witnesses. It is further stated that the doctor in his evidence though stated that the total length of the weapon of offence tallies with the

sketch drawn by him EXPWAU-1, but the breadth of the blade and/or length of the blade does not tally with the weapon shown to him in the

Court. According to Mr. Kotwal, the doctor further stated that the injuries found on the person of the deceased appear to have been caused by

one weapon with the blade having 1/2"" width. While it is true that the post-mortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the

evidence of the doctor conducting the postmortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor

lies vis-a-vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefore and it would then be the

prosecutor's duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on the record from the other prosecution witnesses. According to

P.W. Dr. Anayal Ullah, the deceased was brought by ASI Jaswant Singh of Police Station R.S. Pura in the injured condition being a stabbing

case, who died in the Emergency Ward. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :

Incised punctured wound in the left mid axillary line in the fifth intercostals space; 2.5 cm x 1. 5 cm. 5.6"" deep in the left lung substance

measuring 1/2 cm. at the tip in breadth into the left ventricle, 400 ml of blood was present in the pericardium;

Incised punctured wound on the left posterior axillary fold in the ninth intercostals space. 2.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. deep into the lung and left

diaphragmatic domb down into the superio posterior wall of fundus of stomach 7.5 cm x 1/2 cm.;

Incised punctured wound in front of the body of the stornum in the mid part 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm;

Incised punctured wound in the eighth intercostals space on the right costal margin in midculavicular region 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm internally.

It is also in the certificate of the doctor that lungs substance pericardium, stomach and right kidney were ruptured and, in his opinion, the death

was caused due to haemorrhagic shock. In the certificate, EXPWAU, the doctor further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in

the ordinary course of nature. The injuries mentioned in the certificate could be possible by the weapon shown in the Court. Mr. Kotwal,

appellant's counsel, however, submitted that since the breadth of the blade or length of the blade of the weapon shown to the doctor in the Court

did not tally with the sketch drawn by him as EXPWAU-1, it does not support the prosecution case and there being a material contradiction

between the eye-witnesses, on the one hand, and the medical evidence, on the other, the prosecution case crumbles down like a pack of cards. It

is significant to point out that the doctor has nowhere given the dimension of the weapon, viz., kirch in the sketch drawn at EXPWAU-1, so it is

highly hypothetical for the doctor to state that it did not tally with the breadth or length of the blade of the weapon shown in sketch drawn in

EXPWAU-1. On the one hand, the dimension of the weapon seized by the Police has been clearly indicated in the sketch drawn by them in

EXPWHS-2 where the breadth of the weapon, kirch, from the middle is 1"" and gets reduced while proceeding towards tip, as is visible from the

graph in the EXPWHS-2. So, much significance or weight cannot be given to this aspect of the statement of the doctor in the facts and

circumstances of the case enumerated from the record, particularly when the sketch of the weapon drawn by the Police manifestly seems to be true

replica of the sketch drawn by the doctor EXPWAU-1. The number of injuries, the place of infliction and the possibility of these injuries having

been caused by the weapon shown to the doctor in the Court, stand fully corroborated in the testimony of the eyewitnesses, who also happen to

be the attesting witnesses of the seizure memo, by which the weapon was seized by the Investigating Officer. So, it cannot be said, in our view,

with certitude that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses, so as to render the prosecution case redolent

with doubt and suspicion. In Krishnan and Another Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, the Apex Court, while dealing with the probative value

of the medical evidence, held as under (Para 21) :

It is trite that where the eye-witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not

accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the Importance and primacy of the quality of the trial

process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely

prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be

tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy;

consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the

probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.

It is well settled that the positive evidence in a case is that of the eye-witnesses and the evidence of a medical expert is merely an opinion

corroborating the same. The value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It is proved that the injuries could have been caused in the manner

and nothing more. Merely a statement of the doctor that the breadth of the weapon shown to him in the Court does not tally with the weapon

shown in the sketch, itself is otherwise hypothetical statement, as no breadth or length was given by the doctor in the sketch prepared by him in

EXPWAU-1. It cannot be said that the medical evidence runs counter to the evidence of the eye-witnesses, particularly when there is a

consistency between the two about the nature of the weapon and the injuries inflicted in the occurrence which took place. Even in extreme

situations, when the eye-witnesses' count is credible and trustworthy, as in the instant case pointed out, medical opinion in the alternative is not

acceptable as conclusive. This contention of the learned appellant's counsel also does not bear any substance to merit consideration.

The other incriminating circumstance to corroborate the prosecution case is the recovery of the weapon of offence, viz., kirch, at the instance

of the accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement made, while in Police custody, to the Investigating Officer in presence of the witnesses.

The evidence with regard to the disclosure statement and the recovery of weapon of offence, used by the accused in the commission of the crime,

remained unassailed, unchallenged and unquestioned. It is in the evidence of P.W. Harnam Singh that on getting the information that the accused is

hiding himself in Muralian, he accompanied by Rajinder Singh and Narinder Singh, proceeded to the Police Post, Miran Saheb, and informed

about it. It is also in the evidence of Harnam Singh that the Police immediately rushed to Muralian accompanied by them and arrested the accused.

He further stated that while in Police custody, the accused made a disclosure statement with regard to the weapon of offence to have been kept

concealed underneath a bridge near Prem Nagar in the bushes. The accused accompanied the Police to the place of the concealment under the

bridge and brought out a kirch from bushes, which was seized and sealed by the Police in his presence. He has admitted the contents of the

disclosure statement and the recovery memos EXPWRS-1 and EXPWRS-2 respectively bearing his signatures. So is also affirmed in the

testimony of P.W. Rajinder Singh. The weapon of offence has been identified by the witnesses to be the same. The Investigating Officer, P.W.

Hardeep Singh, is a scribe of the disclosure statement and seizure memo vide which the weapon of offence has been seized after having been

recovered by the Police at the instance of the accused in pursuance of disclosure statement made by him while in Police custody. The sketch of the

weapon marked as EXPWHS-2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and he also recorded the statement of the eye-witnesses and on the

completion of the investigation, he found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. Nothing specific has

been asked from the Investigating Officer with regard to the non-examination of the independent witnesses, who stated to have been present on

spot at the time of occurrence. The case of the prosecution, thus, stands fully supported in the testimony of the Investigating Officer. He has

collected the evidence and other materials during investigation and found the offence of murder established against the accused and nothing is found

in his cross-examination to render his investigation biased.

Mr. Kotwal further submitted that the date on the Court copy of the FIR has been tampered in order to prove its receipt to the Magistrate on

7-7-1992, whereas, in fact, it has been dispatched to the Court on 8-7-1992 and unexplained delay of two days is fatal to the prosecution case.

The plea taken by the defence manifestly appears to be without any substance on a bare perusal of the copy of the FIR. The date stands corrected

as 7-7-1992 and bears the signature and seal of the Magistrate. The plea further stands belied by the date 7-7-1992 recorded in column No. 8 of

the Prosecuting Officer while submitting the FIR in the Court. That apart, the mere delay in dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate is not fatal, when

position explained by the Investigating Agency. But in this case, no conclusion can be drawn on such ground that the FIR was not lodged on the

same date after the incident or it was ante-dated. This plea is also, therefore, devoid of any legal force and cannot be accepted.

So far as motive, with which the accused is stated to have been actuated to commit the murder of the deceased, is concerned, it is pertinent to

point out that the motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention to do a particular act. There is unchallenged and uncontroverted

evidence that the accused, a day before, went to the house of the deceased and asked him to work as a cleaner with him on his truck, but the latter

declined in stating that he had already murdered a member of their 'Baradari', which irritated the accused and he threatened the deceased, and the

accused left in a fit of rage and revenge. It is also proved from the consistent and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that the accused raised

a 'Lalkara' before inflicting a murderous assault on the deceased that since the accused had been turned out from the house disgracefully a day

before, he will not leave the deceased alive. Apart from that, where the prosecution rests on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, motive loses both

relevance and significance and even if not proved, is not fatal to the prosecution case.

Another argument put forth by the appellant's counsel is with regard to the plea of alibi taken by the appellant/accused in defence. It is stated

that the accused was, in fact, arrested by the Police from Poonch and not from the village Muralian. The plea of alibi flows from Section 11 of the

Evidence Act. The word 'alibi' is of Latin origin and means ""elsewhere"". It is a convenient term used for the defence taken by an accused that when

the occurrence took place, he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it was highly improbable that he would have participated in the

crime. Alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Ranbir Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized

u/s 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. The burden of proving commission of offence by the

accused so as to fasten the liability of guilt on him remains on the prosecution. The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only

when the burden, which lies on the prosecution is discharged satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, then it is

incumbent upon the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with certainty, so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time

of occurrence. In view of the overwhelming evidence collected during investigation and adduced during trial, including that of Sangat Singh and

Tarlok Singh, in whose house the marriage ceremony was performed in stating that the accused and the deceased were invited and participated in

the marriage, and the occurrence has been established beyond hilt in the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the accused has not succeeded in

discharging this burden, which is, undoubtedly, heavy. However, while weighing the prosecution case and defence case, pitted against each other,

the balance tilts in favour of the prosecution, as no evidence has been adduced by the accused in proof of plea of alibi.

After taking conspectus of the facts and circumstances discussed above in its cumulative, we are clearly of the view, that the consistent and

credible evidence of the eye-witnesses fully supported in the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances unerringly prove the guilt of

the accused beyond any pale of doubt and are inconsistent with his innocence. The trial Court has appreciated, estimated and weighed the

evidence in its proper perspective fairly, decided the character of the witnesses correctly and reached the result rightly. We are, therefore, in

agreement with the findings of the trial Court and confirm the findings returned of the sentence awarded. This appeal, therefore, possessing no merit

is dismissed and the sentence awarded by the trial Court confirmed. Both the appeal as well as the reference made by the trial Court, is disposed

of accordingly.