Mr. P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 29/05/1990, of an Additional Sessions Judge, by which he has convicted theappellant for the offence puunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Codeand has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and topay a fine of RS. 100. 00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for onemonth more. ( 2 ). Facts of the case, in brief, are that one Kundan Lal with his wife Laxmi (deceased) and children was residing in house No. 1/28a, Seema Nagari and theappellant, who is a junk dealer, had taken a shop on rent from Kundan Lal in thatarea. Appellant was on visiting terms at the house of Kundan Lal and he was alsovisiting the said house in absence of Kundan Lal. It is the case of the prosecution thaton 28/03/1986, at about I P. M. the appellant had brought Laxmi (since deceased)to a room in house No. E-51, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara. One Vijay is stated to bea tenant in one of the rooms in that house. Vijay was known to the appellant and theappellant had come to that room with the said lady on that date at that time. Dhianpal Singh, son of the landlord, was residing in the adjacent room in that housewith his father and one of his cousins, namely, Mahavir Singh was at that timeresiding in one of the rooms on the ground floor. Another tenant, who is a residentof that house, is Gangeshwari Prasad. Dhianpal Singh was present in his room atthe time the appellant had brought that lady to the said room tenanted by Vijaykumar at I P. M. ( 3 ). It has come out in the testimony of Dhianpal Singh that appellant has beenvisiting that room of Vijay Kumar earlier also. At about 1. 30 P. M. or so, Dhianpalsingh had heard the shrieks of the lady coming from the said tenanted room of Vijaykumar and he rushed to the said room which he found bolted from inside. Hepushed open the window of the said room and witnessed the appellant stabbinglaxmi on different parts of her body at random. At about 1. 30 P. M. or so, Dhianpalsingh had heard the shrieks of the lady coming from the said tenanted room of Vijaykumar and he rushed to the said room which he found bolted from inside. Hepushed open the window of the said room and witnessed the appellant stabbinglaxmi on different parts of her body at random. The appellant was heard by him andpw2 to have uttered the words that Laxmi had betrayed him in his love and hewould teach her the lesson of her life and saying that he had also stabbed himself inhis abdomen with the same knife. Dhianpal Singh PW1 had called PW2 Mahavirsingh and PW3 Gangeshwari Nath to the spot. PW2 had also witnessed from thesaid window of the room of Vijay Kumar that appellant had stabbed himself in theabdomen with the knife and had fallen down. They bolted the room from outsideand Gangeshwari Nath went away to call the police. ( 4 ). A telephone message was given to the police by Gangeshwari Nath whichwas recorded at 2. 15 P. M. in Daily Diary No. 8a of the Police Station Shahdara, copyof which is Ex. PW10a. Shri Balister Singh ASI accompanied by Constable Surinderpal reached the place of occurrence and statement of PW1 Dhianpal Singh wasrecorded, which is Ex. PWI/a on the basis of which the case was registered undersection 302 of the Indian Penal Code as per F. I. R. No-155/86 at Police Stationshahdara on the same day. The Investigating Officer had taken into possessionvarious articles i. e. one lady wrist watch, chain of steel broken into two pieces, bloodstained locket, one steel ring, some pieces of red broken bangles, one pair of ladysandals, blood stained pair of gents chhapals, blood stained angochha and one bloodstained towel lying near the dead body of Laxmi and had converted the same intosealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo prepared at the spot. The weapon of offence a knife (chhuri) lying at the spot, which also bore blood stains,was also got sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo. A sketch wasalso prepared and blood was also lifted from the spot and converted into sealedparcel. He prepared the inquest papers and had sent the dead body for postmortem. ( 5 ). The appellant. The weapon of offence a knife (chhuri) lying at the spot, which also bore blood stains,was also got sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo. A sketch wasalso prepared and blood was also lifted from the spot and converted into sealedparcel. He prepared the inquest papers and had sent the dead body for postmortem. ( 5 ). The appellant. Who was found lying injured at the spot, was also sent to thehospital and in the medico legal report prepared by the doctor with regard to theinjuries of the appellant Ex. PW18/a it was recorded therein that the appellant hadbeen brought with alleged history of being stabbed in abdomen by himself. Theappellant had the wound in his abdomen with his omentum bulging out of the saidwound. ( 6 ). The post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was performed bydr. L. T. Ramani PW6 who prepared the post-mortem report Ex. PW6/a and he hadfound nine incised wounds on the various parts of the body of the deceased andopined that injuries were ante-mortem caused by a sharp edged weapon and werepossible with the chhuri in question which was also produced before him and hefound that injuries Nos. 3 and 4, which were on the chest of the deceased, weresufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and death was due tohaemorrhage and shock resulting from the injuries. ( 7 ). The learned Additional Sessions Judge has brought home the offence to theappellant beyond any reasonable doubt in coming to the conclusion that the eyewitness account of PW1 and PW2 particularly is trustworthy and does not sufferfrom any blemishes. He, keeping in view the material produced before him, held theappellant to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penalcode. ( 8 ). The appellant could not engage any counsel to contest this appeal on hisbehalf. On his request we had appointed Shri V. Shekhar, Advocate, as Amicuscuriae to represent him in this appeal at State expense. Shri Shekhar has done acommendable job in arguing this appeal. ( 8 ). The appellant could not engage any counsel to contest this appeal on hisbehalf. On his request we had appointed Shri V. Shekhar, Advocate, as Amicuscuriae to represent him in this appeal at State expense. Shri Shekhar has done acommendable job in arguing this appeal. He has gone through the whole recordbefore us and has urged that the appellant could not have any motive to do awaywith his beloved and in all probabilities it could be the lady s husband who musthave perpetrated this ghastly crime and also tried to kill the appellant and hadescaped from the scene of occurrence without being noticed byanyone and theappellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has referred to the statementsof PW1 and PW2 particularly and has urged that they might not have noticed the presence of the third person at the scene of occurrence inasmuch as both of them arestated to have seen the room through the window from which the inner side of theroom was only partially visible. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, hassupported the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge and has argued thatwitnesses in the present case are totally independent and have no axe of their ownto grind in falsely implicating the appellant and allowing the real culprit to escape. ( 9 ). We have gone through the statement of PW1 and find that his presence at thetime of the occurrence in the house was most probable. He is a young student andwas son of the landlord and was present in the adjacent room on the first floor of thehouse when he heard the shrieks of the lady. He came to the room of Vijay Kumarand found the door bolted from inside and had pushed open the window of thatroom and had himself seen the appellant stabbing the said lady Laxmi with a kniferepeatedly. He has also heard the appellant uttering the words that he would teachthe lady a lesson of her life as she had betrayed him in love. Soon after he had calledpw2 and he came back with PW2 whose presence also at the time of the occurrencein the said house is natural because he was residing in a room on the ground floor. Both PW1 and PW2 Mahavir Singh had seen the appellant stabbing himself in theabdomen while uttering the said crucial words. Soon after he had calledpw2 and he came back with PW2 whose presence also at the time of the occurrencein the said house is natural because he was residing in a room on the ground floor. Both PW1 and PW2 Mahavir Singh had seen the appellant stabbing himself in theabdomen while uttering the said crucial words. PW3 had also been called there, whois another tenant residing in one of the rooms in that house. It is true that PW3 hasnot given the version which he gave to the police in the police statement but hecorroborates the prosecution version to this extent that he had gone to call the policeand when the police came the dead body of Laxmi was found in the room and theappellant was also found lying injured and unconscious in that room. In cross-examination of these witnesses, the only thing which was highlighted was thatperhaps they had not seen the whole of the occurrence and a portion of the room wasnot visible from the said window and possibly they have been made to implicate theappellant in this crime at the instance of the police while the real culprit must havebeen somebody else. ( 10 ). PW1 was the first witness to come in the witness box, but no suggestion wasgiven that it was Kundan Lal who had perpetrated the crime. Later on the appellanthad in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whileadmitting his presence and presence of Laxmi in that house at that time and Laxmibeing murdered in that room and he being also stabbed, came up with the story thatkundan Lal had come and assaulted on Laxmi and him and had then run away fromthe spot. It appears that the appellant was not sure as to what stand he should takewhen PW1 was being examined. This stand taken by the appellant in his statementunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the first time appears to bean after-thought. ( 11 ). At any rate, PW1 and PW2, who are independent witnesses and have noconnection whatsoever either with the deceased or with the appellant, had no reasonwhatsoever to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. Their statements arestraight forward and they have stood the test of cross-examination and nothingsubstantial has come out from their cross-examination to throw any doubt withregard to their truthfulness in narrating the facts of this case. Their statements arestraight forward and they have stood the test of cross-examination and nothingsubstantial has come out from their cross-examination to throw any doubt withregard to their truthfulness in narrating the facts of this case. The Additionalsessions Judge, in our view, was right in believing the statements of these twowitnesses in coming to the conclusion that they are truthful witnesses and implicitfaith can be had in them for reaching the truth in this case that it was the appellant,who after murdering Laxmi for the reason given by him, had also inflicted thewound on himself to kill himself. His injury was also found dangerous by the doctorwho examined him. This also finds corroboration from the history recorded in them. L. C. of the appellant. ( 12 ). The case property was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory andthe reports of the C. F. S. L. had come which are Exs. PA, PB and PC which show thatblood of human nature of o group was found on all the case properties. Thelearned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Investigating Officer hadnot cared to take the blood sample of the appellant and thus, mere finding of thehuman blood on the clothes of the appellant which was also the blood group of thedeceased would not mean that the appellant had committed the murder of the saidlady. We do not find any merit in this contention. After all it was the appellant andthe lady who were present in that room as per credit-worthy testimony of PW1 andpw2 and when the police came, it was the appellant and the dead body of the ladywho were found in that particular room. So, the evidence is quite clear that it wasthe appellant who had stabbed that lady with intention to murder her and thenfeeling some remorse for the ghastly act he had committed, he also tried to killhimself by stabbing himself in the abdomen. ( 13 ). Evidence also shows that after the post-mortem the dead body of thedeceased was handed over to Kundan Lal and it cannot be said that Kundan Lal hadbecome unavailable after this crime was committed so that any finger of suspicioncould be pointed towards him. ( 13 ). Evidence also shows that after the post-mortem the dead body of thedeceased was handed over to Kundan Lal and it cannot be said that Kundan Lal hadbecome unavailable after this crime was committed so that any finger of suspicioncould be pointed towards him. The appellant has also made a statement before thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, when he was given an opportunity to show as towhat sentence he should undergo for the conviction brought home against him,wherein he stated that the lady was killed on a Good Friday and he being a Christianwould not have performed such an unheavenly act on that particular holy day. Wedo not think that the appellant was incapable of committing such a heinous crime onany holy day whatsoever. We have no reason to disbelieve the truthful accountgiven by PW1 and PW2 as to the manner in which occurrence had taken place. Wemay also mention that the Additional Sessions Judge had visited- the place ofoccurrence and had recorded an inspection note which clearly shows that even afteropening one leaf of the door of the window almost whole of the room was visibleexcept a small portion near the door of the room. In case any third person had beenpresent in the said room PW1 and PW2 would not have failed to notice his presencewhen PW1 had seen the appellant stabbing the deceased and PW1 and PW2 had alsoseen the appellant stabbing himself with a knife. So, the question of any other personbeing present in the said room and perpetrating this crime could not have arisen atall. ( 15 ). The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that in all probability thelady must have given some grave and sudden provocation to the appellant and thus,the appellant losing his balance of mind had committed this crime and thus, it shouldbe held that the appellant is not guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of ofthe Indian Penal Code. We do not find any merit in this contention on the facts whichhave come on the record. The evidence clearly shows that the appellant was piquedbecause of his having come to know that deceased had betrayed him in love and hewanted to finish the deceased for that reason. We do not find any merit in this contention on the facts whichhave come on the record. The evidence clearly shows that the appellant was piquedbecause of his having come to know that deceased had betrayed him in love and hewanted to finish the deceased for that reason. He had clear intention to kill thedeceased and there is no evidence of the deceased lady providing him any provocation what to talk of sudden and grave provocation to the appellant for commissionof this particular crime at the hands of the appellant. It is true that PW1 was notaware of the language in which the appellant and the deceased must have beenconversing but that does not mean that there must have been some grave andsudden provocation at the hands of the lady which resulted in assault on her bodyby the appellant when we keep in view the fact that the appellant himself had utteredthe crucial words in Hindi which could be understood by PW1 and PW2 that hewanted to teach a lesson of life to the lady as she had betrayed him in love. So, wehold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusionin the present case that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penalcode stands committed beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt by the appellanton that day and at that time. We maintain his conviction and sentence and dismiss his appeal. A copy of the judgment be sent to the appellant through Superintendent (Jail ).