G. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THESE connected appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 1978 passed by Sri D. L. Soni, III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1978 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. read with section 34, I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to life imprisonment. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1690 of 1978 has been filed by Dhan Pal through his counsel Sri D. P. Mittal and argued by Sri S. K. Agarwal. ( 3 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 2198 of 1978 has been filed by Suraj Pal and Ramesh alias Kalu from jail. Sri Raghuraj Kishore Advocate has argued the appeal on being appointed by the Court as counsel for them at the State expenses. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief has been that P. W. 1 Ram Nagina, P. W. 2 Dma Nath, P. W. 3 Nirmal and others at about 4. 30 P. M. on 1st October, 1977 while going to supervise the working of labourers on the road leading to Bhim-Ka-Dera situate between Neel Dhara and Daksh Ganga within the limits of out-post Kankhal, Police Station Hardwar, rushed towards the southern direction of hearing the cries for help and after crossing the iraha saw one person holding the hands of the victim and two other persons were inflicting knive blows on him. It is alleged that after a little chase one of the said assailants was caught at the spot, while the remaining two assailants who were inflicting the knive blows, fled away by jumping in Neel Dhara. According to the prosecution, the assailant caught at the spot, told him name and the names of the other two assailants as well as the name of the victim who died at the spot. Ram Nagina and other witnesses, according to the prosecution case, knew from before by faces, the two assailants who had fled away and came to know of their names from accused Dhanpal, who was caught hold at the spot. Ram Nagina and other witnesses, according to the prosecution case, knew from before by faces, the two assailants who had fled away and came to know of their names from accused Dhanpal, who was caught hold at the spot. It is alleged that accused Dhanpal told at the spot that the victim Narendra was a resident of his village Dadri situate within the circle of Police Station Daurala, District Meerut and he (Dhanpal) had to leave the village because of his (Narendra victim) illicit relationship with his (Dhanpals) wife Basanti but Narendra persisted in visiting his wife at Hardwar also and therefore, he (Dhanpal) murder him with the help of Suraj and Ramesh alias Kalu. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 Ram Nagina resident of district Ghazipur was employed as a Munshi with Kishan Lal Thekedar. After leaving Dhanpal appellant in the custody of P. W. 2. Dma Nath and others at the spot, he came to police station Hardwar where P. W. 6 Head Constable Darbari Lal prepared the First Information Report on his dictation at 5. 30 P. M. on 1st October, 1977 and made an entry of its substance in the general diary. P. W. 8 S. I. Ranvir Singh in whose presence the First Information Report was lodged and to whom the investigation of the case was entrusted, came at the spot and took appellant Dhanpal into custody from the custody of witnesses Dma Nath etc. He got prepared the inquest report of the body of Narendra from S. I. Phool Singh and sent the dead body under sealed cover and the papers through constable Jaipal Singh and Suresh for post mortem examination. He took in possession that Shirt, Dhoti and pair of the shoes of the deceased and also the blood stained earth and ordinary earth and kept them under sealed bundles. Appellant Dhanpal was then sent after interrogation by the Investigating Officer to the police station through constables. During investigation. Ranvir Singh, Investigating Officer took in possession the horse and taunga of Dhanpal from near the Jhopari of Sewati and sent it to the out-post on 2nd October, 1977. The Investigation Officer prepared the site plan. He obtained the process under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Suran Pal and Ramesh alias Kalu on 19th December, 1977. The Investigation Officer prepared the site plan. He obtained the process under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Suran Pal and Ramesh alias Kalu on 19th December, 1977. Suraj Pal surrendered at the police station on 26th October, 1977 while Ramesh alias Kalu did not surrender inspite of attachment of his goods made on 30th October, 1977. On 28th October, 1977 charge sheet was submitted and Ramesh alias Kalu was shown as absconder. He thereafter surrendered in Court on 2nd December, 1977. ( 6 ) THE prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses and tendered in evidence of affidavits of certain constables, the report of the post mortem examination and the report of the Chemical Examiner. Amongst the witnesses examined, P. W. Ram Nagina, P. W. 2 Dma Nath and P. W. 3 Nirmal have deposed about the actual incident in question and the extra judicial confession made by accused Dhan pal, P. W. 4 Sita Ram stated that Dhan Pal has taken his house on rent on 22nd September 1977 and Narendra had been visiting thcm. P. W. 5 Rakam Singh, the real nephew of victim Narendra deceased, has deposed that Narendra had illicit relations with Basanti who had started living with Dhanpal as his wife after becoming widow. P. W. 7 Ganga Prasad an employee of Northern Division Ganga Canal, Hardwar, stated that Suraj Pal and Ramesh alias Kalu were employed as casual worker in Northern Division Ganga Canal Inspection House did not report for duty on 1st October, 1977 and also remained absent thereafter. P. W. 6 Darbari Lal and P. W. 8 Ranvir Singh happened to be the Head Constable and the Investigating Officer respectively. ( 7 ) THE genuineness of the post mortem report was admitted by the learned defence Counsel. The post mortem examination of the body of Narendra was made out at 4. 00 P. M. on 2nd October, 1977. According to the doctor, the deceased was about 40 years of age and the probable time since death was about one day and had an average healthy body built. ( 8 ) HE found the following ante mortem injuries:1. Punctured wound 3/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. x on right side face 1 cm. from angle of right eye. 2. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1/4 cm. on left side face 2. 5 cm. below, left eye transverse. 3. ( 8 ) HE found the following ante mortem injuries:1. Punctured wound 3/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. x on right side face 1 cm. from angle of right eye. 2. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1/4 cm. on left side face 2. 5 cm. below, left eye transverse. 3. Incised wound 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. on left side face 3 cm. from angle of left eye. 4. Incised wound 3 cm. x 3/4 x 1. 4 cm. on back of right upper arm in middle, 14 cm, from right shoulder. 5. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 1. 5 on inner side of right upper arm 4 cm. below from right axilla. 6. Punctured wound 2. 5 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on right anterior axillary line, 4 cm. from right axilla and 9 cm. from right nipple wound passing through 3rd right rib causing its fracture and passing through tissue of right lower lobe of right lung, making punctured red wound 1. 25 cm. x 1. 2 cm. 4 cm. Direction from right to left and above downwards. 7. Punctured wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x abd. cavity deep on right side abdomen at 8 0s clock position umblicus 4 cm. from umblicus, about 4. 5 cm. omentum coming out from wound. 8. Punctured wound 2. 5 cm. x I cm. x 7. 5 cm. on outside of left thigh upper part 9. Punctured wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x abd. cavity deep (12 cm.) on left side back 13 cm. above injury No. 8 and passing through left kidney making incised wound 2. 5cm. x 3/ 4 cm. x 3/4 cm. small intestine, making punctured wound, wound of entry 1. 5 cm. x 3. 4 cm. , wound of exist 1 cm. x 112 cm. Direction is posterior anterior and below left wards. 10. Incised wound 3 cm. x 3/4 cm. x 2 cm. on back of left shoulder oblique. 11. Incised wound 3 cm. x 3/4 cm. x 3 cm. on back of left shoulder i. e. below injury No: 10 and 5 cm. from middle, transverse. 12. Incised wound 1. 5 cm. x 112 cm. x 1 cm. on back in middle II cm. from 7th carvical vertabrae oblique. 13. Incised wound 2 cm. x 3/4 cm. x 1 cm. on back right shoulder 10 cm. x 3 cm. on back of left shoulder i. e. below injury No: 10 and 5 cm. from middle, transverse. 12. Incised wound 1. 5 cm. x 112 cm. x 1 cm. on back in middle II cm. from 7th carvical vertabrae oblique. 13. Incised wound 2 cm. x 3/4 cm. x 1 cm. on back right shoulder 10 cm. below right shoulder oblique. 14. Incised wound 1. 5 cm. x 112 cm. 3/4 cm. x 1/9 cm. from injury No. 13 towards right side oblique. 15. Incised wound 1. 25 cm. x 1/4 cm. x 1 cm. on middle, 13 cm, below injury No. 12, oblique. 16. Incised wound 2 cm. x 112 cm. on back of left shoulder, 3. 5 cm. from injury No. 15, oblique. ( 9 ) ON internal examination he found the right lung, intestine and left kidney damaged as described in injury No. 6alld 9 respectively. ( 10 ) THE cause of death, according to him, was due to shock and haemorrhage due to above multiple injury on vital organ specially right lung, left kidney, stomach and small intestine. ( 11 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. ( 12 ) THE learned trial Court found the case proved against the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. ( 13 ) FEELING dissatisfied the accused persons have preferred this appeal. They are being disposed of together because they arise out of the same judgment and order. ( 14 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. ( 15 ) APPELLANT Dhan Pal and deceased Narendra happened to be the residents of village Dadri within the circle of Police Station Daurala, district Meerut. They were not known to the prosecution witnesses from before. ( 16 ) THERE is the unchallenged and uncrossexamined testimony of P. W. s Rakam Singh, the nephew of Narendra, that Narendra had illicit relationship with Basanti who had started living with Dhanpal appellant as his wife after the death of her husband. It had also come in the statement of Rakam Singh that Dhan Pal came to Hardwar with Basanti but Narendra continued to visit Basanti at Hardwar. It had also come in the statement of Rakam Singh that Dhan Pal came to Hardwar with Basanti but Narendra continued to visit Basanti at Hardwar. ( 17 ) A reference to these facts in the First Information Report is a clinching circumstance to show that Dhanpal was infact caught at the spot and told these facts to the prosecution witnesses as stated by them. The Statement of Dhan Pal recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that Narendra had/no intimacy with his wife is against the uncrossexamined statement of Rakam Singh. It is also against the testimony on oath of P. W. 1 Ram Nagina, P. W. 2 Dma Nath and P. W. 3 Nirmal to the effect that Dhanpal on being apprehended on the spot disclosed his name and the names of his accomplices as well as the name of the victim and also the reason for the murder of Narendra. Besides, there is the statement of Ran Vir Singh S. I. the Investigating Officer to the effect that on reaching the spot, he took Dhanpal in the custody of the police from the custody of Dma Nath etc. No question in the cross-examination was put to him on this part of his statement that Dhanpal was taken in the police custody from the custody of Dma Nath etc. It was not suggested in the crossexamination to P. W. 8 Ranvir Singh that Dhan Pal was arrested by the police else where subsequently. Dhanpal in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. has simply stated that he was arrested at 7. 00 P. M. while he was taking his Taunga from Hardwar. It is a vague statement. He has nowhere mentioned as to when and by whom his arrest was made. It is in evidence that his Taunga was found near the hut of Sewati labourer at Dhobi Ghat and was sent to police out-post after taking it in police custody. ( 18 ) ON the strength of the statement of P. W. 1 Ram Nagina to the effect that he got the copy of the First Information Report after making signatures on the report at the police station at 11. 00 P. M. learned counsel for the appellants argued that the report could not have been lodged at 5. 30 P. M. and has been ante timed. 00 P. M. learned counsel for the appellants argued that the report could not have been lodged at 5. 30 P. M. and has been ante timed. P. W. 1 Ram Nagina has consistently stated that from the spot he went to Kishan Lal Thekedar with whom he was working as Munshi, on cycle and from there he went to the police station and lodged the report and then came to the spot with police after picking up Kishan Lal Thekedar. The Investigating Officer Sri Ranvir Singh S. I. P. W. 8 stated that he reached the spot at 6. 15 P. M. The statement of Ram Nagina referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants, related to the point of time of taking the copy of the report and it might be that the copy was given at that time by the police to Ram Nagina. The aforesaid argument is without any merit and is over-ruled. ( 19 ) IT is next argued that there is nothing on record to show that the clothes of Dhanpal were stained with blood. The learned counsel submitted that in all probabilities the clothes of Dhanpal would have been stained with blood in the circumstances of the case. . The clothes of Dhanpal had not been taken by the Investigating Officer. It is, therefore, not clear whether the clothes of Dhan Pal had any blood stains or not. However, the perusal of the injuries of the deceased shows that the blood mainly went into the cavity. This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is of no avail at all and there is no weight in view of the circumstances of the case and the evidence discussed above. ( 20 ) ON behalf of Suraj Pal and Ramesh alias Kalu appeallants, it is argued that they were not put up for test identification. It is in evidence that the prosecution witnesses knew these persons by faces from before but did not know their names and that the names have been disclosed by Dhan Pal who was arrested at the spot by the prosecution witnesses and their names were therefore, mentioned in the First Information Report. They did not claim any test identification and it had not been challenged from their side that the prosecution witnesses knew them by faces from before. They did not claim any test identification and it had not been challenged from their side that the prosecution witnesses knew them by faces from before. This argument of the learned counsel, for these appellants has no basis. Suraj Pal and Ramesh alias Kalu remained absent from duty on that date and onwards and even absconded as has come in the narration of the prosecution case. Suraj Pal has nowhere stated that he had enmity with Kishan Lal Thekedar on account of beating of his mother. It is appellant Ramesh alias Kalu who has stated about it in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. These appellants have not substantiated the alleged enmity with Kishan Lal by any evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses namely P. W. 1 Ram Nagina, P. W. 2 Dma Nath and P. W. 3 Nirmal against them. ( 21 ) THE appeals have no force and are liable to be dismissed. ( 22 ) BOTH the appeals are dismissed. The appellants Suraj Pal and Ramesh alias Kalu of appeal No. 2198 of 1978 and appellant Dhan Pal of appeal No. 1690 of 1978 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they may be taken into custody fortwith to serve out their sentences. Appeals dismissed. .