JUDGMENT U.K. Varma, J. - Ramji Singh had been convicted on 26.10.78 by Sri P. Chandra, Sessions Judge, Ballia for committing the murder of Virendra and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. Aggrieved by the above judgment and order in the Sessions Trial No.43 of 1978, he has filed this appeal. 2. The uncontroverted facts are that the father of the appellant Rajdeo Singh and four real brothers including Ram Nagina Singh, the husband of P.W.2 Smt. Kauleshwari. The father of deceased Virendra named Hansnath was the on of Ram Nagina Singh. At the time of the incident he was serving as a constable in Deoria. The appellant and Hansnath had separated eleven twelve years before the incident but the appellant and the family members of Hansnath lived in portions of the same house.The descendants of the brothers of Rajdeo Singh and Ram Nagina Singh including Rajdeo Singh, father of Balram Singh P.W. 4 is also living in that very house separately. The agricultural plots too had been divided between Hansnath Singh and the appellant but a grove was held in common by them. Smt. Lachmina was the wife of Hansnath and Smt. Ram Lali was a sister of the appellant Ram Ji Singh. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.5.77 Ram Ji Singh appellant had plucked some mangoes from his grove in common with Hansnath. Smt. Lachmina asked Sri Ram Lali to make over to her some of those mangoes. Sri Ram Lali declined and there started a wordy duel between them. The appellant arrived before they could calm down resenting the conduct of Lachmina, he stepped forward to strike her. Virendra who was quietly standing till then saved his mother from being beaten. He chided the appellant Ram Ji Singh for having raised his hands against a lady. Ram Ji Singh felt offended and gave threat to them. 4. On 27.5.77 about 6.00 a.m. when Virendra was preparing the feed for his bullock in its through, Ram Ji Singh appellant arrived with a 'Karauli' and pierced it in his abdomen on the left side, Virendra cried in agony. Lal Ram, Sheshnath, Gopal, Paras Nath and others rushed to his rescue. The appellant Ram Ji threatening them made good his escape with the blood smeared Karauli. The informant Smt. Kauleshwari Devi P.W. 2 started for the Sikandarpur Hospital along with the injured Virendra for his treatment. Lal Ram, Sheshnath, Gopal, Paras Nath and others rushed to his rescue. The appellant Ram Ji threatening them made good his escape with the blood smeared Karauli. The informant Smt. Kauleshwari Devi P.W. 2 started for the Sikandarpur Hospital along with the injured Virendra for his treatment. As they reached near the house of Dr. Triloki, Virendra passed away as a result of the injury sustained. Smt. Kauleshwari took the dead body of Virendra to the Police Station Sikandarpur shown to be at a distance of three miles from the village Hardiya and lodged the F.I.R. at 7.30 a.m. 5. The inquest report of Virendra deceased Ex. Ka.3 was prepared at the police station between 7.30 and 8.30 a.m. with the help of the Panshas Paras Nath, Rama Shanker, Ram Praveen, Baij Nath Singh and Shambhu Nath Singh. The pancshes were stated to have opined that Virendra had died as a result of the stab wound caused by Ram Ji Singh appellant with his Karauli. 6. The post mortem examinations of the deceased had been done by Dr. Shiv Ji Prasad Sinha P.W. 1 on 28.5.77. He had found the following ante-mortem injury on the person of the deceased. "Punctured wound 2" x 1" x abdominal cavity deep on the left side abdomen, 24 laterally to the umbilicus." In respect of the internal examinations, the doctor noted that about 1 litre of Semi clotted food material had been found in the abdominal cavity. The large intestines had been punctured. The wound was shown to measure 1"x "x himen deep on the left side clean. The stomach was empty. The small intestines contained gas and faceal matter. The doctor ultimately concluded that Virendra had died as a result of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the punctured wound mentioned in the post mortem report. 7. Dr. Shiv Ji Prasad Sinha had been examined by the prosecution as PW 1 to prove his above post mortem report Ex.Ka.1. He deposed that in the abdomen of the deceased he had found one litre of semi clotted blood which he inadvertently noted as semi clotted food material and that Virendra had died as a result of shock and haemorrhaqe on account of the above punctured wound. 8. He deposed that in the abdomen of the deceased he had found one litre of semi clotted blood which he inadvertently noted as semi clotted food material and that Virendra had died as a result of shock and haemorrhaqe on account of the above punctured wound. 8. The witnesses of the occurrence examined by the prosecution were Smt. Kauleshwari P.W. 2, Sheshnath Singh P.W.3, Balram Singh P.W.4 and Paras Nath Singh P.W.S. They narrated how the appellant Ramji had pierced the karauli in the abdomen of Virendra when he had been doing sani at the cattle through of his bullock, Smt. Kauleshwari P.W. 2 and Balram Singh P.W. 4 also stated about the quarrel aforementioned a day earlier in respect of mangoes and the threat of the appellant. 9. The Sub-Inspector Daya Shanker Singh, Second Officer P.W. 6 proved the inquest report Ex. Ka 3 and stated on oath that he had seen the husk which had got stuck up in the right hand of the deceased Virendra. He admitted that he had not sent the copies of the F.I.R. and the relevant G.D. entry along with the other papers, inquest report, diagram and challan of dead body and letter for conducting the post mortem examinations but explained that it was due to his ignorance. He further conceded that he had corrected the crime number of the case by making it 65' in place of 64'. 10. Israr Hussain P.W. 7 stated that so long as the dead body remained in his custody when he took it for post mortem examination, it had not been interfered with. He acknowledged that Hansnath Singh, the father of the deceased, had arrived at the police station before he started for the mortuary along with the dead body, He refuted the suggestion that he had not taken any paper in connection with the post mortem examinations along with him. 11. Hans Narain Singh P.W. 8 pointed that he had prepared the check report on the basis of the written report Ex. Ka.2 and registered this case against the appellant at 7.30 a.m. in his capacity as the Head Constable, Moharrir P.S. Sikandarpur on 27.5.77. In his cross-examination he gave out that the case crime No. 64 had been registered earlier at 3.10 a.m. and it was under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 12. Ka.2 and registered this case against the appellant at 7.30 a.m. in his capacity as the Head Constable, Moharrir P.S. Sikandarpur on 27.5.77. In his cross-examination he gave out that the case crime No. 64 had been registered earlier at 3.10 a.m. and it was under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 12. The Investigating Officer Raj Kishore Rai pointed that he was the Station Officer of the Police Station Sikandarpur on 27.5.77. The report of this case was lodged in his presence on that date at 7.30 a.m. He signed the check report Ex.Ka.9 prepared on its basis. He pointed to have deputed S.I. Daya Shankar Singh P.W.6 to prepared the inquest report and other documents as were necessary to be drawn in connection with the post mortem examinations. He stated to have proceeded to the scene of occurrence after recording the statements of Smt. Kauleshwari P.W. 2 and Paras Nath P.W. 5 and others. He proved the site plan Ex. Ka. 11 prepared by him after examining Bali Ram, Gopal and Sheshnath. He deposed that he had been 'Sani' in one of the cattle troughs where a bullock was tied with a peg. The other cattle trough, he gave out merely contained husk and there was no bullock tied there. He further had given out that he could not succeed in apprehending the appellant till 2.6.77 and learnt about his surrender after he had obtained orders for proceeding against him under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the cross-examination of this witness it was suggested that he had not shown the place from where Smt. Kauleshwari Devi had seen the occurrence. He asserted that he had shown the varandah where from Smt. Kauleshwari Devi witnessed the incident and noted its distance from the place of occurrence which otherwise was not necessary. He was confronted with the omissions in the statement of Balram Singh under Section 161, Cr.P.C. about Virendra and his brothers having slept in the preceding night over his roof and Shesh Nath P.W. 3 also being present with him at the well at the time of the incident. He was confronted with the omissions in the statement of Balram Singh under Section 161, Cr.P.C. about Virendra and his brothers having slept in the preceding night over his roof and Shesh Nath P.W. 3 also being present with him at the well at the time of the incident. His attention was also invited to the omission in the statement of Paras Nath Singh under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that the grand mother of the deceased Smt. Kauleshwari Devi had witnessed the incident from the varandah and about his having mentioned that at the time of the incident he had been sitting on the platform of the well talking to Gopal Singh and Balram Singh. It had been suggested to him that no case had been registered against the appellant till the arrival of Hansnath, father of the deceased and that the first information report had been ante-time. 13. Shambhu Narain Tewari P.W. 10 proved the G.D. entries Exs. Ka. 16 and Ka. 17 with regard to the despatch of the special information in respect of the incident through the constables Ram Chandra Singh and Chandrika Prasad who had returned back on the same day. In the cross-examination, he however, admitted that the cede Officer had signed those papers on 30.5.77. 14. The appellant had pleaded not guilty. He admitted that the grand father of the deceased and his father were real brothers and that they lived separately in the same house. The cattle trough of Virendra was at a distance of 7 to 8 steps from the varandah and his own cattle trough was at a short distance from it and that to the west of the cattle troughs existed the structures of Ram Chandra father of Shesh Nath P.W. 3, Parasuram and Gopal Singh and to the further north at some distance were the houses of Pares Nath P.W. 4 and Gopal Singh and to the north east thereof there was the wall owned in common by him and the informant. He also did not deny that the fodder of the cattle of the deceased and his own cattle used to be kept in the Baithak near the cattle troughs and that Raj Kishore Singh and Nand Kishore Singh had separated from his family 58 years back but the separation between him and the father of Virendra Singh had taken place ten to twelve years before the incident and that the grove had not been partitioned as yet although some persons were litigating about it. Virendra Singh according to him was 17 to 18 years of age and not merely 15 years old and that Behari Chaudhari had been assisting in the cultivation of Hansnath Singh. He also acknowledged that his sister Ram Lali Devi had been living in his house on the date of the incident and that his wife had gone to her father's place. He denied that he had tried to beat Smt. Lachmina, mother of Virendra deceased when she quarrelled with Smt. Ram Lali Devi and when Virendra did not allow him to do so and chided him, he had threatened them. He gave out that he was not at his house on the date of the incident. He also pleaded ignorance as to how Viregdra sustained injuries and died. The witnesses according to him made statement against him due to enmity. He stated that there had been dispute between him and Hansnath Singh relating to truck and it was for this reason that he had been falsely implicated in this case though at the time of the incident he was in the district Purniya in the State of Bihar where he had gone to attend the marriage of his wife's sister. He did not lead any oral evidence in defence. 15. We shall first examine whether there had been any quarrel between the mother of the deceased Smt. Lachmina and Smt. Ram Lali sister of the appellant and the appellant had tried to assault Smt. Lachmina but was prevented by Virendra deceased who had also resented his conduct and thereupon Ramji had threatened him. 15. We shall first examine whether there had been any quarrel between the mother of the deceased Smt. Lachmina and Smt. Ram Lali sister of the appellant and the appellant had tried to assault Smt. Lachmina but was prevented by Virendra deceased who had also resented his conduct and thereupon Ramji had threatened him. Smt. Kauleshwari Devi P.W. 2 gave out that her daughter in law had asked Ram Lali in the evening preceding the date of incident for mangoes out of those Ducked by Ramji from the common grove and when Smt. Ram Lali declined there was an altercation during the course of which the appellant tried to beat Smt. Lachmina. In the cross examination Smt. Kauleshwari Devi pointed that prior to the above heated exchange of words there never had been any such quarrel. She pointed that her daughter in law had not asked for her share of mangoes in the grove which was watched by Virendra from her side and by the daughter of Smt. Ram Lali on the other but she had merely expressed a desire for being given some of the mangoes as Smt. Ram Lali had been obtaining mangoes from those plucked by Virendca. Smt. Kauleshwari Devi denied that any person of the Mohalla had been present at that time. The deceased was also stated by her to have not spoken a word when her mother and Smt. Ram Lali were arguing. Ramji appellant, however, according to her, had rushed to assault Smt. Lachmina with his hand but was prevented by Virendra from doing so. She further gave out that Virendra had become so much terrified due to the threat of the appellant Ramji that he did not take his evening meats. She and others also did not dine and Nand Kishore and Balram took away Virendra and his two brothers to their house so that they felt secure. Balram Singh P.W. 4 corroborated the testimony of Smt. Kauleshwari Devi about Virendra and his two younger brothers having gone to sleep on the roof of his new house because of the threat of Ram Ji. In his cross-examination he pointed that he had fed Virendra and his two brothers at his house and he had no knowledge whether meals had been prepared at the house of Smt. Kauleshwari Devi or not. In his cross-examination he pointed that he had fed Virendra and his two brothers at his house and he had no knowledge whether meals had been prepared at the house of Smt. Kauleshwari Devi or not. Balram also stated about the quarrel between the mother of Virendra and Ram Lali in his presence and that of his father and they having separated them. He also deposed that when Smt. Ram Lali had narrated about the quarrel to Ram Ji appellant he had threatened that 'Main Chirag Gul Kar Doonga' meaning thereby that he would kill the sons of Smt. Lachmina. The fact that Balram Singh resided in a portion of the same house wherein Smt. Kauleshwari Devi and the appellant lived had not been challenged in the cross-examination of Smt. Kauleshwari Devi inspite of her statement to that effect. There was thus, no improbability in Balram Singh having witnessed the quarrel between the mother of Virendra deceased and Smt. Ram Lali and his father having prevented them from further quarrelling and also listening to the threat which Ram Ji appellant had conveyed to Smt. Lachmina and Virendra. The appellant Ram Ji in his cross-examination tried to discredit the independence of this witness by pointing that he had uprooted some mustard plants and there was a quarrel between him and Balram in this M regard and that Balram was further annoyed with him as he had turned out his father Nand Kishore who was serving as a driver on his truck. The appellant, however, did not clarify as to when he had removed the father of Balram from his service. Balram denied that there had been any quarrel at all with regard to the uprooting of the mustard plants. The appellant did not suggest as to when the quarrel took place relating to it. The quarrel with regard to truck was not likely to have taken place within 11 to 12 years of the incident at least as according to Smt. Kauleshwari the descendant of Ram Nagina Singh named Hansnath (father of the deceased) and the descendant A of Rajdeo Singh named Ramji appellant had separated 11 to 12 years back. It is highly improbable that even if there had been any ill feeling on account of the appellant having not fairly given the share of Hansnath in the truck business 11 to 12 years back. It is highly improbable that even if there had been any ill feeling on account of the appellant having not fairly given the share of Hansnath in the truck business 11 to 12 years back. Smt. Kauleshwari would have still harboured the same in her heart and would have chosen to implicate the appellant on its basis. More particularly when it is admitted to the appellant that they together had successfully ejected some persons from their common grove. The statement of Smt. Kauleshwari Devi about none from the Mohalla having been present at the time of the quarrel will not justify the inference that Balram and his father were not likely to be there for they being from the same family and from the same house did not fall within the category of the 'Mohallawala'. The testimonies of Smt. Kauleshwari P.W. 2 and Balram Singh P.W. 4 establish beyond reasonable doubt that there did take place quarrel a day before the incident and the appellant had given the threat to Virendra deceased and his mother dealt with above. 16. It next is to be examined whether the appellant Ramji had caused the Karauli injury to Virendra which proved fatal. The counsel for the appellant argued that Shesh Nath Singh P.W. 3, Balram Singh P. W. 4 and Paras Nath P.W. 5 were chance witnesses and it does not seem likely that they all could have been present on the platform of the well and noticed the incident. So far as the informant Smt. Kaaleshwari is concerned, he wanted me to appreciate that even the F.I.R. does not specifically speak about it in so many words. The medical report he urged is inconsistent with the oral evidence as one in wide wound could not have been caused by a Karauli. The inquest and the first information report were attacked by him as having been ante timed and manipulated because of the correction in the number of the case. The investigation besides was said to be unfair on this basis also that the copy of the F.I.R. and the G.D. had not been sent along with the other documents to the Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem examinations. We have fully considered all the points urged by the counsel for the appellant. The investigation besides was said to be unfair on this basis also that the copy of the F.I.R. and the G.D. had not been sent along with the other documents to the Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem examinations. We have fully considered all the points urged by the counsel for the appellant. Shesh Nath P.W. 3 is the son of Ram Chandra whose house has been shown in the site plan at a short distance from the cattle trough where Virendra was pointed to have sustained the Karauli injury. The well, where some of the eye witnesses were pointed to have been sitting has also been shown in the site plan almost at the same distance. The house of Pares Nath P.W.5 has been indicated to be at a distance of twenty yards from the well to the north west and the same is the distance of the cattle trough from the well towards south east. In the cross examination of the witnesses there is nothing to indicate that there was any other well closer to the houses of Shesh Nath and Paras Nath. The prosecution witness Balram P.W. 4 gave out that he had been sitting alongwith Shesh Nath Singh P.W. 3 and Paras Nath Singh P.W. 5 on the platform of the well. We have pointed above that Balram Singh belongs to the family of the deceased and the appellant admittedly. The counsel for the State argued that it was very natural for the above witnesses to have been either on the platform of the well or near by about 6.00 a.m. as that was the time for brushing the teeth or for washing particularly when their houses were nearby and the habit of most of the people of the village is to do the washing at the well for it is convenient also. The argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant about the above witnesses having merely their cattle room nearby the well and not their houses will not make any difference for that is the time when the cattle are provided fodder and those who possess cattle are very likely to be near them about that time. The argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant about the above witnesses having merely their cattle room nearby the well and not their houses will not make any difference for that is the time when the cattle are provided fodder and those who possess cattle are very likely to be near them about that time. This was also the reason for Smt. Kauleshwari to be there for her servant Bihari due to illness had not come and she had gone to get the work of feeding the cattle done by Virendra. There is no reason to doubt that Behari who admittedly was the servant of Smt. Kauleshwari Devi was ill. We are of the view that it would not be justified to presume that the prosecution witnesses fall within the category of "chance witnesses". 17. Balram Singh P.W. 4 gave out that he along with Shesh Nath Singh and Paras Nath Singh and Gopal Singh had been sitting on the well at the time when the appellant Ramji giving threat to Virendra pierced the 'Karauli' in his stomach. In his cross-examination, he gave out that he was the first to arrive at the well and the others came later. Virendra was pointed to have come two minutes after and the others five to six minutes after. Shesh Nath P.W. 3 stated that Balram and Paras were already at the well when he reached there after serving the call of nature., Paras Nath P.W. 5 stated that it was he who first arrived at the well and the others reached after him. He pointed to have seen Virendra ten to fifteen minutes after his arrival where as, Gopal, Balram and Sheshnath were pointed by him to have come seven to eight minutes after. In between Balram and Sheshnath he pointed that Sheshnath reached later. The statement of Paras Nath with regard to the sequence of his arrival at the well is not in conformity with the statement of the other witnesses but it is not such a circumstances on which his testimony can be discarded when there is hardly any -difference with regard to the time of arrival and the sequences in which they arrived was hardly of any importance for the witnesses to remember. The statements of all the three prosecution witnesses Shesh Nath P.W. 3, Balram Singh P.W. 4 and Paras Nath P.W. 5 hang together on material particulars quite well and we are inclined to conclude that they had witnessed the stabbing of Virendra by the appellant. So far as Smt. Kauleshwari Devi is concerned, she also could not be presumed to have not seen the incident on the basis of this circumstance that she had not pointedly alleged that what had been mentioned by her in the first information report had been seen by her. Smt. Kauleshwari Devi had vouched with regard to every fact mentioned in the first information report. There is nothing to doubt that she could not have seen them herself. The Investigating Officer has in the site plan shown the distance of varandah where from she saw the incident. The Investigating Officer we have pointed above in his cross-examination gave out that he had indicated the distance of the varandah as it was pertinent to form an opinion whether Smt. Kauleshwari Devi was in a position or not to see the incident and there could be no other reason for him to note the distance. The statement of Raj Kishore Rai I.O. P.W. 9 appears to be convicting and if Smt. Kauleshwari Devi a village woman did not in so many words get it scribed in the first information report that what was written in the first information report had been seen by her, it would not be justified to reject her testimony as hearsay. Smt. Kauleshwari Devi was likely to have gone to her 'Baithak' where she had kept her cattle for there would have been the natural desire in her to help her minor grandson Virendra when her servant had fallen ill and also for the reasons that he had to be brought from the house of Balram where he had gone to sleep for fear of the appellant. Daya Shanker Singh S.I. P.W. 8 deposed that he had seen husk around the hand of the deceased. There is nothing surprising about it as argued by the counsel for the appellant. In fact it was a very natural piece of evidence and lends support to the statements of the eye witnesses that Virendra had been stabbed while doing 'Sani' for his bullock. 18. It next is to be seen that Dr. There is nothing surprising about it as argued by the counsel for the appellant. In fact it was a very natural piece of evidence and lends support to the statements of the eye witnesses that Virendra had been stabbed while doing 'Sani' for his bullock. 18. It next is to be seen that Dr. Sheo Prasad Ji Sinha P.W. 1 gave out that while conducting the post mortem examinations, he had found one litre of clotted blood inside his abdomen. It is recorded in the inquest report that cloth was tied around the injury of Virendra. There is thus, nothing unnatural about the Investigating Officer having not found blood at the scene of the incident. The counsel for the appellant in the trial court had not cross-examined the Medical Officer on the point that the injury inflicted on Virendra could not have been caused by 'Karauli' as its width was one inch on the outer surface and half an inch on the intestine inside the abdomen. He gave a clear statement that the injury could have been inflicted on Virendra at 6.00 a.m. as pointed by the eye witnesses of the occurrence. There is in our opinion no conflict at all between the medical and oral evidence. 19. Coming now to the question whether the investigation was tainted or not, the counsel for the appellant was most critical of the fact that the I.O. had not sent copy of the F.I.R. and the G.D. to the Medical Officer who had conducted the post-mortem examinations and had changed the number of the crime in question in the check report, G.D. and the inquest report. We however do not see any ulterior motive in it because it is mentioned in the inquest report sent to the Medical Officer that the injury which had caused the death of Virendra had been inflicted by the appellant Ramji. The correction, of the number of the crime in both the check report and inquest report also appears to have been made only due to inadvertence in not taking note of the earlier report. The more fact that the father of the deceased was a constable in Deoria could not justify the inference that the investigation must have been tainted even when the facts were so clear and nothing needed to be discovered. 20. The more fact that the father of the deceased was a constable in Deoria could not justify the inference that the investigation must have been tainted even when the facts were so clear and nothing needed to be discovered. 20. The finding of the Sessions Judge, Ballia about the appellant having inflicted the injury which resulted in the death of the Virendra does not call for any inference. It now is to be seen as to what offence had been committed by the appellant. There is evidence to this effect that the appellant had threatened Virendra deceased and his mother that he would extinguish the light (Chirag gul kar dunga). Virendra was a minor. The appellant had given a hard Karauli blow in his abdomen which had cut his large intestines. There is no reason to presume that it was accidentally caused in the abdomen. It was sufficient to cause his death which was intended too as follows from the evidence on record. It will not make a difference that merely a single wound had been caused. 21. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant Ram Ji Singh Under section 302 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him are maintained. He is on bail. He should surrender to his bail bonds without delay to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia will ensure compliance of this order and report within six weeks.