MALIK SHARIEF-UD-DIN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Surjit Singh, alias Tite, was found guilty of offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. He was convicted by his order date 13-12-82 and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 16-12-82. Beside, a fine of Rs. 20001- was also imposed, in default of payment of which he was also sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred. ( 2 ) THE incident is of 24-10-81 at about 5. 35 P. M. in the area " of Central Market, Madangir. The victim is one Sheel Kumar. The facts are that the deceased Sheel Kumar was selling golgappas on a Rehri in front, of the shop of Public Witness 5 shri Suraj Pal. His brother Public Witness 1 Kishan Lal was also running a book shop in the same market about 60 to 65 yards away from him. Just before the incident the appellant had allegedly eaten golgappas from the deceased but when the deceased demanded the price thereof, there was an argument. On the insistence of the deceased to collect price he was given two stab blows with a dagger in the chest by the appellant, attracting Public Witness s 1-4 and 5. Before they could intervene the the appellant allegedly escaped from the scene. Prosecution case further is that the appellant is a known ruffian. ( 3 ) THE deceased was immediately removed to Safdar Jung Hospital. He was declared brought dead. On their way to hospital on a question put by Public Witness 1 Kishan Lal as to why was he stabbed the deceased told him that, on demanding payment Tite told him that he was a Badmash of the area and nobody dares to demand payment from him and for that reason he was stabbed. ( 4 ) CONSTABLE on duty in Sadarjung hospital informed P/s Kslkaji about the deceased having been brought dead persuant to which S. I. Shoban Singh after deputing some constable to guard the scene of incident came to the hospital. He recorded the statement Ex. Public Witness HA of Public Witness I Kishan Lal. It is this statement which was made the basis of the F. I. R. registered at 7. 35 P. M. on the same evening. He recorded the statement Ex. Public Witness HA of Public Witness I Kishan Lal. It is this statement which was made the basis of the F. I. R. registered at 7. 35 P. M. on the same evening. The Investigating Officer then went to the scene of the incident and after completing the neces- sary formalities also recorded the statements of eye witnesses. The dead body was examined on the next morning and after preparing the inquest it was subjected to autopsy. The autopsy was performed by Dr. Yellury Public Witness 11. He noticed two stab wounds in the right and left side of chest. He opined that death was caused due to these injuries and further added that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to result in death. ( 5 ) THE accused was arrested on 25-10-81 in Siriniwas Puri area of Delhi. He was allegedly given a chase as he had started running before his arrest. In the process he had allegedly fallen and had sustained abrasions. Which in police custody the appellant is alleged to have made a disclosure statement to Public Witness 17 Shoban Singh. S. I. in the presence of Dina Nath Public Witness 15, Siya Nand H. C. Public Witness 12 and Kishan Lal Public Witness 1 leading to the recovery of the weapon of offence and the blood stained Pant of the accused. ( 6 ) WE have heard Shri Aggarwal for the appellant as also Shri Lao for the State. The controversy is considerably narrowed down. The cause of death, the weapon of, offence used and the time and date of incident are not in dispute. The only controversy to be resolved is as to who has committed this crime. We are not. therefore, referring to the testimony of Public Witness II autopsy Surgeon. The fact of the matter is that the deceased died of the two chest injuries he had sustained in this incident and these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to result in death. Before we set out to find out if the appellant committed this crime, it is necessary to refer to the stand taken by the appellant. Before we set out to find out if the appellant committed this crime, it is necessary to refer to the stand taken by the appellant. ( 7 ) THE stand taken by the appellant is that he is known as Surjit alias Pardeep and not as Tite; that he v/as not in Delhi on the date of incident; that he was neither known to the deceased nor to Public Witness s 1-4 and 5; that he was brought by the Police from Mecrut in the morning at 5. 00 A. M. ; that the Police beat him and caused injuries to him; that he made no disclosure and no knife was recovered at his instance. The appellant admits that Ex. P2, P3 and P4 are his clothes; states that these were seized at Mecrut. According to him Police has smeared the pant seized from him with blood to involve him in this case. ( 8 ) THE entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Public Witness s 1-4 and 5 and also the discloure statement leading to the recovery of blood stained knife and the blood stained Pant of the appellant. The report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory clearly establishes the fact that the blood group of the deceased was b . Knife seized at the instance of appellant pursuant to his disclosure also contained human blood of b group. The pant was also found to be stained with human blood though its group could not be determined. The witnesses to the disclosure statement and to the consequent seisure of knife and clothes at the instance of the appellant are Public Witness 1 Kishan Lal, Public Witness 12 Siyanand, P. W. 15 Dina Nath, S. I. and Public Witness 17 Shoban Singh. We have pursued and examined their testimony in this regard and we find no reason to disbelieve the same. The plea of the appellant that blood must have been smeared on his pant by the Police is not tenable as in that case the blood group could also have been determined mined. It appears that the clothes of the apellant were only taken into possession after he disclosed that he had washed the same. ( 9 ) BEFORE proceeding further, we may notice the contentions raised by Shri Aggarwal. It appears that the clothes of the apellant were only taken into possession after he disclosed that he had washed the same. ( 9 ) BEFORE proceeding further, we may notice the contentions raised by Shri Aggarwal. He maintained that since the F. I. R. only mentioned the name of Title, it should be assumed that the culprit was not known and for that reason it was necessary to hold identification prade failing which the identification of the accused at trial was of no importance. He also contended that since the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the F. I. R. they should bs treated as having been procured. He also urged that recovery of knife has been made from open place and that it has been planted. We see no reason to accept any one of the contentions. ( 10 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, we may at B once point out that the appellant is known to the witnesses as Tite. The expression "known" does not necessarily mean that the pedigree of the appellant must be known to the witnesses. The "eye witnesses have clearly stated that the appellant is known to them as Tite and he is commonly called by that name. He is known to them as a bad character and that is why even Public Witness 5 Suraj Pal amost disinterested and independent person has said "ghalat Admi Se Dar To Lagta Hee Hai". This goes to show that the appellant was known to him or else he had no reason to be afraid of him. There is as such no reason to disbelieve at least Public Witness 1 Kishan Lal and Public Witness5 Suraj Pal that they knew appellant as Tite. In that view of the matter the objection of Shri Aggarwal to us appears to be untenable. ( 11 ) TURNING to the next contention we may point out that even though the names of Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 5 are not mentioned in the F. I. R. , Public Witness 1 when he made the statement Ex. Public Witness I/a has clearly said that other persons have also seen the incident. The assertion that Suraj Pal Public Witness 5 is a procured witness is unjustified. It is not disputed that the deceased was selling golgappas ill front of the shop of Public Witness 5. Public Witness I/a has clearly said that other persons have also seen the incident. The assertion that Suraj Pal Public Witness 5 is a procured witness is unjustified. It is not disputed that the deceased was selling golgappas ill front of the shop of Public Witness 5. It is also not disputed that P. W. 5 was at his shop at the time incident. Once that position is accepted he is the most natural witness to the incident. Public Witness 5 has clearly and in most unambiguous terms deposed that there was an argument between the deceased and the appellant which attracted his attention and within his view the appellant inflicted two knife blows on the chest of the deceased and, that the deceased escaped thereafter from the scene. We find nothing in his deposition which calls for discrediting his testimony. He seems to be the most truthful witness. Public Witness 4 Manothar Lal has also deposed that in his presence the appellant stabbed the deceased. He may or he may not be a truthful witness. He is a neighbour of the deceased. According to him he had come to his house from his shop which is situated at a distance of a few kilometers. While explaining his presence he says that he had come to this market for purchasing blades. He is a chance witness. In any case, even if hand is not relied upon there is no escape for the appellant in view of the most independent and unbiased testimony of Suraj Pal W. W. 5. ( 12 ) THE criticism advanced against P. W. 1 Kishan Lal is that he has not seen the incident. Reliance in this regard was placed by Shri Aggarwal on the deposition of Public Witness 5 Suraj Pal who has said that Kishan Lal reached the spot after the stab wounds were inflicted by the appellant. We find there is no justification for this assertion. It may be that Public Witness 5 noticed P. W. I only after the two injuries were inflicted. It is not disputed that Public Witness I has his book shop at a distance of 60 yards. ( 13 ) IT is also not disputed that: within minutes of the incident P. W. 1 removed the deceased to hospital. It may be that Public Witness 5 noticed P. W. I only after the two injuries were inflicted. It is not disputed that Public Witness I has his book shop at a distance of 60 yards. ( 13 ) IT is also not disputed that: within minutes of the incident P. W. 1 removed the deceased to hospital. Public Witness I has deposed that first injury was caused to the deceased before he rushed to the scene and he saw the appellant inflicting the second injury while the deceased had fallen on ground. It may be that he was still a little away from the scene when the second injury was inflicted but that does not mean that while on his way he would not have noticed the appellant inflicting the second injury. Probably P. W. 5 did not notice Public Witness I when he was rushing towards the scene. Moreover the version tendered by Public Witness 1 is consistent with the medical evidence of Public Witness II Dr. Y. R. Yellury. In respect of the first injury he has stated "the track of the wound was going upwards, backwards. " In respect of injury No. 2 he has stated "track of the wound was going downwards, medically backward" This medical finding clearly goes to show that the second injury was caused to the deceased while he had fallen on the ground. ( 14 ) THAT apart Public Witness I Kishan Lal too had seen the appellant escaping from the scene with open knife. There is no reason as such to disbelieve him regarding this fact. On their way to hospital P. W. I had inquired from the deceased as to why he was stabbed and the deceased had informed him that when he de- manded the price for golgappas he was stabbed. This would go lo show that the culprit was known to Public Witness 1 and, that is why he did not inquire as to who stabbed. The only information sought by him from the deceased was the cause of stabbing. ( 15 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that even if no importance is attached to the evidence tendered by Public Witness 4 Manohar Lal. there is absolutely no justification to brush aside the evidence of P. W. I and Public Witness 5. They are the natural witnesses to the incident. ( 15 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that even if no importance is attached to the evidence tendered by Public Witness 4 Manohar Lal. there is absolutely no justification to brush aside the evidence of P. W. I and Public Witness 5. They are the natural witnesses to the incident. Coupled with the fact that the blood stained knife and blood stained Pant of the appellant were recovered pursuant to the disclosure made by him there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant is involved in the commission of this crime. Having come to the conclusion that the prosecution has sufficiently connected the appellant with the commission of this crime, it is not necessary to make reference to the evidence examined in defence. ( 16 ) MR. Aggarwal also urged that after giving evidence at trial Public Witness 5 Suraj Pal in a written application and affidavit before the trial court has explained the circumstances under which he has given evidence against the accused. According to him this was given under pressure. This argument is to be noticed to be rejected. Public Witness 5 Suraj Pal gave evidence on 31-7-82. This application is made three months thereafter. Obviously it has been made by arrangement, most probably for reasons of his own security. ( 17 ) THE last argument raised by Shri Aggarwal is that the case is not covered by Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Two stab wounds at the most vital part of the body with full force have been inflicted without any provocation. Both the injuries are opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The death was caused almost instan. taneously. It cannot, therefore. be said that the death was not intended. The contention, in our view is unsustainable. In view of all that goes befora us the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence of the appellant is affirmed.