JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This appeal is from the judgment of conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 2. On 25-6-1969 at about 9 a.m. the deceased was ploughing plot No. 2732 as bhag tenant of one Lokanath Samal. At that time the Appellant emerged from lata kalam nearby armed with a balam and approaching deceased from behind and gave a thrust which penetrated the lateral side of right chest. The deceased Bhagabat then turned round towards the accused who gave another thrust with the balam to the left belly of the deceased. Then the deceased fell down and the accused fled away from the place. 3. There were number of people including the eye witnesses in the case, who were ploughing the neighbauring lands at the time. When the eye witnesses and others came to the spot, they bandaged the wounds with a towel (M.O. III) and Gamchha (M.O. II) and carried him in a basket to the river ghat where upon he was carried in a palanquin to the Patamundai where there is a primary health centre dispensary. The doctor in charge, p.w. 15, first referred them to Patamundai P.S. where p.w. 1 lodged F.I.R. (Ex. 1) at 1 p.m. On police requisition p.w. 15 examined the deceased at 1.30 p.m. and advised removal of the deceased, who was still alive, to Cuttack S.C.B. Medical Hospital for better treatment as the case was serious. He also gave his injury report (Ex. 14). After that the deceased was carried to Cuttack hospital while p.w. 1 came to (sic) P.S. which had the territorial jurisdiction over the place of occurrence. He was accompanied by a Constable through whom the A.S.I. of Patamundai sent the F.I.R. and the injury report to the Officer-in-charge, Aul P.S. (p. w. 17). The latter received the plain paper F.I.R. (Ex. 1) at 8. 30 p.m. on 25-6-1969, drew up the formal F.I.R. and registered the case and took up investigation immediately by examining p.w. 1 at the P.S. and sending a requisition to A.S. 1., Patamundai P.S. to arrest the accused who was a resident of Badamanga village within the jurisdiction of that P.S. He proceeded to mangarajpur the village of the deceased at 7 a.m. on 26-6-1969 and reached the same at 8.45 a.m. He examined p.ws. 2 and 5 and then proceeded to the spot of occurrence which lies in village Sansidda. He found p.w. 10 and some other witnesses at the spot. No blood-stained earth could be recovered as there was heavy rain during the preceding night. He, however, seized white puntia paddy seeds which the deceased had taken to the field for sowing any some wet earth under seizure list Ex. 12. He found a thick lata Kalam bush growing to a height of 8 ft. at a distance of 350 ft. from plot No. 2732 where the occurrence took place to its north-west. He verified that the spot of occurrence was quite visible from the places where from the eye witnesses p.ws. 1, 2, 5, 10 and 11 saw the occurrence. He also examined that day p.ws. 4, 9, 10, 11 and 14 and some others. He searched the house of the accused, but found no incriminating articles. He made a thorough search for the accused but he was found absconding. In the meantime the deceased who was carried to Cuttack hospital died there in the evening of 25-6-1969, He received intimation of the death of the deceased from S.I. Mangalabag P.S. p.w. 6 held post-mortem examination over the dead body identified to him by p.w. 7 on 26-6-1969. p.w. 17 issued hue and cry notices for apprehension of the accused, but it bore no fruit. The accused, however, surrendered in Court on 26-11-1969. He seized certain documents from p.w. 9 and prepared the spot map on 24-12-1969, showing the relative positions of the different plots to the occurrence plot with reference to settlement maps and revenue records from Tahasil office. On completion of the' investigation, he submitted charge sheet on 28-4-1970. 4. There is no controversy that the death was homicidal. p.w. 15 who first examined the deceased at Patamundai dispensary found one incised wound 2" length ? 0.6" breadth ? 0.5" depth situated on the lateral side of right chest on the posterior (sic) fold over 8th, 9th and 10th rib and another incised wound 1.2" length ? 0.5" breadth ? 0.5" depth situated on the left side of upper abdomen extending from the tip of 9th costal cartilage lateral to the midline, and the third incised wound 2?" length ? ?" depth situated in the middle side of left arm. At the time of his examination the deceased was unconscious. 0.5" breadth ? 0.5" depth situated on the left side of upper abdomen extending from the tip of 9th costal cartilage lateral to the midline, and the third incised wound 2?" length ? ?" depth situated in the middle side of left arm. At the time of his examination the deceased was unconscious. According to his opinion all the injuries could be caused with sharp cutting double edged weapon like balam. p.w. 6 held post mortem examination over the dead and confirmed the findings of p.w. 15 as to the existence of the three incised wounds on the body of the deceased. He found the left boarder of liver was punctured and the depth covered entire breadth of liver with exit at right border. He was also of opinion that these injuries which were ante mortem could be caused by a balam having a double sharp edged and pointed iron blade of about 2" in width and 9" in length. These injuries in his opinion were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Normally such injuries would cause death instantaneously, but if the victim had sufficient strength he might survive for some hours. Injuries 1 and 2 were individually and cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. The Appellant adopted an affirmative defence of alibi, according to which he was on the date and time of occurrence an in patient in a private clinic at Calcutta run by d.w. 1 and was also at Calcutta in the evening of 25-6-1969 with d.w. 2 another doctor. 6. No clear cut motive has been established by the prosecution. There is some evidence of litigation between the accused and p.w. 9, who is the natural brother of the deceased. This dispute related to plots 2730 and 2735 which are adjacent to plot No. 2732. The accused filed a civil suit in respect of these 2 plots. His suit was dismissed, but in appeal he succeeded. But as p.w. 9 states he is still continuing in possession and the accused was never in possession of the same. The plot of occurrence intervenes the plots 2730 and 2735. Even though clear motive for murder is not made out nevertheless where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, absence of proof of motive is of no importance. 7. The plot of occurrence intervenes the plots 2730 and 2735. Even though clear motive for murder is not made out nevertheless where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, absence of proof of motive is of no importance. 7. The nature of the murder weapon is known because it was seen though could not be recovered and according to medical opinion, the injuries on the deceased could be caused by a balam having a blade of a particular description stated by p.w. 6. 8. The prosecution has relied upon 5 eye witnesses and 3 post occurrence witnesses who saw the accused wearing a blood stained ganji and holding a blood stained balam and the medical evidence, in support of its case. The eye witnesses are p.ws. 1, 2, 5, 10 and 11. Of them p.w. 10 was declared hostile in the sessions Court and his committal Court statement after being confronted to him has been tendered in evidence. P.ws. 1 and 5 are relations of the deceased, so also p.w. 3, the post occurrence witness. P.ws. 1 and 5 are co-villagers of the deceased. P. ws. 1, 2, 5 and It were cultivating the neighbouring lands and were naturally competent witnesses of the occurrence. As would appear from the testimony of the witnesses and also of the I.O. p.w. 17 they were about 200 to 300 ft. from the spot of occurrence and the visibility having regard to the time of occurrence was clear and unrestricted. All these witnesses are unanimous that the accused came armed with a (sic) from lata Kalam bush situated to the north of the field where the deceased was ploughing and dealt two successive blows to the deceased, first on the lateral side of right chest and the second on the abdomen, and when the deceased fell down after making a loud cry upon the second thrust, he fled away again towards the north. These eye witnesses and others went to the place where the injured was lying. These eye witnesses and others went to the place where the injured was lying. There is no difference between them that the wounds were bound up with the Gamcha and towel (M.Os II and III) and the deceased was carried in his basket in which he had carried paddy seeds for sowing and the basket was suspended from the Baungi by sika and thus carried on the shoulder to the river ghat where from he was carried in a palanquin to Patamundai dispensary. All these witnesses say that they knew the accused from before and it is believable because he had land in the village of the deceased and there was a long course of litigation between p.w. 9 and the accused preceding the occurrence. p.w. 5 particularly states that he saw the deceased at close quarter as he was running from the north to the place of occurrence while the accused was fleeing away from that place to the north and in fact the latter threatened him with the balam. There is no scope for mistaken identity. It is contended that according to the medical evidence the deceased had 3 injuries one on the back, one in the abdomen and the 3rd on the left arm, which is inconsistent with the oral testimony of the accused having dealt only 2 blows. I think the explanation to the 3rd injury on the arm has come from the mouth of p.w. 5. He has stated that when the accused gave the first thrust from the back side, the deceased turned round pressing his wound with his left hand. While the deceased was in this position that the 2nd thrust was given and most likely when the balam was either being pushed in or being pulled out that the 3rd injury was caused. Thus the three resulting injuries are possible from two blows. The 2nd comment is that p.ws. 1 and 5 being relation of the deceased are apt to depose in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. This comment is not entertain able because relations, specially close relations, would be last persons to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The relationship is often the sure guarantee of truth. In absence of any special reason of general unreliability, the relation witnesses should not be discarded on the mere ground of relationship. This comment is not entertain able because relations, specially close relations, would be last persons to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The relationship is often the sure guarantee of truth. In absence of any special reason of general unreliability, the relation witnesses should not be discarded on the mere ground of relationship. There is some 656 evidence of enmity between the accused and p.w. 9. But that allegation does not extend to p.ws. 1 and 5, and in absence of anything more to show that they had any part to play in favour of p.w. 9 and against the accused in that litigation, their testimony cannot be held to have originated in any tainted source. Their evidence has received corroborations, as indicated above from medical evidence. p.w. 1's testimony, particularly, is consistent all through. The story he related in the F.I.R. is essentially the same as related in the Court. Within 3 or 4 hours of occurrence the F.I.R. lodged and there was no time for any motive for falsely implicating the accused. p.w. 1 has named the accused and given his address, in his F.I.R., which shows that the accused was known to him. The murder weapon used has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. There is no discrepancy as to sequence of assaults committed by the accused. This F.I.R. therefore corroborates p.w. 1 fully. p.w. 2 is neither a relation of the deceased nor his co-villager. He is a completely disinterested and independent witness. A suggestion was made that he was a party man of p.w. 9 and he has denied it. Such suggestions have also been made against other p.ws. also. In absence of any foundation for existence of any party faction embroiling villagers of more than one village and that p.w. 9 is the leader of any such party, these suggestions cannot be characterised as anything but wild. p.w. 10 has turned hostile and his committal Court testimony has been legally tendered in evidence. His evidence was taken in that Court on 3-8-1970, within one and half months of the occurrence. There he supported the prosecution story fully, and in absence of any suggestion that he was deposing in that Court under pressure or inducement, his testimony in that Court is acceptable. His evidence was taken in that Court on 3-8-1970, within one and half months of the occurrence. There he supported the prosecution story fully, and in absence of any suggestion that he was deposing in that Court under pressure or inducement, his testimony in that Court is acceptable. p.w. 11 is another eye witness, who is also independent and disinterested, neither hostilely inclined to the accused nor unusually interested in the prosecution. Another ground urged for impeaching the credibility of some of these witnesses was that they belonged to same Khandayat caste as that of the deceased, while the accused belonged to Gowala caste. There is nothing on record to show that there was any caste conflict existing at all at that time in that locality and in absence of such a foundation, such a comment is not worthy of any consideration. A comment was made that p.ws. 1 and 5, who are eye witnesses had not been examined in committal Court and on that ground they should not be relied upon. It is true, as has been judicially laid down, that it is fair to the accused that the prosecution should examine all the eye witnesses in the committing Court, though in regard to other types of evidence there might be picking and choosing. This is a valid comment but it will be seen that p.w. 1 had lodged F.I.R. and had been examined immediately at the P.S. and p.w. 5 had been examined the next day in the village and that their statements to the police had been supplied to the accused. No discrepancy have been shown to exist between their evidence in Court and their statements to the police. No prejudice has been caused to the accused by not examining p.ws. 1 and 5 in the committing Court. Direct testimony of these eye witnesses is corroborated by 3 post-occurrence witnesses, namely, p.ws. 3, 12 and 14. p.w. 3 who belongs to Sansidda village, saw the accused going at a place 11 miles from the place of occurrence and holding a blood-stained balam and wearing a dhoti and ganji, both blood-stained. It appears from his evidence that the accused was proceeding to Kalaspur Ghat. On being questioned by him, the accused made a confessional statement, but that is not admissible being exculpatory. It appears from his evidence that the accused was proceeding to Kalaspur Ghat. On being questioned by him, the accused made a confessional statement, but that is not admissible being exculpatory. The next witness is p.w. 14, a boat man of Kalaspur Ghat who had taken lease of that Ghat for the year 1969. On the date of occurrence he ferried the accused across the river Kani in his boat. He also noticed the balam and ganji of the accused were stained with blood and enquired about it from the accused, but the latter refused to reply. This witness was examined by the police next day and his testimony does not suffer from any inconsistency. He is not a relation Witness and, apart from the baseless suggestion that he belongs to the camp of p w. 9, there is nothing for doubting his disinterestedness, and independence and credibility. p.w. 12 is another witness of mouza Sansidda, who also found the accused, whom he had known from before, going near Kani river holding a blood-stained balam and wearing a blood-stained ganji. The accused made an extra judicial confession before him but the same is not admissible being exculpatory in nature. Thus considering the aforesaid evidence, it must be held that the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden of proof fully. 9. The onus now shifts to the accused to establish his defence plea of alibi. The law is well settled that even though the burden of proving the plea of alibi rests wholly on the accused, nevertheless the burden of proving the case against the accused is initially always on the prosecution and it is only when this burden is discharged that it is for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case which would negative it. The Supreme Court has said in the case of S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, that: It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilities the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The defence has to be examined in this legal perspective. The defence case is that the accused was an indoor patient in the clinic of d.w. 1, Dr. Nilaratan Karmakar of Calcutta. He was admitted into his clinic on 20-6-1969 in a very bad condition and was discharged from it at 3 p.m. on 25-6-1969. If these facts are true he could not have committed the murder of the deceased on 25-6-1969 at about 9 a.m. at the far away village of Mangarajpur. The defence has also examined d.w. 2 to prove that the accused was in his chamber at Calcutta at about 7 p.m. on 25-6-1969 D.w. 2 thereby purports to lend corroboration to the testimony of d.w. 1. The Sessions Judge has disbelieved the defence plea of alibi on very cogent grounds with which we agree. 10. The accused had the earliest opportunity to disclose his list of defence witnesses under Sub-section (9) of Section 207A Code of Criminal Procedure. He was asked in the committing Court if he would produce any defence witnesses at sessions trial and replied that he would produce some witnesses at the trial stage, if necessary. There was no natural reason for the accused to be secretive about his defence witnesses at that stage. This is a piece of conduct which reflects on the defence plea of alibi. At the trial, the defence relied upon 2 documents Exts. A and C. Ex. C is the register of patients maintained by d.w. 1 and Ex. A is the prescription granted by d.w. 2 to the accused. These 2 documents were neither produced in the committing Court nor was any defence plea based thereon suggested to any of the witnesses examined in that Court. For the first time these documents were produced in Court on 3-12-1970. Their belated production is a relevant factor in adjudging the truth and otherwise of this plea. D.w. 1 has admitted that in running his clinic he is to maintain registers of patients like Ex. C under Municipal Rules of Baranagar Municipality and has to regularly obtain licence for the same. Their belated production is a relevant factor in adjudging the truth and otherwise of this plea. D.w. 1 has admitted that in running his clinic he is to maintain registers of patients like Ex. C under Municipal Rules of Baranagar Municipality and has to regularly obtain licence for the same. He further admits that he has to produce his registers of patients and other account papers maintained in this connection before taxing and municipal authorities, who after checking them put their initials on those registers and documents. Ex. C contains 50 pages. Page 1 opens with 5- 1-1969 and closes with the entry dated 18-12-1969 leaving last three pages blank. So Ex. C was the register for the whole of the calendar year 1969. This register has apparently not been produced before the taxing and municipality authorities, because it does not bear any seal or initials of those authorities thereon. An explanation has been given by d.w. 1 that it had not been produced, because it relates to the assessment year 1970-71. But Ex C does not show the income of the doctor because the columns for recording fees have been systematically left blank and is therefore, an unnecessary document to be produced before income tax authorities, but it should have been produced before the Baranagar municipal authorities who go by financial years. As d.w. 1 has to maintain his licence for running his clinic it is expected that he would produce his account books and other registers including Ex. C before those authorities, for renewal of his license. Ex. C contains entries for the calendar year 1969 and for two financial years, 1968-69 and 1969-70. By the time of production of Ex. C in Court on 3-12-1970, two financial years had expired and yet what is peculiar in this case is that for those two financial years this register was new produced before Municipal authorities and no explanation is forth coming for such none production. d.w. 1 admits he has a licence number for the clinic and Ex. C, a printed register, does not bear the licence number on any part of it which is unusual. All these aspects cast a doubt on the genuineness of this document. D.w. 1 also admits that he maintains surgical patients register and the case of the accused being a surgical one, as appears from Ex. C, a printed register, does not bear the licence number on any part of it which is unusual. All these aspects cast a doubt on the genuineness of this document. D.w. 1 also admits that he maintains surgical patients register and the case of the accused being a surgical one, as appears from Ex. C it should normally find mention in that surgical patients register and that important register which has a great corroborative value and could have advanced the defence plea of alibi has not been produced. No reason is forthcoming for such non-production and this looks like suppression of a material piece of document giving rise to adverse inference. D. w. 1 has deposed that he received Rs. 75/- towards his charges from the accused after giving a concession at Rs. 25/-. He admits that he maintains a book of accounts regarding payments received from his patients but says that his account book will not show any reference to the accused. He therefore admits that his account book will contradict Ex. C. Thus the doubt as to its genuineness deepens. D.w. 1 further states that he referred the accused to d.w. 2 with some letters and prescriptions and according to him the condition of accused was serious and needed urgent attention. d.w. 2 categorically denies that the condition of the accused was serious and says that no such letters and prescriptions were ever produced before him when the accused attended his chamber. Further d.w. 2 only granted an advisory prescription, Ext. A, for (sic) to be done. There is no evidence that this was done and the accused never returned to him with X' Ray photograph for further treatment nor did the accused go to d.w. 1 for further advice. The letters and prescriptions which d.w. 1 allegedly sent through the accused to d.w. 2 specially meant for the latter's perusal has not seen the light of the day. Those documents, specially the prescriptions, are valuable pieces of evidence to prove that the accused was inpatient of d.w. 1's clinic and their non-production, without any explanation for it, shakes the foundation of the defence plea. It is also curious that d.w. 2 has not made any mention of the referring doctor in Ex. A and has not rendered his clinical findings on examining the accused thereon, as is the normal practice. It is also curious that d.w. 2 has not made any mention of the referring doctor in Ex. A and has not rendered his clinical findings on examining the accused thereon, as is the normal practice. All these indicate a plan to achieve some other object than to treat a bona-fide serious case of illness. In column 6 of Ex. C there is an entry "incised scar mark present" d.w. 1 has stated that this entry was made by way of recording an identification mark of the accused and that the accused got this scar mark as a result of operation of his stomach. He, however, depose that the scar mark which he now finds on the accused is larger than the scar mark he noticed in his clinic and ascribes this increase to a subsequent operation. There is no evidence of such subsequent operation, and if any such operation had really taken place, there would be records to prove the same as admitted by d.w. 1. He also admits that except in the case of the accused he has not mentioned identification marks in cases of his other patients who have been registered in Ex. C as it is not his habit. Then why this departure from his normal habit in the case of the accused? d.w. 2 also identifies the accused by the very same scar mark which was left as a result of operation conducted by him in the hospital sometime before 25-6-1909 and that scar mark he must also have seen when he granted Ex. A but he does not say that the original scar mark had grown in size. D. w. 2 says that he maintains accounts of fees received from his patients and yet admits that he has not noted the fee which he received from the accused in his account book. So all sorts of unusual and irregular things appear to have been done in connection with this accused. It is in evidence of d.ws. 1 and 2 that the accused was accompanied by his brother-in-law Sankarsan Das at the time of his admission into the clinic and was accompanied by some relations when he was examined by d.w. 2. None of these relations has been examined. Though both d.ws. 1 and 2 are men of equal age as deposed to by them, yet d.w. 2 states that d.w. 1 was his student. None of these relations has been examined. Though both d.ws. 1 and 2 are men of equal age as deposed to by them, yet d.w. 2 states that d.w. 1 was his student. According to d.w. 2, d.w. 1 was a student of Nil Ratan Medical College but he himself was not on the teaching staff of that College. d.w. 2 was a Professor of Surgery National Medical College but d.w. 1 was never a student of that College in which he was a Professor since 1955. The story of one being a student of the other does not bear scrutiny, and this sort of irreconcilable discrepancies in their statements makes them generally unreliable. It appears from both the evidence of d.ws. 1 and 2 that one can reach Calcutta from Cuttack within 5 to 9 hours if one travelled fast, say, with a speed ranging from 70 to 100 miles per hour. The road which connects Calcutta to Cuttack is a first class grand trunk road. Patamundai and Cuttack are also connected by a motorable road. In view of the prosecution evidence that the accused was seen crossing Kani river at about 9.30 a.m. it was quite feasible for him to have reached Calcutta towards evening of the date of occurrence. The plea of alibi is not watertight. Having regard to the aforesaid suspicious features in the defence evidence, resulting in their general un-reliability, it cannot be said that such evidence has successfully tended to disprove one of the essential factors in the prosecution case, namely, the presence of the accused at the time and place of the alleged crime. In other words, the standard at proof adduced by the defence in respect of time and place is not such as can be said to reasonably exclude the possibility of his presence at the scene of the crime, and has failed to raise reasonable doubt as to the truth of the prosecution evidence. 11. In result, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. P.K. Mohanti, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed