JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Kasam Khan has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, for the offence under Section 302, l.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment by his judgment dated October 19, 1976. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the first information report, lodged by Shri Bhanwarlal P.W.l at the police station. Bhimsar on November 18, 1975 at 8.30 p.m. is that, on that day, at about 7.30 p.m., he after taking tea at the shop of Juhararam started for his house. When he reached near `Gatta', he heard shouts. Thereupon, he saw one man,was being threa-shed by another man with a knife.The assailant had inflicted 5-6 knife blows. Thereupon, he raised an alarm and asked as to why he is assaulting. P.W. 2 Ishar Ram Jat and PW 3 Balchand Parjapat were also sitting in their shops. They and others also asked the assailant as to why he is assaulting & asked him to stop. Thereupon, the assailant-told that he is taking his revenge. The victim is his enemy and he threatened all of them not come near to him. The victim fell down. When he was breathing his last, the assailant exhorted that the victim is still alive. The victim was lying supine. The assailant then further inflicted two knife blows on the chest of the victim. The victim then died. P.W. 9 Motilal P.W. 4 Gajanand and P.W. 3 Bal Chand and others were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Bhanwarlal and others made an attempt to catch hold of the assailant. But, the assailant again threatened them with dire consequence. Then he went away towards Sujangarh. Those who assembled, also followed him to catch hold, him. At that time, one Mahaveerprasad P.W. 8 came in his jeep. Then they chased the accused in that jeep. At a distance of half a mile, they caught hold of the assailant. He was having a knife with him. On being asked, the accused gave out his name as Kasamkhan son of Mukarabkhan, by caste Kayamkhani, r/o Jajod and he also disclosed the name of the victim as Liyakat Ali son of Ummed Khan, r/o Jajod. At a distance of half a mile, they caught hold of the assailant. He was having a knife with him. On being asked, the accused gave out his name as Kasamkhan son of Mukarabkhan, by caste Kayamkhani, r/o Jajod and he also disclosed the name of the victim as Liyakat Ali son of Ummed Khan, r/o Jajod. It was stated by P.W. 1 Bhanwarlal that the dead-body of Liyakat Ali is lying in front of a shop in village Salasar. The assailant was produced by them at the police station. The accused was arrested and from his personal search, bloodstained knife Ex. 1, was recovered. The blood-stained clothes i.e. Bush-shirt Ex. 2 and Pant Ex. 3 of the accused were also seized by the police. The informant was accompanied by Motilal, Gajanand and Ishar Ram Jat. A case under section 302, I.P,C. was registered and Brijlal S.H.O. Police Station, Bhimsar (P.W. 10) proceeded to the spot and prepared the site-plan Ex. P/2, site-note Ex. P/2A and Furd Surat Hal Lash Ex. P/4. He seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. Blood-stained clothes of the deceased Bush-shirt Ex. 5 were also seized. He recorded the statements of Bhanwarlal, Ishar Ram, Balchand Motilal,Gajanand and Mahaveerprashad. An autopsy was not conducted on the dead-body of Liyakat Ali. The blood-stained articles were sent for Chemical Examination. On examination, human blood was found on the bloodstained articles. Identification was also conducted from the witness Balchand. After completion of the investigation, challan was put up and the appellant was ultimately tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu. The appellant on being charged, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in this case, examined in all 10 witnesses, P.W. 1 Bhanwarlal, P.W, 2 Ishar Ram and P.W.3 Balchand were examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W 4 Gajanand and P.W. 9 Motilal were examined as witnesses, who were attracted to the scene of occurrence, at the time, when they found the accused armed with a knife where the victim was lying supine and they saw the victim running away from the place of occurrence and some of the witnesses went in hot pursuit. The prosecution has also examined P.W. 8 Mahaveerprashad, in whose jeep the accused was chased. Besides these witnesses, the prosecution examined formal witness P.W. 5 Dr. M P. Garg. The prosecution has also examined P.W. 8 Mahaveerprashad, in whose jeep the accused was chased. Besides these witnesses, the prosecution examined formal witness P.W. 5 Dr. M P. Garg. P.W. 6 Nawabkhan, who carried the five sealed packets to the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur. P.W. 7 Omprakash, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who conducted the identification parade and Brijlal. the Investigating Officer. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr. PC, in which he denied the prosecution case. As regards, the identification, he stated that the witness Balchand had seen him at the police station before the identification. The witness was also present when he was taken to Jajod by the S.H.O. He admitted that he was caught on the road, while he was proceeding to Sujangarh. He further stated that from there, he was brought to Salasar near the dead-body, where the knife was lying and witness Ishar Ram lifted the knife from near the dead-body and planted the same in his pocket. He further stated that the witnesses have given their statements at the instance of Mahaveerprashad with whom the deceased was employed. When he was brought by the S H.O. at Salasar, number of people had assembled around the dead-body. The S.H.O. then took him to Jajod following the foot-prints and from Jajod, the S.H.O. brought Rafique Khan Hakimkhan, Maheshkumar and Sarwankumar to the police station. He was sent to judicial lock-up on 19-11-75 and that time, all these four persons, who were brought from Jajod, were present at the police station. 3. The accused examined D.W.l Parmanand,D.W. 2 Gaurishankar, and D.W. 3 Bhanwar lal in defence. 4. One Mustak Khan was examined as court-witness as C.W. 1 and hand-writing expert Shri K.C. Puri was also examined as court-witness as C.W. 2. 5. After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302, I P.C. on the basis of the evidence on record and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Dis-satisfied with the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard Mr. Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Moolchand Bhati, lenrned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of this case, carefully. 7. Mr. Dis-satisfied with the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard Mr. Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Moolchand Bhati, lenrned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of this case, carefully. 7. Mr. Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although, in this case, the prosecution had led evidence to the effect that the occurrence was witnessed by the witnesses produced by the prosecution and the accused was caught hold of according to them in the hot pursuit and was produced at the police station and from whom, a blood-stained knife was recovered, still, the case should be viewed with great care and circumspection. He urged that right from the beginning, the case of the accused was that some 4-5 persons had assaulted the victim and their names were suggested by him and those persons were interrogated by the police. The number and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim are also suggestive and indicative of the fact that the assailant of the victim must be more than one. Besides that, the appellant's case is a case of mistaken identity. The alleged eye-witnesses were not put up for identification except one Balchand. In the absence of any identification, proceedings having been conducted from the eye-witnesses other than Balchand, their evidence as to the identity of the accused is rendered incredible. The conduct of the accused is further clearly suggestive of his innocence. The accused gave out his correct name to those who caught hold of him and if he would have assaulted the victim, the natural conduct of the appellant would have been that he would have thrown the knife on the way, which he has covered, which was more than 1/2 mile. Mr. Doongarsingh also submitted that the appellant produced a letter written by Mustak Khan. The contents of the letter are also suggestive that the assailants could be Hakimkhan, Rafiquekhan,Sarwan Kumar and Maheshkumar for whom, he was asked in the letter not to give out their names. Although, Mustak Khan denied in his statement that the Inland letter is written and signed by him. But it is proved from the statement of Shri K.C. Puri, Hand-writing Expert that the letter Ex. CW/1 dated April 19, 1976 is in the hand-writing of Mustakhan and signed by him. Mr. Although, Mustak Khan denied in his statement that the Inland letter is written and signed by him. But it is proved from the statement of Shri K.C. Puri, Hand-writing Expert that the letter Ex. CW/1 dated April 19, 1976 is in the hand-writing of Mustakhan and signed by him. Mr. Doongar Singh further urged that a reasonable doubt arises in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, with regard to the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the offence, so the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 8. We have given our earnest and anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and we have been carried through the relevant evidence relating to the submissions made by Mr. Doongar Singh, We, however, find ourselves unable to agree with him that from the circumstances, pointed out by him any reasonable doubt arises with regard to the commission of the offence [by the appellant. We are clear in our mind and we are firmly of the view that the offence in the present case, has been proved to its hilt by the evidence led by the prosecution. We may state that the evidence in the present case,is clear,cogent unimpeachable and quite convincing and does not raise even slightest doubt. We may further mention that the appellant was caught red-handed in hot pursuit and was produced at the police station soon after the occurrence. The report of the occurrence was lodged at 8.30 p. m. We find the story given in the first information report neat and clean. The first information report version has been consistently adhered to by all the witnesses. The narration given in the first information report is vivid and graphic, which inspires full confidence. The names of the witnesses find mention in the first information report. P.W. 1 Bhanwarlal, P.W. 2 Ishar Ram, and PW 3 Balchand have stated that they saw the accused inflicting the knife blows on the victim. They exhorted him as to why he is inflicting blows and asked him to stop inflicting blows. When they made an attempt to catch hold of him and he threatened them with dire consequences. They have also deposed that when one Mahaveerprased came with the jeep, some persons present there, boarded the jeep and chased the accused upto about half a mile. They caught hold of the accused. When they made an attempt to catch hold of him and he threatened them with dire consequences. They have also deposed that when one Mahaveerprased came with the jeep, some persons present there, boarded the jeep and chased the accused upto about half a mile. They caught hold of the accused. PW3 Bal Chand, of course,remained at the scene of occurrence and did not go along with others in the jeep. Though, in this connection,there is a discrepancy in the statements. PW 8 Mahaveerprasad stated that when he reached at the crossing of the roads leading to Sujangarh and Sikar, Gajanand, Ishar Ram, Balchand, Motilal and Bhanwarlal met him and they informed him that a murder has taken place in front of the shop of Juhararam and the murderer is running towards Sujangarh, then he allowed those persons to board his jeep.From the statement of Mahaveerprasad, it would appear that PW 3 Balchand also went with those persons in hot pursuit. This version of Mahaveerprasad is not supported by the other eye-witnesses and according to them, PW 3 Balchand remained at the spot. To our mind, this discrepancy does not affect the testimony of other witnesses and the sub stratus of the prosecution case. There may be a slip on the part of Mahaveerprasad when he has stated the Balchand met him at the crossing of the road and all boarded the jeep. As regards, the identification of the appellant, it may be mentioned that it is true that only Balchand was put up as a witness for identification and the other witnesses were not put up for identification. But, on that basis, the evidence of the other witnesses on the question of identification, can not be brushed aside. Although, the witnesses have said that after November 18, 1975, they had seen the accused on February 21, 1976, when their statements were recorded. It is significant to note that the occurrence took place in the presence of the witnesses and they went in hot pursuit and caught hold of the accused and then the accused was produced by them at the police station. Thus, the accused remained in their sight and in their company for a considerable time. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded in Court after about three months. Longer time had. not passed. Thus, the accused remained in their sight and in their company for a considerable time. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded in Court after about three months. Longer time had. not passed. When the accused remained in their company for a considerable time, there was no need to put up them for identification of the accused. The question of mistaken identity does not arise. According to the witnesses, there was only one assailant and they had seen the assailant after the occurrence running in the direction of Sujangarh and they went in a jeep. Had it been a case of unlawful assembly and the accused had run from the place of occurrence in different directions, a situation of mistaken identity may arise but when the assailant is a single individual, who had been continuo-sly in the sight of the witnesses and who had been caught hold of in no time armed with the weapon of offence, stained with blood and with blood stained clothes, the question of mistaken identity does not arise for consideration at all. Relating to the identification of the accused an argument has been raised that the witnesses had stated that there was no light on the electricity pole. Although, in the site-inspection memo, it has been mentioned that there is an electricity pole and there was light. Mr. Dongar Singh urged that when Bhanwar Lal took this stand that there was no lighted lamp on the electricity pole, the other witnesses have also taken a likewise stand. This shows their anxiety to be consistent and uniform. We find no substance in this submission. We have perused the site-notes. It appears that the site-note is not very clear that the light was on at about 10.30 pm. on November 18, 1975, when the S.H.O. visited the place of occurrence. What is stated in the site-note is that the shops and lamp pole is fitted with electricity and there was light on the spot. There was sufficient light of the shops, in which occurrence could be seen by the witnesses. PW 3 Balchand was put up for identification for the simple reason that he saw the accused at the time of occurrence and he did not follow the accused and as such, he did not remain with the accused for sufficient time. There was sufficient light of the shops, in which occurrence could be seen by the witnesses. PW 3 Balchand was put up for identification for the simple reason that he saw the accused at the time of occurrence and he did not follow the accused and as such, he did not remain with the accused for sufficient time. As regards, the evidence relating to the identification proceedings, no infirmity has been pointed out whereby the statement of PW 3 Balchand regarding identification may be rendered untrustworthy. The argument, that right from the beginning, the case of the accused is that there were 4-5 assailants of the victim and whose names were suggested by the accused and the investigation was conducted from them and having regard to the nature of the injuries, that probability can not be ruled out, to our mind, appears to be highly preposterous and deserves to be discarded out-right. Simply because the suggestion has been made to the witnesses right "from the beginning, it can not be taken that it contain a grain of truth. The occurrence took place in a locality, where the shops are situated and there is a bus-stand. The witnesses are of different communities whose presence on the spot is natural and can not be doubted. The witnesses are independent, non-partisan and up-right. They are wholly dis-interested. For them, the assailant as well as the victim are the strangers. There was no reason for them to have falsely implicated the accused and to have spared the real - 4-5 assailants as the suggestion goes. On the basis of the letter, Ex. CW 1 nothing would turn. Proof of this letter by the hand-writing expert does not in any way advance the defence of the accused. The contents of the letter, in our opinion, do not in any way impinge upon the credibility of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case. What is stated in the letter is that the appellant was asked not to give out the names of Rafique Khan, Hakimkhan, Mahesh Kumar and Sarwankumar. It can not be taken from contents of the letter, that these four persons were the assailants of the victim. The S.H.O. clearly refuted the suggestion in the cross-examination that any witness ever suggested that the assailants are Hakimkhan, Rafique Khan, Mahesh Kumar and Sarwan Kumar. It can not be taken from contents of the letter, that these four persons were the assailants of the victim. The S.H.O. clearly refuted the suggestion in the cross-examination that any witness ever suggested that the assailants are Hakimkhan, Rafique Khan, Mahesh Kumar and Sarwan Kumar. It may be stated that those four persons were never brought to the police station from Jajod after arrest. Though, the investigation was conducted from Mahesh Kumar and Rafique Khan at Jajod and from Hakimkhand, Sarwan kumar at Salasar. The investigation was conducted because the investigating officer had come to know from the people at Jajod that there was some dispute between the accused and the victim and he came to know that the two young boys of Jajod namely, Hakimkhan and Sarwankumar were studying at Salasar and Maheshkumar and Rafique Khan were interrogated at Jajod. On account of interrogation, it can not be taken that they were in any way involved in the commission of the offence. In this connection, we may also refer to the nature of the injuries on which, much argument has been advanced. It may be pointed out that there are different dimensions of the eleven incised wounds found on the person of the deceased. Their length and width are different on the basis of which, it is contended that the assailants must be more than one. In this connection, suffice it to say that the injuries of different dimensions may be sustained and there may be several factors, which may account for it. It may depend upon the force with which the knife is wielded and part of the body on which, the blow lands and on that account even the length of the injuries as well as their width may appear to be different. On the basis of the dimensions of the injuries it can not be found that the assailants were more than one. 9. As regards Balchand, it was also contended that his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer, when the statements of Isher Ram and Bhanwarlal were recorded, although Balchand was present at the spot on November 18, 1975. We find no infirmity in it, in view of the fact that no explanation has been sought from the Investigating Officer. His name finds mention in the first information report. We find no infirmity in it, in view of the fact that no explanation has been sought from the Investigating Officer. His name finds mention in the first information report. Further, the alleged innocent conduct of the accused would not in any way help him. When the accused was caught red-handed, he could give his correct name and parentage and as regards the conduct of not throwing the knife, nothing would turn. It would depend on the conduct and behaviour of each accused. We are not prepared to believe the suggestion that the accused was brought back to the place of occurrence and the blood-stained knife was planted in his pocket from the spot. There are no circumstances for placing any reliance on this suggestion. The appellants clothes and knife, both were found stained with human blood and the explanation offered by him, to our mind, is incredible. 10. In our opinion, on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant has been rightly convicted of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and there are absolutely no reasons to interfere in the judgment of conviction. 11. In the result, this appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******