Raja Ram and Another vs The State

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.—The appellant and his co-accused Ramesh Kumar were prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 01/03 emanating from FIR No. 286/02, Police Station Mandir Marg on charges u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having committed the murder of Jagat Pal (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") by using knives in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.04.2008, the appellant and the co-accused were held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and vide order dated 11.04.2008, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and also to undergo RI for the period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the offence punishable u/s 27 of the Arms Act. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2002, ASI Suresh Chand(PW25) was present on duty in the area of Baba Kharak Singh Marg along with Constable Subash Giri (PW4), Constable Jasbir Singh (PW16) and Constable Amrit Singh (PW17). After deputing Constable Subash Giri and Constable Jasbir Singh on traffic control duty at T-point, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Near Hanuman Mandir, ASI Suresh Chand (PW25) proceeded for motor cycle patrol along with Constable Amrit Singh (PW17). At around 11:25 am, in front of petrol pump, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, one person informed ASI Suresh Chand that two persons were stabbing a person with "churri" in the side lane near Haryana Emporium. ASI Suresh Chand informed the police station and reached near Haryana Emporium on Baba Kharak Singh Marg, where he saw two persons, whose names were later on revealed as Raja Ram and Ramesh Kumar, stabbing a man, aged about 35 years and they were saying that they would kill him for stealing their smack on daily basis. On seeing the police, both of them fled from the spot. They were chased by ASI Suresh Chand and Constable Amrit Singh. Constable Subhash Giri and Constable Jasbir Singh also ran after the accused persons. Constable Subhash Giri apprehended accused Ramesh Kumar at Hanuman Lane and Constable Jasbir Singh apprehended the appellant Raja Ram near the Masjid at Connaught Place. Both the accused were holding blood-stained "churries" in their hands. By the time ASI Suresh Chand and the Constables brought the accused persons to the spot of occurrence, the injured had already been removed to the RML Hospital by a PCR Van.

Inspector Ram Kishan (PW28) and SI Krishan Lal(PW15), on receipt of information also reached at the spot. On learning that the deceased has been removed to RML Hospital, PW28 Inspector Ram Kishan left SI Krishan Lal (PW15) to guard the spot and went to the hospital where he learnt that the deceased had been declared brought dead.

PW28, Inspector Ram Kishan returned to the spot of occurrence and recorded the statement Ex.PW25/A of ASI Suresh Chand(PW25). He appended his endorsement Ex.PW28/A detailing the factual situation and sent it to the police station through Constable Gajender Singh (PW22) for the registration of the case. On the basis of the said Rukka, formal FIR No. 286/02 (Ex.PW8/A) was recorded at 2:45 pm on 22.08.2002.

From the spot of occurrence, sample control earth and blood stained earth were lifted by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW4/C. Police photographer, Head Constable Ravinder Kumar from Crime Team was summoned and he took photographs of the spot Exhibits PW9/A1 to PW9/A24 from various angles, negatives whereof are Exhibits PW9/A25 to PW9/A48.

SI Chandrika Prasad (PW1), accompanied by Constable Kuldeep Chand (PW5), took both the accused persons to RML Hospital, where their medical examination was conducted by Dr. P.K. Nayak (PW26) and no injuries were found on their persons. Their MLCs are Exhibits PW26/A and PW26/B. Blood samples of both the accused and the clothes which they were wearing at the time of commission of offence, were handed over to the police at the hospital and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A.

On 26.08.2002, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. Amit Kochar(PW21) and Dr. Sumit Seth( PW23) conducted post mortem examination and gave their report Ex.PW21/A, which recorded that eight ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock and the injury Nos. 1 and 2 noted in the post mortem report were found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, individually as well as collectively. Blood-stained clothes of the deceased and his blood sample gauge were handed over to the police.

The blood-stained clothes of the accused persons and the "churries" recovered from them were sent for serological examination and as per report of serological examination Exhibits PW28/C, PW28/D and PW28/E, the blood group of the deceased was "B" and human blood group "B" was detected on the clothes of the deceased and accused persons. Though human blood was detected on the "churries" (knives), the blood group thereon could not be ascertained.

On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his co-accused u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

ASI Suresh Chand, PW25 deposed in the Court that on 22.08.2002 at about 11:15 am, a public person had informed him and Constable Amrit Singh that two persons were stabbing a man near Haryana Emporium and on reaching the spot he saw that the accused persons, holding "churries" (knives) in their hands, were stabbing the deceased and saying that they would kill him as he used to steal their smack on daily basis. The clothes of the accused persons were stained with blood. On seeing the police they tried to flee, but were apprehended by Constable Subash Giri and Constable Jasbir Singh respectively. The blood-stained "churries" were recovered from the possession of the accused persons respectively.

Const. Amrit Singh PW-17 deposed that on 22.08.2002 at about 11.25 AM a public person had stopped him and ASI Suresh Chand and informed them that two persons were stabbing a man near Haryana Emporium; that on reaching the spot he saw the accused persons holding knives in their hands were stabbing and exhorting the deceased; that the clothes of the accused persons were stained with blood; that when the accused attempted to flee, Const. Subash Giri apprehended accused Ramesh Kumar at Hanuman Mandir Lane and Const. Jasbir Singh apprehended appellant Raja Ram at the rear of the mosque; that one blood stained knife each was recovered from the possession of the accused persons.

Const. Subash Giri PW-4 deposed that on 22.08.2002, he along with Const. Jasbir Singh was regulating traffic at T-point at Hanuman Mandir lane, when at about 11.30 A.M. he heard the alarmed voices of ASI Suresh Chand and Const. Amrit Singh and saw them chasing the accused persons; that one of the accused person was running towards Hanuman Mandir lane while the other was running towards a mosque; that he chased accused Ramesh Kumar who was running towards Hanuman Mandir lane and apprehended him; that the accused Ramesh was holding a blood stained knife in his hand and his clothes were also stained with blood at the time of his apprehension; that the other accused person was apprehended by Const. Jasbir Singh.

Const. Jasbir Singh PW-16 deposed that on 22.08.2002 he along with Const. Subash Giri was regulating traffic at T-point at Hanuman Mandir lane, when at about 11.35-11.40 A.M. he heard loud voices coming from the direction of Haryana Emporium and saw that the accused persons, who were holding knives in their hands and whose clothes were stained with blood, were running at a fast speed; that he started to chase the accused person who was running towards the mosque and apprehended him at the rear of the mosque; that the other accused person was apprehended by Const. Subash Giri; that the appellant Raja Ram was holding a blood stained knife at the time of his apprehension.

Insp. Ram Kishan PW-28 deposed that the endorsement Ex.PW28/A was recorded by him on the basis of the statement Ex.PW-25/A of ASI Suresh Chand.

SI Krishan Lal PW-15 who had assisted in the investigation at the spot on the date of the incident deposed that the accused persons had already been apprehended by Const. Subash Giri and Const. Jasbir by the time he had arrived at the spot; that on reaching the spot he found that the clothes of the accused persons were stained with blood and that huge quantity of blood was lying at the spot.

In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution version. He explained that on 22.08.2002, he was busy in his "kabari" work in Haryana Emporium. One police officer came there and took him to the police station on the pretext that some cleaning work was required to be done at the police station. After some time, his signatures and thumb marks were obtained on some written and blank papers and he was compelled to hold a knife in his hand and on the next day he was produced in the court. Thus, he claimed himself to be innocent.

Believing the testimonies of the police officials and holding that the presence of human blood of ''B'' group on the clothes of the appellant and presence of human blood on the knife recovered from the possession of the appellant lends corroboration to the case of the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant of committing offences punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. Similarly, on the same set of reasoning the co-accused has also been convicted.

We may note at the outset that the co-accused Ramesh Kumar whose role is almost similar to that of the appellant had also preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment in Crl.A. No. 478/2008, which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 26.02.2009. Ramesh Kumar preferred an SLP against the aforesaid judgment, which was dismissed in limine.

The first submission advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant against the impugned judgment is that as per the evidence on record, 10 to 15 persons had collected at the time of the incident, despite that not even a single witness has been cited or examined by the prosecution. Therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the evidence of the police officials.

In this regard, it would be useful to quote the following observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, :

As regards the examination of independent persons or witnesses, we would do well to note a decision of this Court in Ambika Prasad and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) (2002) 2 SCC 646, wherein this Court in paragraph 12 observed:

It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW5 and PW7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Another reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournment in the court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. Dealing with a similar contention in State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh, , this Court observed:(SC pp. 691-92, para 15)

In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.

The test of creditworthiness and acceptability in our view, ought to be the guiding factors and if so the requirements as above, stand answered in the affirmative, question of raising an eyebrow on reliability of witness would be futile. The test is the credibility and acceptability of the witnesses available -if they are so, the prosecution should be able to prove the case with their assistance.

Coming to the contextual facts once again, while it is true that there is no independent witness but the evidence available on record does inspire confidence and the appellant has not been able to shake the credibility of the eye-witnesses. There is not even any material contradiction in the case of the prosecution.

The legal position which emerges from the afore-noted decision is that the factum of non-examination of public/independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in every case. It depends upon the additional factor whether the evidence led by the prosecution inspires confidence or not. If the evidence led by the prosecution is otherwise credible and trustworthy, the non-examination of independent/public witness is of no consequence.

The second submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that only evidence which connects the appellant with the crime of murder of Jagat Pal are the statements of the police officials and that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the police officials to sustain the conviction of the appellant as they obviously are interested in the success of the case.

A similar contention was repelled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kalpnath Rai Vs. State (through CBI), in the following terms:

As a legal proposition it was argued that it would be unsafe to base a conclusion on the evidence of police officers alone without being supported by at least one independent person from the locality. To reinforce the said contention Shri V.S. Kotwal, Senior Advocate cited the decision of this Court in Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar etc. etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein want of independent witnesses of the locality rendered suspicious a raid conducted by the police.

There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent witness or even presence of such witness during police raid would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If the evidence of the police officer is found acceptable it would be an erroneous proposition that court must reject the prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness was examined. In Pradeep Narain Madgaonkar (supra) to which one of us (Mukherjee, J) is a party, the aforesaid position has been stated in unambiguous terms, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:

Indeed, the evidence of the official (police) witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are, either interested in the investigation or the prosecuting agency but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation; requires greater care to appreciate their testimony. In Balbir Singh Vs. State, this Court has repelled a similar contention based on non-examination of independent witnesses. The same legal position has been reiterated by this Court time and again vide Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana, , Sama Alana Abdulla Vs. State of Gujarat, , Anil alias Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar Vs. State of Maharashtra, , Tahir v. State (Delhi) JT 1996(3) SC 338.

Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there are material contradictions/discrepancies in the testimony of the police officials, who were associated with the apprehension of the accused persons and the conduct of investigation on the date of the incident, which case gives support to the defence of the appellant that he was taken to the police station by a police officer on a false pretext from Haryana Emporium on the date of occurrence and falsely implicated by the police.

Similar argument referring to material contradictions/discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses was raised on behalf of co-accused Ramesh Kumar in Crl.A. No. 478/2008 and was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 26.02.2009, with following observations:

Before dealing with the afore-noted submission of the counsel for the appellant it would be apposite to refer the following observations rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 456/2002 Jayaseelan v. State of Tamil Nadu decided on 11.02.2009:

...Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment...As observed by this Court in State of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Another, , normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party''s case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, and in Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, . It was further illuminated in the Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, ; Ram Udgar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, ; H. Seshadri Vs. K.R. Natarajan and Another, ; Gubbala Venugopalaswamy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, and in Syed Ibrahim Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, .

In the backdrop of afore-noted legal position, we are examining the so-called contradictions/discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution herein under. Under column B we are noting the subject matter of the alleged contradiction/discrepancy; under column C we are noting the contradiction/discrepancy alleged and under column D we are noting our observation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A B C D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S. Subject of Contradiction/Discrepa- Remarks No. Contradiction/Disc- ncy repancy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Place of arrest of (i) Const. Subash Giri PW- There is no accused persons 4 had deposed that ''both contradiction the accused persons were inasmuch as PW- brought at T-point at 4 is deposing that Hanuman Mandir. Both accused persons were arrested vide arrest were brought memo Ex.PW-4/D and E.'' together at T-point after being (ii) Const. Jasbir Singh apprehended at PW-16 had deposed that different places ''accused Raja Ram was whereas PW-16 is arrested at about 2.30 pm deposing about after he was brought in formal arrest of police station.'' the accused Raja Ram. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Place of preparation Const. Jasbir Singh PW- PW-17 is not a of arrest memo of 16 had deposed that he party to the accused Raja Ram had signed the arrest of preparation of all accused Raja Ram in the the documents police station whereas prepared during Const. Amrit Singh PW-17 the investigation had deposed that all the particularly the documents were prepared arrest memo of at the spot. the accused persons therefore there was no occasion for him to depose to about the preparation of all the documents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Recording of time in The time of registration of This ''minor FIR Ex.PW-8/A and FIR is recorded as 3.15 discrepancy'' of MLC of the accused P.M. on 22.08.2002 in FIR 10-15 minutes in persons Ex.PW-26/A Ex.PW-8/A whereas MLC FIR and MLCs is and Ex.PW-26/B Ex.PW-26/B of the of no accused Ramesh records consequence. his time of arrival in the hospital as 3.05 PM on 22.08.2002 and MLC Ex.P-26/A of the accused Raja Ram records his time of arrival in the hospital as 3.10 PM on 22.08.2002.

Counsel argued that the said discrepancy evidences that the accused persons were medically examined before registration of the FIR

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Seizure of the sealed (i) ASI Suresh Chand PW- This discrepancy materials 25 had deposed that ''IO of fifteen minutes seized blood and earth is trivial in nature control at the spot at about considering the 3.15 pm.'' fact the witnesses were being (ii) HC Ratan Singh PW- examined 2-3 12 had deposed that ''the years after the sealed parcels were happening of the deposited in Malkhana at incident and about 3 pm.'' therefore does not create a dent in the case of the prosecution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Time of arrest of Insp Ram Kishan PW-28, This minor accused persons deposed that he had discrepancy in the arrested accused persons evidence at about 4.30 or 4.45 pm particularly when on 22.08.2002 whereas the witnesses are ASI Suresh Chand PW-25, deposing 3-5 had deposed that the years after the accused persons were happening of the arrested about 3.15 pm incident does not cast a doubt on the veracity of the case of the prosecution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Involvement of public (i) ASI Suresh Chand PW- The only apparent witnesses in 25, had deposed that ''I contradiction is investigation had not enquired from any between the public person but I straight testimonies of away tried to apprehend Ct.Amrit Singh the accused persons''. PW-17, Ct. Jasbir Singh PW-16, Insp (ii) Ct. Amrit Singh PW-17 Ram Kishan PW- deposed that ''IO requested 28 and SI Kishan some public persons to join Lal PW-15, who the investigation but had deposed to nobody agreed...I also the effect that requested some public Ram Kishan who persons to join at the time was the IO had of apprehending the not talked to any accused but they did not public person in join.'' his presence. (iii) Ct. Jasbir Singh PW-16 However it is to be deposed that ''several borne in mind persons also gathered that PW-15 had there but nobody came soon departed the nearby.... IO requested spot after Insp some public persons who Ram Kishan PW- had collected on the spot to 28 had returned join investigation.'' to the spot from RML hospital. (iv) Ct. Subash Giri PW-4 had deposed that ''10-15 Therefore, there is persons collected on the no contradiction spot at the time of the inasmuch as it is incident. I do not remember quite possible that if IO asked any public Insp Ram Kishan person collected on the might have talked spot to join the to public persons investigation.'' after the departure of SI (v) Insp Ram Kishan PW- Kishan Lal. 28 deposed that ''public persons were present on the spot when I reached there first time. I made inquiries from them if anyone has witnessed the commission of crime but nobody agreed.''

(vi) SI Kishan Lal PW-15 had deposed that ''Inspector Ram Kishan had not talked to any public person in my presence.'' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Seal on the clothes of Testimony of SI Chandrika The answer to the the accused persons Prasad PW-1 brings out argument of that clothes of the counsel lies in accused persons were seizure memo sealed with the seal of Ex.PW-6/A. CMO DR RML Hospital and were seized vide Ex.PW-6/A refers memo Ex.PW-1/A. to a MLC No. 107519/02.

The deceased was Testimony of Ct.Satish first brought to PW-6 that one red colored RML hospital t-shirt with blood stains where he was was sealed with the seal of declared brought CMO DR RML Hospital dead vide MLC and was seized vide memo No. 107519/02 Ex.PW-6/A. Therefore, the T- Counsel argued that if the shirt which was clothes of the accused seized vide memo persons were seized vide Ex.PW-6/A was Ex.PW-1/A then from the t-shirt which where did t-shirt which the deceased was was seized vide Ex.PW- wearing at the 6/A emanate from? time of the commission of the crime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Place of seizure of the (i) Ct.Subash Giri PW-4 It is a fact that clothes of the had deposed that "the the accused persons accused persons. clothes of the accused were first taken to were seized in the police RML hospital for station." their medical examination and (ii) Ct. Jasbir Singh PW- then brought to 16, had deposed that "the the police station. clothes of the accused Raja Ram which he was The police officers wearing were seized at who had taken the police station and I signed accused persons on the seizure memo in for their medical police station." examination had deposed that (iii) Insp Ram Kishan PW- doctor had 28 and the doctor Dr. P.K. handed over Nayak who had conducted clothes of the their medical examination accused and that had deposed that the the same were clothes which the accused seized vide seizure persons were wearing at memo Ex.PW-6/A. the time of the commission of the crime Obviously the were seized at the time of accused persons their medical examination. could not have been taken naked from the hospital to the police station and some alternative clothes must have been worn by them.

The witnesses PW-4 and PW-16 are deposing about the seizure of alternative clothes which must have been worn by the accused persons after their medical examination which stands corroborated by the fact that the seizure memo Ex.PW-6/A of the clothes of the accused persons which they were wearing at the time of the commission of crime does not bear the signatures of PW-16 whereas he had deposed that signed on seizure memo of clothes. Therefore, PW-16 must have signed on the memo vide which alternative clothes which the accused persons were wearing after their medical examination were seized. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having dealt with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the facts which stand conclusively proved by the prosecution need to be noted in order to arrive at a final conclusion.

We find no reason to deviate from the aforesaid conclusions of the Coordinate Bench.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in order to establish a motive for the crime, PW25, ASI Suresh Chand has deposed that while inflicting the "churri" blows, the appellant and his co-accused were saying that they would kill the deceased as he used to steal their smack. It was contended that the said version of PW25 is not worthy of credence because it was almost impossible for him to hear the words uttered by the appellant and his co-accused in the background of loud sound of the engine of Bullet motorcycle.

We find no merit in the argument. The submission made by the learned Counsel is in the nature of conjecture and surmise. Whether ASI Suresh Chand, PW25 could or could not hear the words uttered by the appellant and his co-accused at the time of incident would depend upon the pitch at which the words were uttered. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant and his co-accused uttered said words at a lower pitch. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of ASI Suresh Chand. Otherwise also, from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the appellant and his co-accused were stabbing the deceased and from the aforesaid factual matrix, it can be safely assumed that both of them were in the fit of anger. Generally, when a person is angry, the decibel level of speech becomes very high. Therefore, the possibility of the appellant and his co-accused having uttered those words at a loud sound audible to ASI Suresh Chand cannot be ruled out.

It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that as per the testimony of PW25, ASI Suresh Chand, the appellant and his co-accused tried to flee away from the spot after the incident, but they were chased and apprehended and brought to the place of occurrence at 12:15 noon, whereas as per the version of Inspector Ram Kishan, PW28 he formally arrested the appellant and his co-accused at 3:45 pm. It was argued that the gap of three and a half hours between the time of apprehension of the accused persons and their arrest raises a possibility of manipulation in the investigation and renders the case of prosecution highly suspect.

The infirmity pointed out on behalf of the appellant, in our view, is inconsequential. On careful scrutiny of the statement of PW28, Inspector Ram Kishan, it transpires that on the receipt of information about the incident, he reached at the spot of occurrence and found that the injured had been removed to RML Hospital by a PCR van. Thus, he proceeded to the hospital, where he came to know that the deceased was declared brought dead by the Doctor concerned. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot of occurrence, where he met ASI Suresh Chand and recorded his statement Ex.PW25/A, which was sent to the police station along with his Rukka Ex.PW28/A for the registration of the case. The Rukka Ex.PW28/A, as per document, was sent to the police station at 2:30 pm. Constable Gajender Singh, PW22, who took the Rukka to the police station, returned back to the spot of occurrence after the registration of formal FIR and thereafter formal arrest of the accused persons, including the appellant, was made by the Investigating Officer in case FIR No. 286/02 dated 22.08.2002. From the aforesaid sequence of events, it is obvious that there was no undue delay in the arrest of the appellant and his co accused .

ASI Suresh Chand PW-25 and Const. Amrit Singh PW-17, had seen the accused persons stabbing and exhorting the deceased. ASI Suresh Chand PW-25, Const. Amrit Singh PW-17, Const Subash Giri PW-4, Const. Jagbir Singh PW-16 and SI Kishan Lal PW-15, had seen that the clothes of the accused persons were stained with blood. (The afore- noted witnesses were cross-examined but nothing has been brought out to discredit their respective testimonies). One blood-stained knife each was recovered from the possession of the accused persons at the time of their apprehension. The blood group of the deceased was ''B'' and human blood of ''B'' group was detected on the clothes of the accused persons. Human blood was detected on the knives recovered from the possession of the accused persons at the time of their apprehension.

The afore-noted facts unerringly connect the appellant to the crime of having murdered the deceased and of using arms in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act.

The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Appellant, who is in custody, to serve the remaining sentence.