JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 34/91, dated 3-2-1994 convicting the appellant under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, giving him benefit of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other accused T. Sering Paldan alias Dorje has been acquitted. There is no State appeal against his acquittal. The prosecution case is as under: 2. On August 29, 1991 at about 9 p. m., three persons, namely, Pema alias Chhering, T. Sering Paldan alias Dorje and Chhering Sandup were present at Chontra. They were engaged in a quarrel with Rattan Chand (PW 3), driver of taxi No. HP-01-0154, owned by Shri Anil Kumar (PW 2) Accused Pema alias Chhering (hereafter the appellant) was asking Rattan Chand (PW 3) to take them to Beed Colony but Rattan Chand was refusing to do so. In the process, the appellant opened the door of the taxi and closed it with force as a result of which its glass was broken. There started a dispute amongst themselves over the price of the broken glass and it was settled at Rs. 175 which was paid to Anil Kumar (PW 2) by the appellant. Hearing the noise, the deceased came out of his house located nearby and asked accused as well as Anil Kumar and Rattan Chand the reason for the quarrel. Upon this, the appellant took out a knife and gave a blow on the left thigh of the deceased. The deceased cried for help. In injured state, he went towards the shop of Charan Singh (PW 5), situated nearby. In the meanwhile, a van, No. HP-02-0743 came there from Baijnath side and the appellant signalled it to stop in order to leave the spot. It is also stated that accused T. Sering Paldan snatched the knife from the appellant and both of them ran away. The injury was profusely bleeding and the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital Jogindernagar in the taxi of Anil Kumar (PW 2) where he succumbed to injuries. The incident was reported by Surjit Ram, father of the deceased, who had also reached the spot. The injury was profusely bleeding and the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital Jogindernagar in the taxi of Anil Kumar (PW 2) where he succumbed to injuries. The incident was reported by Surjit Ram, father of the deceased, who had also reached the spot. He made a statement under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police (Ex. PA) when the police was on its way to the hospital at Jogindernagar. Accordingly, First Information Report (Ex. PM) was registered. 3. The police was informed about the death of the deceased by Dr. Kaul through telephone which was recorded in the Daily Diary (Ex. PN). Inquest report (Ex. PB) was prepared in the hospital where post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Jayotinder Kumar (PW 6). According to the medical report, the cause of death of the deceased has been stated haemorrhage of femoral vessels leading to shock which resulted in cardiovascular collapse of the victim. 4. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan (Ex. PO). Another plan (Ex PL) is of the place of incident, prepared through Junior Engineer, HP PWD, Chontra, Shri Bhuri Singh (PW 8). Both the accused were taken into custody in the morning of August 30, 1991 from the Tibetan Colony. Personal search of the appellant resulted in the recovery of belt (Ex. P-2) with a cover of knife sticking to his pant which was taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PF. Blood stained earth was taken into possession from the spot and sealed in a plastic container (Ex. P-3) with seal M in the presence of Rawal Rathor and Charan Singh (PW 5). Sample earth from the spot was also taken and sealed in a match-box (Ex. P-4) with seal M in the presence of the same witnesses on August 30, 1991 vide memo. (Ex. PG). 5. Interrogation of accused T. Sering Paldan alias Dorje on August 31, 1991 led to the disclosure statement (Ex. PK) in the presence of Ram Singh (PW 7) and one Raghuvinder that the knife which he had snatched from the appellant had been concealed by him in his bed at his house which he could get recovered. Accordingly, police party was led to the place and in the presence of Nek Ram and Gopal Das (PW 4) he got recovered knife (Ex. P-l) from underneath his bed in Tibetan Colony near Chontra. Accordingly, police party was led to the place and in the presence of Nek Ram and Gopal Das (PW 4) he got recovered knife (Ex. P-l) from underneath his bed in Tibetan Colony near Chontra. It was taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PE and sealed with seal M. Its sketch (Ex. PD) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Parcels containing the blood stained earth, sample earth and the knife were deposited with MHC, Police Station, Jogindernagar, and then sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla. Report (Ex. PQ) reveals that the blood stained earth and the knife contained human blood of group A. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased with common intention. Accused Chhering Sandup was discharged on July 29, 1992 for lack of evidence and charge was framed against the remaining accused to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined certain witnesses to substantiate its case. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that the case against him was false and planted since he is a foreigner and was not even on talking terms with the witnesses who have appeared for the prosecution. The other accused has said that he being a foreigner had no acquaintance at the place of occurrence and he did not commit the offence. They examined Nema (DW 1) and Ratol (DW 2) in defence. 6. The question before the trial Court was whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally caused the death of the deceased and committed offence of culpable homicide and whether accused T. Sering Paldan alias Dorje had committed the offence of causing disappearance of the knife in order to screen the appellant from legal punishment for having committed the murder of the deceased. The trial ended in the impugned judgment which has been assailed by the appellant through the present appeal. 7. Ms. Shubh Mahajan contended that the appellants participation in the commission of crime has not been established. His name does not figure in the statement of Surjit Ram (PW I) recorded by the police under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex. PA) whereupon the First Information Report was registered. 7. Ms. Shubh Mahajan contended that the appellants participation in the commission of crime has not been established. His name does not figure in the statement of Surjit Ram (PW I) recorded by the police under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex. PA) whereupon the First Information Report was registered. Reliance was placed on AIR 1974 SC 1978, Jagdip Singh and another v. State of Haryana and AIR 1981 SC 373, Juwarsingh and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. If the evidence is examined, it is clear from the statement of Surjit Ram (PW 1) that he had given the name of the appellant to the police but the police omitted to record it. This witness had come to the spot from his house immediately after the occurrence and found the deceased in a pool of blood in front of the shop of Charan Singh wherefrom he was taken to civil hospital, Jogindernagar, by the taxi of Anil Kumar but the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Surjit Ram (PW 1) was given the name of the appellant by Gopal Dass, who was Chowkidar of the area and had a stove and unbrella repair Khokha at that place. 8. Gopal Dass (PW 4) states that the vehicle of Anil Kumar was parked near his Khokha and lights in it were on. He heard a call from the side of the vehicle and when he came out of the Khokha, he saw the deceased lying near the Khokha of Charan Singh with injured leg. He went near the deceased who told him that the appellant had stabbed him with a knife. He called the father of the deceased to the spot and thereafter the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar, in the taxi of Anil Kumar. 9. Rattan Chand (PW 3) is the driver of the taxi owned by Shri Anil Kumar. He has stated that the appellant and T. Sering Peldan were quarrelling with him over taking them to Beed Colony In the process, the door glass of the taxi was broken. Anil Kumar (PW 2) came to the spot. Amount of damages were settled at Rs. 175 which was paid by the appellant to Anil Kumar. Another taxi from Chandigarh side came there and both the accused started talking in Tibetan language. Anil Kumar (PW 2) came to the spot. Amount of damages were settled at Rs. 175 which was paid by the appellant to Anil Kumar. Another taxi from Chandigarh side came there and both the accused started talking in Tibetan language. In the mean-while, deceased came there, opened the back door of the taxi and asked as to what was happening. At that time, the appellant gave knife blow on the. left thigh of the deceased in his presence 10. Anil Kumar (PW 3) has also supported the prosecution case. 11. The question of identification of the appellant and infliction of the injury by the appellant with knife at his thigh stands settled. The non-mention of the name of the appellant in the First Information Report is, therefore, on account of the ommission of the Investigation Officer to make mention of it in Ex PA, statement of Surjit Ram (PW 1) on which the First Information Report is based. Since the identity of the accused-appellant stands established, no inference of suspicion and paddjng can be drawn from the non-mention of the name of the appellant in the First Information Report. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, Ms Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, aptly relies on para 7 of the apex Court decision in AIR 1983 SC 554, Darshan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, which states that : "7. The First Information Report lodged by Mohinder Singh (PW 15) mentions the names of accused Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 only. The fact that the names of the other accused are not mentioned in the F. I. R. was atleast a circumstance which the prosecution had to explain, though no rule of law stipulates that an accused whose name is not mentioned in a F. I R, is entitled to an acquittal. But instead of considering the circumstances in which, and the reasons for which, Mohinder Singh did not mention the names of the other accused in the F. I. R, the High Court took the view that the omission in the F. I. R. was a matter of little consequence since it was made good by the fact that Sohan Singh had mentioned the names of all the accused in his dying declaration............" 13. It was then contended that the statements of eye-witnesses, namely, Anil Kumar, Rattan Chand and Gopal Dass were recorded by the Investigating Officer after 3/4 days which goes to show that the evidence was created to involve the accused in this case. These witnesses were easily available, therefore, their statements should have been recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the happening of the incident or atleast in the hospital where they were available. Therefore, serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case is established. Reliance was placed on decisions like AIR 1971 SC 804, Balakrushna Swain v. The State of Orissa and AIR 1979 SC 135, Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra. 14. Ms. Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, explained this aspect of the matter by stating that the Investigating Officer was busy in arresting the accused. As soon as the accused were arrested, statements of the witnesses were recorded. According to the learned Counsel, these statements were recorded on August 30, 1991 in the morning hours and not on August 31, 1991, as stated by some of the witnesses. The primary task of the Investigating Officer was to arrest the accused and for doing so, the Tibetan Colony was cordoned during the night intervening 29/30 August, 1991 from 1 a. m. to 4 p. m. where after the accused could be apprehended. The version of the prosecution witnesses that the statements were recorded 3/4 days after the incident was per se wrong since the record discloses that the same was actually done on August 30, 1991. Witnesses may have genuinely forgotton the exact date on account of the long lapse of time between recording of their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the court. I am of the opinion that in the circumstances explained by the learned Counsel for the State, it cannot be said that the recording of the statements of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer immediately after the occurrence was delayed intentionally to concoct a false case against the appellant The decisions on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant turn upon their own facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 15. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 15. It was also contended that there was no motive for the accused to stab the deceased and that the recovery of knife has not been proved nor blood group found on it connected with the deceased. There is direct evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Evidence also points out that the stab blow was given with the knife recovered from the appellant. The prosecution need not prove the motive for commission of crime in every case. It is not necessary in a case where direct evidence of cogent and convincing nature connects the accused with the crime. The recovery of the weapon of offence has been proved satisfactorily. It contained human blood. It may be that the blood group on it was not connected with the deceased but that does not cause serious dent to the prosecution case in view of the other satisfactory evidence available on record. 16. The doctor noticed the following nature of injury on the left thigh of the deceased: "........... clean incised wound over the left thigh 1.5 x.5 inches x 4" deep on the outer aspect............" According to the doctor, the injury could be caused with knife (Ex. P-l) that was actually recovered from the accused-appellant and not from accused T. Sering Paldan against whom the case has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. According to Ms. Shubh Mahajan, the injury could not be caused when the deceased was on the back portion of the vehicle and the appellant sitting on the front seat of the taxi. The prosecution witnesses have slated that light in the vehicle was on The appellant was sitting in the vehicle and the deceased had opened the back door while inquiring about the happening. As said by the trial Court, the appellant may have inflicted the injury while the deceased may have placed his left leg in the vehicle. Moreover, there being clear evidence pointing out the inflation of the injury by the appellant, the circumstances how it was actually caused lose much of relevance. 17. Certain discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant but they are of insignificant nature. They do not dislodge the prosecution case at all. 18. 17. Certain discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant but they are of insignificant nature. They do not dislodge the prosecution case at all. 18. The trial Court has given satisfactory reasons for recording the conviction of the appellant after discussing the relevant evidence of the parties in the case. The same was scrutinised again. There appears to be no reason to come to any other conclusion different from that of the trial Court. The findings as to the commission of crime recorded by the trial Court against the appellant are, therefore, confirmed. 19. Now, the question arises whether the punishment inflicted by the trial Court is justifiable. Ms. Shubh Mahajan strenuously contended that compassion be shown to the appellant who is of young age with m> previous conviction. He is a Tibetan The punishment awarded by the trial Court is harsh and the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant should be suffice. Ms. Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the appellant behaved in a strange fashion, inflicted knife blow on the thigh of the deceased without any provocation from the side of the deceased who was simply inquiring about the incident and lost his life at a very young age. The appellant also ran away and concealed himself and was arrested after efforts by the police. Therefore, this part of the judgment of the trial Court also deserves to be maintained. 20. After giving serious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the interest of justice would not suffer in case the punishment is reduced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment instead of 5 years awarded by the trial Court and fine of Rs. J,000. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. Except as to sentence, the conviction of the appellant is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.