J.N. Bhatt, J.
1. Whether, the appellants are guilty and responsible for the, ghastly and macabre, killing of deceased Girish Namdar or not, is the central theme, in this conviction appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.12.94, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.190/93.
2. Under the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, who are, original accused persons have been held guilty under section 302, 120-B, 452, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IP Code) and section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. The appellants, who are, original accused persons, for the sake of convenience, are hereinafter, referred, to as accused Nos.1 to 3, as originally arraigned in sessions case. Accused No.1, Rajesh, (A-1) is ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 10 days further rigourous imprisonment for the offence, under section 302, read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He is also ordered to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo further rigourous imprisonment for 10 days under section 452 of the IP Code. He is further ordered to undergo rigourous imprisonment for one year under section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.
3. Whereas, accused No.2, Sachin @ Pavan (A-2) and accused No.3, Duniya @ Kumar (A-3) are ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.250/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 3 days under section 302 read with section 120-B of IP Code. A-2 and A-3 are, also, ordered to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 3 days under section 452 of the IP Code. Of course, all the accused persons came to be acquitted from the charge under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
4. With a view to appreciate the merits of the appeal and the challenge against it, let us have, a brief, spectrum of material and relevant facts leading to the rise of the present appeal.
5. On an unfortunate day, i.e. on 7.2.93, at about 1.15 p.m. one Girish Namdar @ Girish Ambalal Gandhi became a victim of a murderous assault by the accused persons, in his own farm house, known as Namdar Farm. Thus, the venue of offence is the house of the deceased situated in Namdar Farm near Vatva, about 10 to 15 k.m. away from the Metropolitan Ahmedabad. The heinous crime is alleged to have been committed by the accused persons, conjointly, after hatching a conspiracy with said motive, according to the prosecution case. As the ill-luck would have been, a strong, cordial intimate relationship culminated into love-affairs, between a girl named, Namrata, and a boy, Montu, became the instrument of the murder of deceased Girish and the bone of contention as per the case of the prosecution.
6. Montu is the nephew of deceased Girish, who had allegedly, abducted Namrata, daughter of one Mukesh Chandulal Gandhi, whereas, Namrata happens to be the sister of A-2, Sachin, and A-3, Duniya. On account of love affairs between Namrata and Montu, seeds of enmity and antagonism had been, seriously, sown between two families, like that, of the complainant and the accused party i.e. both the sides. The prosecution has, therefore, ascribed deep-seated motive, for the commission of the crime in question.
7. The questioned incident, admittedly, was, also, preceded by not, only, altercations between the deceased and the accused party, but later on was culminated into an incident in which the deceased had to lodge a complaint, which, was registered for the offence punishable under section 452 and 307 of IP Code and under section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act, and that complaint has been the subject matter of Sessions Case No.285/93, against A-1, which resulted into conviction against A-1, Rajesh @ Raju Chandulal Gandhi, which is, also, challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No.154/95. That, it was in relation to an incident which preceded and occurred, on 25.11.92. As stated above, the incident in question occurred on 7.2.93. In the light of the record, a few more relevant and material facts may be enumerated, at this stage. Chandulal and Ambalal are two brothers. Chandulal has three sons; Mukeshbhai, Rajubhai and Rashmikant, whereas Ambalal has four sons; Chandrakant, Suresh, Girish (deceased) and Babulal. It, therefore, appears to be a fight between two groups of cousins, if not a war. In short, the prosecution version has been that son of Suresh, brother of the deceased, Montu, eloped with the daughter of Mukesh, named Namrata two-and-a-half months prior to the incident in question, which became the bone of contention between the cousins.
8. Raju, who is A-1, alleged to have gone to the house of the deceased Girish for compromise about the said relationship between Namrata and Montu and during their talks, it is alleged by the prosecution that A-1 assaulted with a gunshot the deceased Girish, in his own house, which was an incident prior to the incident in question. As stated hereinbefore, for the earlier incident, deceased Girish had lodged a complaint against A-1 before Astodia Police Station and probably and presumably, it added fuel to the fire in the enmity between the cousins. It may, also, be noted that on 5.2.93, deceased Girish had gone to the residence of his friend Khambholja, who is a retired Police Officer, residing at Paldi. Thereafter, deceased and Khambholja had come to Vatva farm and then both went to Paldi and spent a night over Khambholja’s place. Deceased Girish stayed, at Khambholja’s place upto evening between 6 to 9.30 p.m. Subsequently, deceased Girish and his wife, Uma and his two children along with the complainant Rakesh spent the night, at Bopal City Club, where they witnessed some entertainment programme and went back to City Club.
9. Here comes the relevant and important aspects of the prosecution story, which emerged on the unfateful day, on the next day, like that, on 7.2.93. Girish had left the Bopal City Club and came to Townhall along with his wife Uma and two children, from where he parted their company by sending them in a rickshaw, and he left for Namdar Farm, at Vatva, in his Motor Car NE-118, along with Rakesh. Thus, he came to the venue of offence, at Namdar Farm, Vatva, at about 1.00 p.m. on 7.2.93.
10. For many which is a dream was a reality for the deceased, as he had a big and beautiful bungalow, in his farm. The deceased used to visit the farmhouse frequently with his family and used to stay there and many times with a cook, whose name is, Satish. On that day, after going to his bungalow in the Namdar Farm, the deceased after getting eased and changing clothes was enjoying wine. At that time, accused persons came in a white Maruti Fronti model car. On hearing the blow of horn, deceased called the visitors inside his house through his cook, Satish. A-1, Raju and A-3, Duniya came into the house, whereas, A-2, Sachin, kept himself waiting in the car. A-1 and A-3, again initiated the talk and then the, hotly, debated burning issue between the cousins of Montu’s affairs with Namrata.
11. It appears that there were discussions between the deceased and A-1 and A-3, as a result of which, A-1 and A-3 got enraged and agitated and A-1 started to leave the house. At that time, deceased made him sit by catching hold of him and also offered him wine, who, refused to oblige him. Thereafter, A-1 Raju, stood up and went out and deceased Girish also went outside the house to see him off near the ‘Otta’, a sitting portion in front of the house. Again, there was a talk between the deceased and A-1 about Namrata, daughter of Mukesh and A-1 felt, in course of discussions, that deceased was the only obstruction and impediment between the relationship of Namrata and Montu. Therefore, deceased consoled him that some conciliation and settlement shall be reached by calling the fathers of the boy and the girl.
12. It is further alleged by the prosecution that, thereafter, A-1 called deceased on the side and took him near the Maruti car and at that time, A-1 called A-2 Sachin, and A-3, Duniya to take out the weapons from the car. A-1 Raju took out revolver from the pocket of his pant and A-2, Sachin and A-3 took out weapons from the rear side of the Maruti car and started assaulting the deceased. Deceased Girish was given several blows one after other by the accused persons. Complainant, Rakesh, was standing there, who was threatened at the point of revolver by A-1 to get out therefrom and get into the house, since he happened to be the son of the sister of deceased, to which he obeyed. The cook, Satish, who was talking on phone to the wife of the deceased, Uma, was, also, intercepted and the complainant Rakesh snatched the phone from the hands of Satish and told Uma, his aunt, about the assault on Girish by the accused persons and requested her to immediately rush to the spot with somebody.
13. Thereafter, Rakesh came out of the house and again, he was threatened and directed to go into the house. When he went inside the house, second time, he heard the telephone ringing and upon lifting the receiver, he found that it was his aunt, Uma, on the other end and she verified from him as to what was earlier said. It is, also, alleged that cook, Satish, was threatened to run away from the spot and A-2, Sachin, came into the house of the deceased and snapped the telephone connection and snatched the instrument from the hands of complainant, Rakesh. By the time the complainant came out, it was all over, as Girish had virtually, succumbed to the various injuries sustained by him in the said murderous assault and episode and the accused persons had, thereafter, fled away from the scene of offence. Immediately, thereafter, Rakesh lodged the First Information Report (FIR), at Vatva Police Station, which came to be registered with I-C.R.No.49/93 on the same day, like that, 7.2.93, at 2.40 p.m. upon which investigation started. The FIR, thus, came to be lodged within two hours after the incident by shattered and shocked, battered and bothered, eye-witness, PW No.1, Rakesh Pravin Kinariwala, examined at Ex.30, whereas, FIR is produced at Ex.68. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was presented against all the three accused persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, on 4.5.93 and the case was registered as Criminal Case No.591/93, which in turn, came to be committed to the Sessions Court, at Ahmedabad and it was registered as Sessions Case No.190/93.
14. The Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused persons, as at, Ex.3 , in Sessions Case for the offences under section 120-B, 452, 302 of the IP Code and also under section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, to which accused persons denied and claimed to be tried.
15. In order to substantiate and fortify the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution placed reliance on oral evidence of 14 prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has, also, relied on the documentary evidence, which is enumerated and highlighted in para 11 of the impugned judgment, the reference of which wil be made as and when required hereinafter. The defence of the accused is of total denial. No defence evidence is led.
16. Upon the critical appraisal and careful assessment of the documentary and oral evidence and the defence of the accused persons and the rival submissions, the Trial Court found the accused persons guilty on all counts except the charge under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, as elaborated and enumerated hereinbefore, by holding that :
(1) the prosecution has, successfully, established that deceased, Girish Ambalal, died a homicidal death;
(2) the injuries sustained by the deceased were attributable to the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, with an intention to commit murder, as they had hatched a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to commit murder of deceased Girish, accused persons are found to have committed the ghastly murder of deceased Girish.
(3) prosecution has, successfully, established that A-1, Raju, possessed revolver without having licence, though it was not used.
(4) there was a deep seated motive for the commission of the crime in question.
(5) The culpability charged against the appellants-accused is proved beyond any doubt.
17. The original accused persons by filing this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. We have been taken through the testimonial collections and the documentary evidence placed and proved by the prosecution, in support of the charges and relied on by the Trial Court and, also, the impugned judgment and order, in course of the submissions before us by the learned counsel Mr Sushil Kumar appearing with Mr.J.V.Mehta for the appellants and learned APP Mr K.P.Raval for the respondent, State.
18. Learned counsel, Mr Sushil Kumar, in his enviable impressive style, has, seriously, attacked the observations and the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order and has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the culpability of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order is unsupportable and the finding of guilt of all the accused persons is not only unjust, unreasonable, but illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, he has, also, relied on case law, to which reference will be made, hereinafter, as and when required hereinafter, at an appropriate stage. These submissions are countered by learned APP, Mr.Raval, and he has supported the impugned judgment and order contending that the criminality of the accused persons is established to the hilt without any doubt.
19. According to the prosecution case, the investigation initiated and commenced upon first information report, Ex.68, lodged by prosecution witness No.1, Rakesh Pravinchandra Kinariwala, at Vatva Police Station. Rakesh is the informant and eye-witness. His evidence is recorded at Ex.30. The Trial Court has placed reliance on the testimony of informant eye-witness, Rakesh, which is, seriously, attacked and criticized before us, mainly, on the following grounds:
(1) That the prosecution has not been able to, successfully, prove that he was present at the relevant time as his presence was not natural there. In support thereof, our attention is also drawn to inquest panchnama, Ex.37.
(2) The inquest panchnama is prepared as per the timing incorporated on that day, at 2.10 p.m. whereas, the FIR lodged by the informant, Rakesh was, at 2.40 p.m. on the day of incident.
(3) That inquest panchnama, ordinarily, should show the number of the crime registered upon FIR, whereas, in the present case, no such number is mentioned. The inquest panchnama of second panch is not examined. It is proved only in the evidence of prosecution witness No.4, Sudhir, at Ex.36.
20. It was, therefore, contended that the presence of Rakesh at the venue of offence at the relevant time appeared to be very doubtful. His evidence is, also, attacked by raising an unsuccessful legal missile based on comparison of the versions of eye-witness informant, Rakesh, and the Investigating Officer, PW 14, Abdul Rahman, with regard to the place as to where the first information report was lodged by PW 1, Rakesh. Whether the F.I.R. was lodged and registered in Vatva Police Station or it was lodged before the Police by the informant, at the venue of offence, is not proved without doubt and, therefore, it was urged that this circumstance would give an emergence of doubt about the presence of prosecution witness No.1, Rakesh, at the venue of offence.
21. It is, also, submitted that there is difference in timings in the evidence of panch witness, prosecution witness No.2, Bababhai, examined, at Ex.33, who has stated that panchnama of scene of offence was prepared between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., whereas, the time mentioned in panchnama Ex.34, shows, only 4.00 p.m. Again, it is contended that second panch Arjun Sinh is not examined and no reason is placed on record for his non-examination.
22. It is also contended that the blood marks in the varandah and the otta portion have remained unexplained. It was submitted that it was nobody’s case that there was first, scuffle or a fight between the deceased and the accused in the farm and that the injured had gone to the varandah or otta portion of the house. Our attention is also drawn to, Ex.34, panchnama of scene of offence. According to the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the explanation tendered by the prosecution that the existence of blood marks was because of fight between dogs is not, only, lame but is ridiculous. It was also contended that as to how the body of the deceased remained in a sitting position has also not been explained by the prosecution and that too, on a road within the Namdar farm.
23. The non-examination of the driver, Raman, who according to the case of the prosecution was present at the scene of offence, and also the persons in the farm house, whose names were given to the Police in course of the investigation, is criticized by the learned counsel for the defence. Of course, the evidence of prosecution witness No.1, informant, Rakesh, is otherwise also, seriously, attacked and it has been contended that his presence, at the relevant point of time, at the venue of offence has not been established without doubt and, therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have characterized and treated his testimony as an eye-witness version, more so, when he is a relative. The First Information Report, at Ex.68, does not satisfy the material essentials and requirements to establish the authenticity and reliability.
24. For the check for authenticity of such a first information report and which, also, is vouchsafed under the legal provisions, whereby, a copy, thereof, is required to be immediately sent to the concerned Magistrate, which, in the present case is sent late on the next day and that aspect is submitted to be a doubtful event.
25. The approach of the learned Trial Court in evaluating and analysing the evidence is, also, attacked by the learned Counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar, for the appellants. He has contended that the previous complaint, Ex.95, with regard to incident which preceded the incident in question is straightaway admitted and relied on, under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, and, no such question is raised or put to the accused during the course of recording of further statement, as required under section 313 of the Code. It was, therefore, contended that these aspects cannot be considered and taken into account. The evidence of other witnesses is, also, criticised. Recovery of two knives which had blood stains produced, at Article Nos.31 and 32 has not been proved by the prosecution since the panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution.
26. In short, learned counsel for the accused, in course of his submissions, before us, has, vehemently, contended that the impugned judgment and order holding the appellants-original accused guilty and the resultant order of sentence against them cannot be sustained as the prosecution has not, successfully, established beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the accused persons for the offence they were charged with.
27. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.K.P.Raval, while supporting the impugned judgment and order, has countered all the aforesaid aspects and submissions and further contended that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused persons without any doubt and that some of the minor irregularities and discrepancies in the evidence could not be said to be sufficient and vetripotent to dislodge and discard the other evidence which is inspiring the confidence of the Court. It is, also, submitted that evidence leads to an unerring conclusion of the culpability of the accused persons with which they are charged. In support of his submissions, he has, also, placed reliance on some case law, to which reference will be made, hereinafter, as and when required at an appropriate stage.
28. As such, the homicidal demise of deceased, Girish, on account of injuries sustained on his anatomy in an incident which occurred, on 7.2.93, at about 1.50 p.m. in Namdar Farm, near Vatva, at Ahmedabad, is not in controversy. This aspect is also, clearly, established from the evidence on record, as per the prosecution witness No.9, Dr. P.R. Patel, examined at Ex.42, who had conducted the autopsy between 6.10 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. on 7.2.93, when he was working as Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The nature and number of injuries sustained by the deceased and examined by Dr.Patel and mentioned in the post-mortem report which are in number, no less than 30, would, at least, be an eloquent testimony that the deceased died a homicidal death, and as such, it was ghastly, macabre and heinous in extent and gravity.
29. In this context, let us look at what Dr.Patel in his testimony in para 4 of Ex.42 has stated. He has stated that upon examination of the dead body, he found the following 30 external injuries which are mentioned in column 17 of the post mortem report, Ex.45.
[(1) Incised wound extending from 1 c.m. below of right nipple, obliquely downward to the right 8 c.m. long with upper inner end is red, confused muscle deep tailing of about found at lower end.
(2) Gem long linear skin deep incised wound over manubrium sterni extending to slightly left.
(3) Stab wound 3.5 c.m. size on upper lateral of right shoulder transverse outer angle acute medical angle broad and bruised.
(4) Gem long stab wound obliquely downward to left on about 14 c.m. away from mialine at about umbilical plane angle acute andupper angle broad and coils were nexniating.
(5) 2 cm. incised wound oblique about 3 cm medical to above mentioned injury muscle deep.
(6) About 2 cm size lateral to injury no.4 stab wound found of 5 x 1 cm size obliquely downward to left, 1 cm above the injury no.4 situated, upper angle broad and bruise lower angle acute margin sharply cut. Intestinal coils were herniating.
(7) Wound on left chest, below clayick 9 cm long x 1 cm obliquely downward to left on front of left chest with margins sharply cut upper angle about 5 cm left to midline and is broad and bruised lower angle acute, wound found cutting costal castilage.
(8) Stab wound both angles acute margins sharply cut, vertical on right axil 10 c.m. below at axillery fold 3.5 x 1 cm.
(9) Stab wound obliquely downward to front on about mid of right lateral abdomen 5 x 1 cm. with both angles acute margins sharp.
(10) Incised wound 6 cm. long on back of right fore-arm just aistel to elbow, obliquely downward to left with tailing for 5 c.m. at its lower end.
(11) Incised wound about 12 cm. long skin deep linear on upper of it shoulder blade extending to right upper arm nearly traverse.
(12) Skin deep linear incised wound 8 cm. size vertical on left faxern at its back below elbow.
(13) 3 x 1.5 x muscle deep red contused lacerated wound with dry clotted blood on inner aspect of it wrist with rail road bruise 2.2 cm. wide.
(14) 2 cm skin deep linear incised wound on front of left wrist about transverse.
(15) 3 linear incised wound situated side by side of about 1 cm. length of aersal of rt. thumb.
(16) Skin deep incised wound on entire breath of proximal interphalengal joint of rt. little finger or its palmer aspect.
(17) Obliquely downward to midplane stab wound 5 x 1 cm. on back of rt. chest lower and of which is about 8 cm. right to midplane upper angle broad and bruised lower acute margins sharp.
(18) 1.5 cm. transverse incised wound about 3 cm. on right to midplane on back.
(19) Obliquely downward to midplane stab wound on back of about mid of at abdomen 6 cm. long x 1 cm. upper angle broad and bruised lower angle acute margin sharp.
(20) Muscle deep incised wound transverse 4 cm. long found about 5 cm. medical to injury no.19.
(21) 6 cm. long incised wound transverse on at lower imber region skin deep.
(22) 9 cm. and 10 cm. linear skin deep incised wound found between injuries 18, 19 and 20 obliquely downward to midplane.
(23) About 2 cm. lt. lateral to midplane on back of abdomen 4 cm x 1 cm. stab wound found with tailing on it lateral for 3 cm. medical and broad and bruised.
(24) 3 x 1 cm. obliquely downward to front stab wound with both angle acute found on 4 cm. below it axillary fold margins sharp.
(25) 3 x 1 cm obliquely downward to front stab wound on lateral of left chest over 8th intercostal cartilage both angles acute margins.
(26) 15 cm. long nearly transverse incised wound on back at about T2 with tailing on rt. side.
(27) Wound found long behind ear on pasicto temporal region downward towards midplane. Margins of wound are sharply cut and ecchymoseat end towards right is broad and bruised and medial and acute.
(28) Lacerated invertel ‘Y’ shaped wound with contused margins bone deep found on right occipital region above mentioned injury measured 8 x 1 cm.
(29) Transverse scalp deep about 10.5 cm. long incised wound with be-veiling of lower margin on left occupital region at its lower part.
(30) Wound with sharp cut margins with little ecchymosis found starting from about mid of forehead extending over rt. forehead laterally and slightly downward.
Cutting the bone of right forehead region extending towards right ear and cuts 10 bule of rt. ear side about 18 cm. x 1.2 cm with bevelled lower margin upper medial angle broad and bruised.]
31. Upon internal examination, Dr.Patel noticed the following injuries.
[Entire scalp is ecchymosed. Bone found sharply cut for about 6 cm. with about 0.8 cm. width of rt. forehead bone under neath ext. injury no.30 with bevelled lower margin from it end of above mentioned cut tissular fracture radiates to it late rally for 2.5 cm. Bone cut involves both tables of bone and was gradually shallow towards right lateral.
Bone under external Injury No.27 found cut involving outer table of bone for 8 cm. length. Extra ural haemetoma found of 10 x 8 x 2 cm. on the side of brain. Dura found sharply cut for 3 cm. under neath it end of bone cut of exit injury No.30.
Subarachnoid hemorrhage found all over brain. Brain congested oedematous.
Contusion of undersurgical of Lt. temporal lobe and undersurface of lips of each frontal lobe.
External injury No.3 is muscle deep with track going to front and medial downward for 4.2 cm. External injury No.7 is found cutting costal lastilage completely for 8 cm. x 0.8 cm. obliquely downward to left and has penetrated blind in medistinal region upper angle was found broad. Bruised, lower angle acute. Margins were sharply cut.
External injury No.8 was muscle deep with going downward and slightly front, medially for 4 cm.
Right thoracle cavity contained about 400 ml. blood and cloth.
Both lungs pale. Rt. lung partly collapsed. Ext. injury No.17 has entered at the cavity cutting skin, sub-cut tissues, chest muscles of back, 6th intercostal space, has entered back of lower bone and right lung cutting pleura. Wound on lung is 2.2 cm. deep and track of wound is ecchymosed extending upwards to front and slightly laterally.
External injury No.24 is muscle deep with track going downwards midplace to front and upwards for 3/4 cm. No injury found over tracked or hypid bone. Heart weight 300 gms with theromatous plagues within coronaries but still patent.”]
32. It is, clearly, testified by him that deceased Girish died due to shock and hemorrhage because of the injuries sustained by him. He has, also, clearly, identified the injuries which were possible by the muddamal knives produed at Articles No.31 and 32. According to his evidence, injuries described at serial No.1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15,l 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 27 and 30 are part of the injuries caused by stab wounds described by by him in Column No.17 of the post mortem report and they were possible by sharp cutting instrument produced at Articles 31 and 32. Injury No.13 was possible by hard and blunt substance like stick or pipe.
Prosecution witness No.1, Rakesh, who was the informant, and nephew of deceased Girish, was examined at Ex.30. We have, carefully and dispassionately, exhaustively and along extensively, examined his testimony, with other evidence of the prosecution. We have found that the account of incident enumerated by him in his testimony, as eye-witness, is quite weighty and vetripotent and the reliance placed by the Trial Court on his testimony was justified. The incident and the event preceded and the factual scenario emerged on the venue of offence at the relevant time, and the post offence events and circumstances emerging from his evidence, while viewed, in the light of the overall picture of the prosecution evidence on record, it cannot be contended that the Trial Court has erred in accepting his evidence as an evidence of an eye-witness.
33. The serious criticism levelled against the evidence of this witness is not acceptable to hold that he was not an eye-witness and that his wrong projection as an eye-witness by the prosecution, subsequently, merely on the ground that there was time difference in Inquest Panchnama, Ex.34, and in the evidence of prosecution and also about the factum as to where the FIR was lodged. After having given our anxious thought and upon critical analysis and appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witness No.1, informant, Rakesh, we are of the opinion that he was an eye-witness to the incident and his evidence, undoubtedly, reinforced the prosecution version and that the heinous crime was committed by the accused persons out of deep-seated motive and the same has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
It, may be stated, at this stage, that the prosecution is not obliged to establish the factum of existence of motive in all cases. Nonetheless, if motive is established, it lends material reinforcement and corroboration of the version of the prosecution. In the present case, the gist and genesis of the unfortunate, ghastly killing of deceased Girish is referable and attributable to the cordial courting and close companionship between Namrata, daughter of Mukesh and boy Montu, nephew of the deceased, which culminated into love affairs between them.
It is noticed, successfully, by us from the record that two to three months prior to the date of incident of 7.2.93, girl Namrata and boy Montu had run away because of their companionship which, unfortunately, aggravated and added fuel in the fire of antagonism between the cousins. It was this incident and episode, which was sought to be compromised and settled at the venue of offence by the accused persons, going to the house of Girish, situated in Namdar Farm, at Vatva. As the ill-luck would have been, instead of the relationship operating or turning out to be a unifying factor between cousins on account of traditional egoism, culminated into a ghastly murderous assault and resultant macabre murder of Girish. The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in ascribing deep-seated motive for the commission of the crime against the accused persons.
It leaves no any manner of doubt from the testimony of prosecution witness No.1, Rakesh, informant and eye-witness, that the accused persons had come to the venue of offence in a white fronti Maruti model car around 1.00 p.m. on 7.2.93. Initially, A-1 Raju and A-3 Duniya entered into the bungalow, while A-2, Sachin, kept himself seated in the car, outside the compound. After discussions and unpleasant exchange of words in relation to the episode of running away of Namrata with Montu, deceased Girish told the accused persons that a settlement of the said relationship between Montu and Namrata could be arrived at, with the intervention of their fathers. Thereafter, A-1, Raju, asking deceased Girish to go with him, took him near the Maruti Car parked in the compound. At that time, A-1, Raju took out revolver from his pocket and A-2 and A-3 took out sharp edged weapons from the rear side seat of the Maruti car and they started attacking the helpless Girish, mercilessly, who was still not out of the effect of the wine he had taken. The entire narration of the account of event given by PW-1 Rakesh and implicating all the three accused persons in inflicting various blows on the person of deceased Girish, which is, elaborately and extensively, narrated by the Trial Court in para 15 of the judgment need not be reiterated threadbare, since we are, fully, satisfied that his testimony and acceptance of the same by the Trial Court is justified.
34. We make it very clear that on account of some irregularities in mentioning the names or noting the timing during the course of investigation by the prosecution or some discrepancies and contradictions, which are at the micro-level could not be said to be sufficient and efficient to discard and dislodge the otherwise weighty and vetripotetn, serious and sound testimony of eye-witness, PW-1, Rakesh, one of the close relatives of the deceased, whose presence, we have found, quite natural and whose evidence is, also, found to be quite reliable and dependable and, rightly, accepted by the Trial Court.
At this stage, we may mention that the evidence of cook, Satish Amarbhai Purohit, PW 12, who is an eye witness and who has been examined at Ex.51, and relied on by the Trial Court, inspires our confidence. In our opinion, Trial Court has, rightly, relied on the testimony of cook Satish. It is noticed from his evidence that deceased Girish, many a times, used to stay at Namdar Farm near Vatva and he used to take cook, Satish, along with him. Many times, family members, also, joined the company and stayed there in the house. Apart from the fact that he happened to be a cook and attending the deceased as and when he used to be alone or with his family, the entire testimony of this witness, despite searching cross-examination, leaves no any manner of apprehension in our mind that his presence was natural and his evidence is also creditworthy. He has, fully, supported the prosecution version and the testimony of prosecution witness No.1, informant, Rakesh. Nothing has been, successfully, shown or spelt out from the testimony of this eye-witness, which would even, remotely, warrant us to discard the testimony. Since we find that the testimony of eye-witness, Satish, is satisfactory and inspiring our confidence, totally, justifying the action of Trial Court in accepting his version, it would not be necessary to reiterate and repeat the entire testimony, which is, otherwise, elaborately articulated by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment.
35. The unfortunate widow of the deceased, Uma, who was, also, informed on phone about the unpleasant episode and assault on her husband, by both the eye-witnesses and in response to that, she rushed to the venue of offence, found her husband Girish dead, is examined as prosecution witness No.10, at Ex.48. After having carefully, scrutinised her testimony, following aspects have emerged uncontrovertible.
(1) Her husband, deceased Girish, had gone to the venue of offence, on 7.2.93, in his car NE 118 (which incidentally, is white in colour), after leaving her and children, at Townhall, in Ahmedabad around 12.00 noon. They had returned from a night stay at Bopal City Club, after having witnessed an entertainment show on the previous night in company of friends.
(2) That deceased was driving the car and Rakesh, PW-1 was with him and they went to Farm House, which is the venue of offence. On reaching home, she took care to phone to cook Satish Maharaj (it may be mentioned here that a cook ordinarily doing cooking at the residence and who is a purohit from Dungarpur area in Rajasthan area is popularly known as Maharaj), to make sure that whether her husband had reached at the farm house. The cook had replied then that his master had not reached.
(3) Thereafter, at 1.15 p.m. she again phoned and at that time, prosecution witness No.12, cook, Satish, received the phone, who, informed her that necessary arrangement for cooking will be taken care of and that deceased had reached there.
(4) Immediately, thereafter, prosecution witness Rakesh informed her on telephone that A-1, Raju, A-2, Sachin and A-3, Duniya had come to the farm-house and on the dispute about Namrata, they were quarreling with uncle (deceased), and therefore, it was desired by him that she should rush to the farm-house along with some help.
(5) She, thereafter, again, received a call from Rakesh and she phoned and informed about the message given by Rakesh to the wife of her elder-brother-in-law, Pratimaben. She again phoned to Rakesh, PW-1, and confirmed the what was stated to her and, thereafter, she left for farm-house along with relatives and cousins and reached the venue of offence around 2.30 p.m. It is, very clear, from her evidence that there was a courting and cordial relationship between Namrata and Montu and in order to settle the same, accused persons had gone to the farm-house at the relevant time on the day of incident, they had quarreled and she was informed accordingly and when she went to the venue, it was all over. It is evident from her testimony that there was presence of prosecution witness No.1, Rakesh and prosecution witness No.12, Satish, cook, at the venue of offence, at the relevant time, and both of them had talked with her and she was informed about the quarrel which preceded the heinous assault on the deceased. Why should the evidence of the widow of the deceased, who was with the deceased before the incident occurred, but is informed about the incident on phone and who rushed to the venue of offence and found her husband dead, be discarded? In our opinion, her testimony lends material reinforcement to the testimony of two eye-witnesses on the commission of offences in question.
36. Prosecution witness No.4, Sudhir, who had accompanied widow, Uma, at the venue of offence, has supported the evidence of Uma. In so far as the testimony of this witness is concerned, it does not throw any other light on the unfortunate incident except that he accompanied prosecution witness, widow, Uma, immediately after the occurrence of incident. Of course, in his evidence, it was mentioned that the wrist watch which deceased Girish had used stopped and it was showing the time of 11.30 and, it was, therefore, argued that the incident is not correctly mentioned by the prosecution witnesses, since Rado wrist watch stopped at 11.30, it must be presumed that the incident must have occurred at the relevant point of time. Well, this perception and submission cannot be accepted as witness Sudhir has not admitted that Rado wrist watch stopped and it was showing the time of 11.30 or that it was handed over to the police. Otherwise also, this aspect is not at all the material so as to affect the sound and solid substratum of the prosecution case, in view of other reliable and creditworthy evidence led by the prosecution over and above the testimony of two eye-witnesses. Prosecution witness No.14, Abdulrehman Munshi, is examined at Ex.57, who was working, at the relevant time, as Police Inspector at Vatva Police Station. According to his evidence, on 7.2.93, a ‘vardhi’ was received from the control room at about 2.10 p.m. at Vatva Police Station that in village Vatva, in the farm of Namdar, there was a big fight or quarrel. He, therefore, rushed to the said place and found Girish murdered. Upon inquiry, Rakesh, nephew of the deceased lodged a detailed complaint, which was forwarded to the PSO for registration. It is, also, found by him, during the course of interrogation that there was a motive for the commission of offence. With the complaint, report under section 157 was also sent, as stated by him. Of course, special report was sent late to the Magistrate concerned, but according to the settled proposition of law, merely the special report is sent late, ipso facto, is not sufficient to dynamite the otherwise weighty and sound case of the prosecution, only on this point. Whereas, in the present case, it is clear from the record that the venue of offence, which is a farm-house, in Vatva was visited by him and he had come back after certain formalities of investigation which was completed late in the evening and the report, therefore, under section 157 was sent on the next date to the concerned Magistrate. There is no reason to disbelieve his version. Apart from that, there is other clear, consistent, coherent, compelling evidence to reach to the conclusion that the FIR was lodged, immediately after the occurrence of the incident and, therefore, the purpose for which the provisions of section 157 is incorporated to vouchsafe that the FIR is not manipulated cannot be said to have been frustrated in the present case. In our opinion, mere sending report under section 157 late, itself is not a factor sufficient and efficient to discard otherwise reliable and dependable strong evidence of the prosecution.
Section 157 of the Code provides a procedure for investigation and in sub-section (1) of section 157, it is provided that if, from the information received or otherwise, an officer in-charge of the Police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the commission of offence to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinates not below the rank of an officer to be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case.
37. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under section 157 is that the FIR, must prima facie, disclose that a cognizable offence has been committed and it is necessary for the concerned Police Officer to send a special report to the Magistrate concerned. This is a safeguard with a purpose and policy behind it. However, delay in sending such a report to the concerned Magistrate by the concerned Police Officer or the Investigating Officer is not, always, fatal. It could be explained. It could be accounted for. Even otherwise, the delay in despatch of first information report is not a circumstance due to which the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown to the wind, which is, otherwise, unerringly proving the culpability of the accused persons beyond any doubt. Firstly, it cannot be said that there was an inordinate delay in sending special report under section 157 of the Code. Secondly, the prosecution has accounted for the delay. Thirdly, otherwise also, in the light of the evidence on record and our thorough and threadbare examination of the other testimonial collections of the documentary evidence led by the prosecution and relied on by the Trial Court, undoubtedly, merely because there was little delay in sending the special report as contemplated under section 157 of the Code, it would not affect the merits of the case. Therefore, no capital can be made out in the present case on account of the delay in sending the special report nor it would lead to even a remote inference that there was possibility of manipulation.
38. Reliance placed by the learned counsel Mr Sushil Kumar, on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, in support of his submission that delay in sending special report to the Magistrate creates a cloud and doubt about the prosecution version is examined by us. No doubt, delay in lodging FIR and attending a case and more so in a capital offence case, like the one on hand, is very vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence relied on by the prosecution. As stated hereinabove, the purpose of insisting upon a prompt lodging of FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the eye-witnesses, if any. In the present case, as far as the FIR is concerned, it cannot be said that it is delayed. Again, sending of special report late by some time and absence of its reference in Inquest Report may not give rise to an inference in all cases that FIR had been anti-timed.
39. In the case which is relied, on facts it was held by Their Lordships that the FIR had been anti-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by the Investigating Officer. The factual scenario emerging in the present case coupled with the strong and reliable evidence of the prosecution, including two eye-witnesses overweigh such an inference that on account of delay in sending the special report of FIR to the Magistrate under section 157 of the Code or non-reference of it in an Inquest Report, is fatal to the prosecution case. Two checks are very important so as to see that there is no any possibility of manipulation or anti-timing the FIR. The purpose and object behind the statutory provisions in section 157 and 174 of the Cr.P.C. is, abundantly, clear. Even though the inquest report prepared under section 174 of the Code is aimed at serving statutory obligation, to lend credence to the prosecution case, details of FIR and the gist of statements recorded during the inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. In order to obviate any manipulation, these two statutory inhibitions and imperatives are projected in law.
However, the ultimate design and desideratum of such statutory provisions would go to show that the Court should be anxious to see that there is no any such manipulation or anti-timing the FIR after deliberations. In the case in which reliance is placed in para 13, it is observed that it was a case of blind murder and none of the eye-witnesses were actually present at the scene and anti-timing of the FIR was obviously made to introduce eye-witnesses to support the prosecution case. On facts, this decision is not at all attracted in the present case. The presence of two eye-witnesses, nephew of the deceased and cook is found quite natural and reliable. It cannot, therefore, be contended that, in the present case, there was manipulation.
It may, also, be mentioned that the contention that eye-witness Ramanlal, who was the driver of Premier 118 NE car of the deceased in which he went to the venue of offence around 1’O clock on the day of incident is not examined and, therefore, it creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case is also not acceptable. The case of Mehraj Singh (supra), is, also, relied on to show the failure of the prosecution to produce an eye-witness could lead to presumption that he was not prepared to support the false case. In view of the record of the present case, the driver Ramanlal, whose presence was, also, natural at the relevant time, who ought to have been an eye witness, has not been examined. However, it is found from the record that he had died before the recording of evidence and that is the reason why his name was dropped by the Prosecutor. Therefore, that plea is not available to the learned counsel for the appellants.
40. Our attention was also drawn to the dropping purshis filed by the Prosecutor before the Trial Court, at Ex.63, wherein, it has, also, been mentioned that two witnesses, Shantaben and Sitaben are dropped. It may be noted that it is very clear from the said purshis of the Public Prosecutor that in so far as witnesses Shantaben and Sitaben are concerned, they were dropped because they turned hostile to the prosecution case. It appears from the note of the defence upon the said purshis that these two ladies had not seen the blows being inflicted by the accused persons. It was, therefore, submitted that they were dropped and that would be suggestive of the fact that no such incident had occurred. We don’t find any merit in such contention. They were the employees of the farm-house. One employee of the farm-house, namely, Satish, prosecution witness No.12, is examined at Ex.51, who was working as a cook in the house. Two eye-witnesses are examined and one of them is the cook, Satish, PW No.12. It is not the proposition that all the eye-witnesses should be examined.
Of course, both the eye-witnesses are, also, alleged to be interested and, therefore, emphasis was laid that other two witnesses should not have been dropped. Needless to reiterate the settled proposition that it is not the relationship or interestedness of the witnesses, but the reliability and credibility, which must be considered. Ordinarily, interested persons or closed relatives, like family members, as in the present case, the complainant, would not be interested in manipulation or in involving strangers in place of the real accused persons or real assailants. On the contrary, their anxiety would be to see that the real culprits are brought to book. Therefore, the submission that the aforesaid two witnesses are not examined and, therefore, the version of the prosecution should be discarded cannot be accepted.
41. It is true that the discovery panchnama witness examined by the prosecution has not supported the prosecution case. Discovery of incriminating article or the weapon employed in commission of crime is one of the circumstances and pieces of evidence. Even if discovery panchnama is excluded from the consideration of evidence, it cannot be contended that the culpability of the accused of the charges framed against them has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Two witnesses whose presence was natural at the relevant point of time, at the venue of offence, i.e. PW-1, Rakesh and PW-12, Satish, have given the narration of the account of incident witnessed by them. There is nothing in their evidence which would even, remotely, prompt us to discard their version. Why should they not be believed ? Of course, they are interested witnesses and, therefore, at the best evidence of interested persons should be closely scrutinised. But interest or relationship would not be a discounting factor if the reliability or dependability of the testimony is proved to the hilt. In this connection, in our opinion, the Trial Court has, rightly, found them dependable and reliable.
42.We have already highlighted the material evidence and the relevant circumstances incriminating and pointing the culpability of the accused persons. However, a settled proposition of law relevant to the facts of the present case may be stated, at this stage, in the light of the case law. In Ram Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 461, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down, succinctly, the following sound observations and vivid propositions:
(1) Non-collection of blood or not finding of such blood marks at the place of occurrence cannot be said to be an infirmity discrediting the version of the prosecution in all the cases.
(2) Even in case of some discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution about the number of blows and injuries and the weapon used, it cannot be said that the occurrence did not take place there. It would not be possible for the witnesses to meticulously observed the acts played by the assailants as they are indulging in the assault in such a way that they may not be stationary at a particular point.
(3) That even in case of difference in time of occurrence, it cannot be straightway concluded that the prosecution version is false. In this case, medical evidence of Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem deposed that death of the deceased was possible between 7.00 and 7.30 a.m., but in the cross-examination, he admitted that it might be possible that the deceased died on the previous night. Similarly, in examination-in-chief, the Doctor, who examined the injured prosecution witness, stated that injuries on them could be caused between 6.00 and 7.00 a.m. on the day of incident, but in the cross-examination, he had admitted that the injuries on the persons could be caused at any time after 1.00a.m. In this set of circumstances also, it was held that the from the statements of two doctors, occurrence did not take place as propounded by the prosecution.
43. It would, in this context, be very interesting to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a latest decision in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484, which came to be decided, on April 4, 2000. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that, where a number of persons assaulted two deceased at one and the same time with different weapons there may occur some contradictions in the statement of the eyewitnesses as to who assaulted whom and with what weapon but such contradictions would not render the testimony of the eye-witnesses unreliable. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in para 52 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
“In any event, the viciousness and extent of the injuries inflicted on the victims compared with the injuries suffered by Shisha Singh, Baksha Singh and Amrik Singh belies the plea of self-defence. Kulwant Singh’s head was virtually severed from his body. Both bodies bore deep slash wounds, incised wounds, gunshot wounds and extensive bruising. On the other hand, Dr. Sushil Singhal (PW 5) who examined Shisha Singh had only found a wound between the left thumb and forefinger (Ex.DD). He also testified that he had examined Baksha Singh and found one wound on the left forearm (Ex.DE). Even the defence witnesses (DW 5 and DW 6) said that Amrik Singh had suffered cuts and lacerations. Furthermore, the plea was taken by these accused for the first time in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, no such plea of self defence was put in cross-examination to any of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court, in the circumstances, rightly rejected the plea of self defence as an afterthought.”
44. Again in so far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned, contradictions, inconsistences, exaggerations and embellishments occur in many cases. It is observed in Lila Ram v. State of Haryana, 200 SCC (Cri.) 222. In para 12 that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment. Some times there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over-anxiety, they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The court can shift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is tobe considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this test is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. In Leela Ram’s (supra) case, further observations are made which are very weighty and necessary to be stated. It is observed that different witnesses react differently under different situations, whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact, it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of events and incidents in the evidence of different witnesses when they speak of details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension the same should not be used to jettison the real version and the truthfulness emerged from the record. Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reason, therefor, should not render the evidence of eye-witness unbelievable, unreliable and untrustworthy. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence of the prosecution. Undoubtedly, it is the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution should establish the guilt of the accused without any shadow of doubt. Despite some minor discrepancies, micro level irregularities, or difference in dimensions would be negligible, if the substratum or the theme of the prosecution is established without any hypothesis or doubt, the prosecution case cannot be allowed to be thrown overboard on such technicalities and, yes, again, benefit of doubt, in case, is noticed or spelt out from the record, must go to the accused. It is, rightly, said that the benefit of doubt, which the accused is entitled to, should be of a prudent man, not of a timid or tired who is afraid of legal consequences.
45. In the light of the testimonial collections and the documentary evidence led by the prosecution and relied on by the Trial Court, which is, threadbare examined by us, we have no hesitation to accord our concurrence with the impugned judgment and order, while rejecting the appeal at the instance of the original accused. It has, evidently, been emerged from the proved set of facts and circumstances, which preceded the main incident coupled with the deep-seated motive generated out of the cordiality and close relationship between Namrata and Montu, that all the three accused persons, who are related to each other had hatched a criminal conspiracy and they are the real authors of macabre murder. Of course, offence of criminal conspiracy as contemplated by section 120-A of Chapter V-A of the IP Code is not required to be established by direct evidence. It can be established and shown by circumstantial evidence and other set of facts emerging from the record. In order to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy, there must be two or more persons who should agree to do an illegal act or an act which is not legal by illegal means and such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. In the light of the factual scenario emerging from the proved facts, that the manner and mode in which the accused persons reached to the farm-house of the deceased with deadly weapons with them, with a pre-determined mind on account of animosity generated due to the relationship between Namrata and Montu, nothing would prevent us in, straightway, concluding that they had agreed to do away with the deceased in case he failed to settle the issue of Namrata and Montu.
46. Of course, criminal conspiracy under section 120-A is a distinct offence. The very agreement is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they participate in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common aim or goal of the conspiracy. Obviously, conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is very difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can only be proved largely upon inference of the proved set of facts and circumstances. This proposition can hardly be controverted or disputed. If the criminal conspiracy is established, the offence of criminal conspiracy, which is, of course, a distinct offence, is punishable under section 120-B of the IP Code. There are various factors which would lead us to only and only one inference that the accused persons had a common goal and animus to commit the murder of deceased Girish.
47. The main incident is preceded by another incident in which a complaint was lodged by the deceased against A-1 Raju, before the Astodia Police station, for having committed offence of attempt to commit murder under section 307 with the help of revolver. After the conclusion of the trial, the charges punishable under section 506(2) of the IP Code were held proved against accused No.1, Raju, the sole accused in that trial. Be that as it may. The main incident is preceded by an incident of attempt on the life of the deceased by accused No.1 with the help of the revolver and such a complaint was lodged. He had also given abuses as per the complaint. The truthfulness or otherwise will be a matter to be decided in that appeal and the factum of lodging complaint and the factum of the result of the said sessions case can, definitely, be taken into consideration.
Not only that, two to three months prior to the date of incident, Namrata and Montu, who are, unfortunately, the persons who brought a great rift amongst the cousins had eloped,which generated a great amount of anxiety and animosity between the complainant and the accused persons. It is found from the medical evidence that the deceased had sustained not less than 30 injuries and most of them were possible by sharp cutting instruments. Two eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the FIR was immediately lodged.
48. In the light of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore and the catalogue of the events highlighted by us in this judgment and the reliability of the two eye-witnesses supported by the evidence of Uma, widow of the deceased and other set of circumstances, we are, fully, satisfied that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is justified requiring no modification or interference at all. Consequently, the appeal deserves only and only the one fate of dismissal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.