JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The appellants in this appeal viz. Ravinder Kumar (A-1), Rajinder Singh, (A-2), Chandan Singh (A-3), Janak Singh (A-5) alongwith Rajinder Paul (A-4) were charge-sheeted to stand session trial for the murder of Desh Raj on October 31, 1989 at 8 30 p. m. at a place known as Sapru. Rajinder Paul (4-A) was acquitted but the appellants were convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra Division at Dharamshala on 21-9-1991 and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. In default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The facts of the prosecution case may be briefly stated:— "The appellants were employed by M/s, Mahesh Wood Product, Sonipat, which was carrying on the works of extraction of ‘Katha’ at village Pansal There existed a rival firm in the name and style of M/s Mahesh Udyog dealing in the extraction of ‘Katha’. Desh Raj Sood was an employee of the rival firm M/s Mahesh Udyog, The appellants were the employees of M/s. Mahesh Wood Product. Some altercation took place in between Desh Raj and A-5 on October 31, 1989, A-5 lodged a report at Police Station, Haripur on the basis of which First Information Report No. 65 of 1989 was registered under sections 324 and 247. I. P. C. According to the report Desh Raj alleged to have stabbrd A-5 on the right side of the back. After reporting the matter to the Police, A-5 went to ‘Dera (quarter) of Desh Raj at village Sapru to take vengeance-of such altercation, Desh Raj was living at the Dera alongwith Yash Pal, Kulvinder Singh and Roop Singh. The appellants went to the Dera of Desh Raj at about 9 p. m. in a Maruti Van. They called out Desh Raj and on hearing their call Desh Raj came out of his Dera. Thereafter, A4 and A-2 took Desh Raj a little farther from the ‘Dera’ to a dark place It is the prosecution case that they stabbed Desh Raj and thereafter all the five accused persons boarded the Maruti Van and fled away from the place Desh Raj was with great difficulty able to crawl back to the Dera with a stab wound on his stomach. He thereafter instantaneously succumbed to the injury there and then on the cot in front of the ‘Dera. The matter was reported by Roop Singh and Sushil to Shri Lachman Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kherian. When Shri Lachman Singh confirmed about the death of Desh Raj, then he alongwith Sushil Kumar, Roop Chand and Yash Paul went to the Police Station, Haripur for the purpose of lodging the report, F. I. R. No, 66 of 1989 (Ext. PD) was registered at Police Station, Haripur at 2:30 a.m. under section 302/34, I. P. C. S. L Durga Datt, Police Station Haripur went to the scene of occurrence and reached at village Sapru at 3 15 a. m, and started investigation, He filled the inquest report (Ext PE) and had taken photographs of the dead body of Desh Raj through Sukhi Ram, He thereafter arranged to send the dead body of Desh Raj for post-mortem examination to Zonal Hospital Dharamshala. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan (Ext. PR) recovered one Thaintha’ (Ext. P 12) which was lying near the place of occurrence and took the same in possession through recovery memo (Ext. PF). He also took into possession the bamboo stick (Ext. P-13) through recovery memo (Ext PF). Maruti Van allegedly used by the accused was also taken into possession through recovery memo. (Ext. PL). He recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused. During the interrogation, on November 6, 1989 A-] made disclosure statement (Ext. PM) in the presence of Panch witnesses namely Jeet Ram and Surinder Kumar. On the basis of the disclosure statement knife (Ext, P-U) was recovered on November 7, 1989 through recovery memo (Ext. PH) and sketch of the knife is Ext. PG." 3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Dehra who committed the same to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and ultimately case was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge, for trial, 4, On May 16, 1990 charges under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused At the trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, the accused abjured their guilt. Appellant Ravinder Kumar in his statement under section 313, -Cr. Appellant Ravinder Kumar in his statement under section 313, -Cr. P. C. has stated that on October 31, 1989 he was going in the Barat of the younger brother of appellant Janak Singh to village Haripur, They were travelling in a Maruti Van. When Maruti Van reached at village Sapru then Desli Raj and Roop Chand etc being tipsy stopped the Van. When he, Janak Singh and other occupants of the Van came out of the same, then Desh Raj and his companion started beating them with ‘Lathies’. The driver had taken the Van a little ahead. When Janak Singh was going to sit in the Van then he was stabbed by somebody. He also received injuries in that incident and thereafter at about 9 p. m they lodged the F. I. R. at Police Station Hamirpur. He has further stated that he is an employee of M/s. Mahesh Wood Products which is owned by Ved Parkash Mehta of Delhi. The deceased was working in M/s, Mahesh Udyog, the owner of which is Shri Bishan Das Mehta. The prosecution witnesses produced are also employees of M/s. Mahesh Udyog and that is the reason that they have deposed against him falsely, Appellant Rajinder Singh has also stated that the witnesses are workers of M/s Mahesh Udyog whereas he is an employee of Mahesh Wood Products and due to the rivalry of the firms involved in the extraction of Katha all the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated them in this case. Appellant Janak Singh has also made the same statement as stated by appellant Ravinder Kumar. Appellant Chandan Singh has also made similar statement as that of Rajinder Singh. Rajinder Paul has also stated that due to the ravalry between the two firms involved in the extraction of Katha, the prosecution witnesses are falsely implicating him in this case. In support of defence one witness namely Vijay Sood Clerk of Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra was examined. He has proved the entry in the register kept by the court and according to him F, I. R. No. 66 of 1989 (Ext. PD) was received in the Court on 1-11-1989 at 11 a. m. and entered at serial No. 66. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. He has proved the entry in the register kept by the court and according to him F, I. R. No. 66 of 1989 (Ext. PD) was received in the Court on 1-11-1989 at 11 a. m. and entered at serial No. 66. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The trial Judge after protracted trial held that the deceased Desh Raj met with homicidal death at the hands of the appellants, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, whereas accused Rajinder Paul (4-A) was acquitted for lack of evidence. The appellants have assailed their conviction and sentence through this appeal. 6. There is no dispute that the deceased Desh Raj died a homicidal death. The prosecution has placed strong reliance on the evidence of Yash Paul, (PW 3) Kulwinder (PW 4), Roop Singh (PW 5), Lachman Singh (PW 6), besides evidence of Sub-Inspector Durga Datt (PW 14), medical evidence and evidence of the recovery witnesses namely Amin Chand (PW 7) and Suiinder Kumar (PW 10). The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Doctor J. R. Azad (PW 1) on 1-11-1989 at 11.50 a.m. and he found the following injuries:— 7. There were two incised wounds over the body on the chest wall in the left lateral side: 1. The incised wound was situated on the left side of the chest wall in the posterior axillary line at the 5th inter-costal space obliquely directed and penetrating into the chest cavity, On dissection, the wound was traced on the inner side of the chest wall and entered the Jung left lower lob. Obliquely with clean cut margins directed from left lateral side to the medial side. Size 2-1/2 cms. long with clean cut margins. The opposing margins of the incised wound were lying near each other (no gaping). The lung was cut on medial side 3/4 cm. in size, reaching upto the pericardium, but pericardium was slightly cut about 1/6 cm. deep x 1 cm. long. Heart was not injured. There was massive blood lying in the chest cavity. 2. The incised wound was situated on the left chest wall 6 cms. below the first incised wound situated in the infrascapular area and obliquely directed. Margins were regular and clean cut. Clotted blood was present around the wound. Size 4 cms x 2 cms, x 2 cms. 3. There was massive blood lying in the chest cavity. 2. The incised wound was situated on the left chest wall 6 cms. below the first incised wound situated in the infrascapular area and obliquely directed. Margins were regular and clean cut. Clotted blood was present around the wound. Size 4 cms x 2 cms, x 2 cms. 3. Single abrasion was present on the left side over the superior iliac spine 2 cms. into 2 cms. 4. Lacerated wound on forehead on right side 2-1/2 cms. above the right eye, 8. According to the report-(Ext. PA) of the Doctor the injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and all injuries were ante-mortem The one stab wound was penetrating into the chest cavity, cutting the left lung, causing massive haemorrhage, shock and death. In his cross examination he has admitted the suggestion of the defence that the viscera of the deceased was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and the consumption of the liquor by the deceased could have been ascertained by sending the viscera to the Chemical Examiner, He also stated that by styling the above injuries to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, he meant that the injuries were dangerous to life. It is clear from the medical evidence that the deceased died a homicidal death, 9. Now the only question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it were the appellants who caused the death of the deceased. In this regard we may first of all turn to the evidence of material witnesses. 10 Yash Pal (PW 3) was employed as labourer with M/s Mahesh Udyog at the relevant time He stated that on 31st October, 1989 he had gone to attend his work at village Pansal, and returned to his quarter at Kherian at about 5.30 p, m. PW KuUinder Singh and Sushil also came to his quarter at about 6 p. m. At about 8 p. m. Desh Raj deceased; Roop Chand, Budhi Singh, Ramesh Chand Rajinder also came there. Rajinder took water and sat on the cot. In the meantime, the vehicle came there and Rajinder accused went away in the said vehicle. Rajinder took water and sat on the cot. In the meantime, the vehicle came there and Rajinder accused went away in the said vehicle. Desh Raj, (deceased; Roop Chand Budhi Singh, Ramesh Chand and Rajinder Kumar were also serving in the firm Mahesh Udyog at that time an4 were residing with him in the same ‘Dera’. He and PW Kulvinder after taking the meal sat on the cot and other persons were taking the meals in the ‘Dera’ After some time a Van bearing registration No. DNH-3017 came there from Haripur side. Appellants namely Ravinder, Rajinder, Janak and Chandan alighted from the Van. He identified them in the court. Appellants Ravinder and Rajinder shouted Sood Sood. On hearing their call Desh Raj came outside from Dera and after seeing them again went into the Dera, Thereafter appellants Ravinder and Rajinder went inside the Dera and brought Desh Raj outside and was taken to a dark place Appellants Chandan and Janak Singh also followed them. After covering few paces ahead, appellant Ravinder took out knife from his pocket and went towards the dark side. He told Roop Chand, Susbil Kumar and Budhi Singh that Desh Raj Sood had been taken away by the appellants. He also told the above said persons that appel ant Ravinder had a knife in his hand and Desh Raj Sood had been taken towards the dark side by the appellants. They all came out from the Dera and from the verandah of the ‘Dera they saw Desh Raj coming back with a hand on his stomach. The appellants fled away towards the Van and engine of the Van was on at that time. Desh Raj laid down on the cot and demanded water. Kuivioder brought water and after taking it Desh Raj breathed his last. Thereafter Roop Chand and Sushil Kumar went to inform the Pradhan of the Gram Pan chayat, who came at about 12 in the night. Pradhan inspected the spot and told them to report the matter to the Police and a Ward Panch was deputed by him to preserve the scene. He reported the matter to the Police through Ext PD In his cross-examination he has admitted the suggestion of the defence that Roop Chand, Sushil Kumar and Pradhan were discussing as to who were the accused involved in the accident. He reported the matter to the Police through Ext PD In his cross-examination he has admitted the suggestion of the defence that Roop Chand, Sushil Kumar and Pradhan were discussing as to who were the accused involved in the accident. He has stated in his cross-examination that he had made the mention of the names of five accused persons in the first information report (Ext. PD) and the Police did not ask about the identification of the accused. He has also stated that he knew appellant Janak Singh personally before the incident and also Ravinder Kumar and Chandan Singh, as they us d to visit their quarter. However, he deposed that he did not know Rajinder Paul (A-4). He also admitted that appellants Ravinder and Rajinder brought Desh Raj Sood (deceased) from the ‘Dera and appellants Janak and Chandan afso joined them and took deceased towards the dark side upto a distance of 10 to 15 metres in a friendly way. He saw appellant Ravinder at a distance of 4-5 ft. going towards the dark side when he took out knife from his pocket. He admits that there was no blood stains on the spot nor blood trail from the place where besh Raj Sood was taken towards the ‘Dera’ According to his deposition the blood remained within the clothes of Desh Raj (deceased). He denied the suggestion of the defence that deceased Desh Raj Sood and PW Roop Chand had consumed a lot of liquor on that day and they were stopping and checking the vehicles passing through that road. He also denied the suggestion that Van of the appellants was also stopped by Desh Raj (deceased) and Roop Chand and the occupants of the Van including the appellants Ravinder, Rajinder, Janak Singh and 5-6 more persons were given beatings with the help of Lathi’ by Dosh Raj (deceased) and PW Roop Chnnd He has shown his ignoianct about receiving injuries by appellants Janak Singh and Ravinder Kumar in an attack. He admits the suggestion of the defence that on the following morning of the day of incident Thaintha’ was lying at the spot. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution that because o the rivalry between the two firms, he made a false statement against the appellants Kulvinder Siagh (PW 4) was also working as a labourer with M/s, Mahesh Udyog during thq relevant time. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution that because o the rivalry between the two firms, he made a false statement against the appellants Kulvinder Siagh (PW 4) was also working as a labourer with M/s, Mahesh Udyog during thq relevant time. He stated that on 31-10 1989 he had gone to Pansal to apprise the concerned parties for the demarcation and came back to his ‘Dera’ at about 5 30 in the evening. PW Yash Pal was also with him and both of them prepared food. At about 6 p.m. Sushil also joined them. Desh Raj (deceased) PW Roop, Budhi Singh, Ramesb and Rajinder also came in their ‘Dera at about 8 p. m Appellant Rajinder took water and went in a vehicle which came from Dehra side and left towards Haripur side. He and Yash Pal after taking their meals came out of ‘Dera’ and sat on the cot and other persons were taking meals inside the ‘Dera’. After some time a Van bearing registration No DNH-3017 came from Haripur side and halted in the road near their ‘Dera’ Thereafter, four persons namely Ravinder, Rajinder, Chandan and Janak Singh (appellants) alighted from the Van-Appellants Ravinder and Rajinder shouted for Sood and on hearing their call Desh Raj Sood came out and thereafter he again went inside the Dera’. Then appellants Ravinder and Rajinder brought him outside the Dera and thereafter they took him towards the dark side and appellant Ravinder took out the knife from his pocket. The other two persons Janak and Chandan who were near the Van also followed Ravinder and Rajinder in the dark side. On seeing this incident, he and Yash Pal went inside the Dera to call for PWs Roop Chand, Budhi Singh and Sushil When they all came outside from Dera, they saw Desh Raj Sood coming towards them and also saw appellants Chandan, Janak, Ravinder and Rajinder going towards the Van and thereafter the Van left the place, Desh Raj Sood came towards them and laid down on the cot outside the Dera He took water and after taking it, he breathed his last. PW Roop and Sushil went to the house of Pradhan to inform him regarding the incident who came at about 12 at night and saw the spot and deputed Panch to look after the dead body of the deceased Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police by PWs Yash Pal, Roop Chand, Pradhan and Sushil and he remained present in the Dera’. In his cross-examination he said that he had deposed to the Police on the same day when the Investigating Officer visited the spot that he had also witnessed the occurrence. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he also accompanied Yash Pal and others to report the matter He has stated that he was acquainted with all the appellants even prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the appellants were not known to him earlier to the incident. However, he admitted that he did not know Rajinder Paul (A-4) nor he knew the name of appellant Chandan Singh He denied the suggestion of the defence that on the day of occurrence, Desh Raj Sood deceased and PW Ramesh Chand had consumed liquor and they were stopping the vehicle on the road under the influence of liquor. He also denied.the suggestion that Desh Raj Sood (deceased) and PW Roop Chand halted the van in question wherein there were 8-10 persons sitting inside and they forced them to come out and attacked the occupants of the Maruti Van with ; lathies. 11. Roop Singh (PW 5) has corroborated the versions of PWs Yash Pal and Kulvinder Singh on all material aspects He was acquainted with \ the appellants prior to the incident, He has stated that he did not recognize the driver of the Van during that night. Appellant Rajinder is his relative. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution that appellant Janak ! Raj had also lodged a report in the Police Station prior to the lodging of the F. I. R. by them, However, he has admitted that when appellants Ravinder and Rajinder entered their Dera and took Desh Raj (deceased) out it was in cordial atmosphere. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution that appellant Janak ! Raj had also lodged a report in the Police Station prior to the lodging of the F. I. R. by them, However, he has admitted that when appellants Ravinder and Rajinder entered their Dera and took Desh Raj (deceased) out it was in cordial atmosphere. He has also denied the suggestion of the prosecution that in order to fill up the lacuna in respect of the identification, parentage and addresses of the appellants, he had been examined and tutored in this behalf as the discrepancies regarding such facts had been left by other witnesses. He denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence, he and Desh Raj Sood deceased were drunk and were stopping the vehicles on the road during that night. He also denied the suggestion that the vehicle in which appellant Janak Raj alongwith 5-6 other persons was going to attend the marriage party at Haripur was also stopped by them and asked the occupants to come out and started giving beatings to them by ‘Lathies’. He also denied the suggestion that the stab wound was also inflicted on the back of appellant Janak and in the scuffle appellant Ravinder also sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion that the appellants ran away from the place after saving their lives at his hands and Desh Raj (deceased). He also denied the suggestion that Thaintha’ which was used for turning the Chapaties’ was stained with human blood. However, he has admitted that there was competition between Swang Katha Udyog and Mahesh Katha Udyog regarding purchase of Kher trees. 12. Lachman Singh (PW 6) was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kharian. He stated that on 31-10-1989 at about JO or 11 p. m, PW Roop Chand and Sushil apprised him that there had been a fight in which their man was killed by appellants Ravinder and Rajinder. He visited the spot and saw a man who had breathed his last. He went to the house of Ward Panch Shri Amin Chand and deputed him to safeguard the dead body and thereafter he went to the Police Station alongwith Sushil Kumar and PWs Roop Chand, Yashpal and another man, whose name he did not remember. PW Yash Pal lodged the report. Thereafter the Police came with them at about 2 or 2.30 a.m. to the spot. Inquest report (Ext. PW Yash Pal lodged the report. Thereafter the Police came with them at about 2 or 2.30 a.m. to the spot. Inquest report (Ext. PE) was prepared and signed by him The Police took into possession Thaintha (Ext P-12) and its handle (Ext, P-14) which were lying separately on the spot. One Danda(Bamboo) (Ext. P-13) was also taken into possession from the spot. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not ask Sushil, Roop Lal, PWs. Yash Pal and Bud hi Singh regarding the occurrence nor they told him anything about it. Shri Amin Chand (PW 7) was Panch of Sapru Panchayat since 1986. He stated that on 31-10-1989 in the mid-night PW Lachman Singh, Pradhan came to him and told him that he had to accompany him to the place i. e. Dera ofMunshies and further told him that there had been a fight and a person had expired. PW Lachman Singh deputed him to guard the body and himself went to the Police Station alongwith 4Munshies\ On November 7, 1989 Police called him and was taken to Dehri-Nala. Besides, him one Chaudhary Sher Singh and Police party were with him and Police told him that they had to make the search regarding knife in the nullah. Chaudhary Sher Singh found knife (Ext. P-ll) in the bushes and produced it to the Police. In his cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that the Police had pointed out the bush where the knife was lying. He has also denied the suggestion that before reaching on the spot, some Policewallas were already there in the nullah. Sukhi Ram (PW 8) took photographs of the dead body of Desh Raj deceased and produced negatives (Exts. P-18 and P-19) 13. Surinder Kumar (PW 10) is the Panch witness of the recovery of Maruti Van and disclosure statement (Ext, PM) made by appellant Ravinder Kumar. He stated that on 6-11-1989 he had gone to Police Station Haripur in connection with his own work. The Station House Officer was inquiring from the appellant Ravinder and on such inquiry he told to the S. H. O. that he had thrown knife near Pullia (culvert) behind Sapru. The disclosure statement was made by appellant Ravinder in the presence of Jeet Ram. The Station House Officer was inquiring from the appellant Ravinder and on such inquiry he told to the S. H. O. that he had thrown knife near Pullia (culvert) behind Sapru. The disclosure statement was made by appellant Ravinder in the presence of Jeet Ram. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was a water carrier in the Police Station, However, he has admitted that since he was posted as a Water carrier in the Police Station therefore, he had been tutored to depose the aforesaid statement, 14. S. I. Durga Datt (PW 14) was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station, Haripur in the year 1989-90. He stated that on November 1, 1989 PW Yash Pal reported the taking place of the incident of commission of an offence to him and he scribed the F. I. R. (Ex. PD), He reached the place of incident at 3.15 a m. and investigated the case. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that deceased Desh Raj and PW Roop Chand has interrupted the car in which appellant Janak Raj was going to Haripur accompanied by the other appellants and some other persons. He also states that statement of appellant Janak Raj was scribed on October 31, 1989 who lodged the F, I. R. 65 of 1989 under sections 324/247 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, and complained that Desh Raj (deceased) had assaulted him. The said case was sent for cancellation by him. He has also stated that the name of appellant Janak Raj may find place in the F. I. R. and the inquest report Janak Raj was not arrested till November 5, 1989 as he was undergoing treatment in the Hospital for the wound. He also stated that the knife was searched by PW Sher Singh from the place which appellant Ravinder Kumar had pointed out. 15. Doctor S K Sharma (PW 2) was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre Haripur since August 1981. On 31st October, 1981) at 930 p m he conducted the medical examination of appellant Janak Singh and found the following injuries on his person:— 1. There was stab wound on the right side of the back in the 9th and 10th inter-coastal space, oblique in direction, below the inferior angle of scapulla 2.5 x .4 cm. On 31st October, 1981) at 930 p m he conducted the medical examination of appellant Janak Singh and found the following injuries on his person:— 1. There was stab wound on the right side of the back in the 9th and 10th inter-coastal space, oblique in direction, below the inferior angle of scapulla 2.5 x .4 cm. (The depth of the wound could not be ascertained as there was profused bleeding from the site) 8 5 cms. from the mid line at the level of TAO and T. 11 (Thoracic vertebra) Air bubles were coming out from the injury site, There was surgical emphysema around the wound. 2. Bruise through the right side of the chest below the right mammary region. 1.5 x 1 cm. pink in colour. The patient was referred to District Hospital, Dharamshala for ascertaining the depth of injury No. 1 and X-ray chest P/A wound. According to him injury No, 2 was simple in nature. The probable duration of the injuries was 1/2 to 1-1/2 hours and weapon used for injury No 1 was sharp He issued Medico legal certificate (fixt. PB) in this respect. He rules out the possibility of causing the injuries mentioned in certificate (Ext. PB) by Thaintha (Ext. P-12). On the same day at about 10:45 p. m. he also medically examined appellant Ravinder Kumar Sharma and found the following injuries on his person;— 1. There was an abrasion on the right index finger, dorsolateral sidie of first phylanx 8x6 cm Fresh oozing blood. 2. Vertical abrasion on the dorsal side of left fore-arm in the middle place medially 4 5x1 cm. in size. No covered with black scab. 3. Haemotomma over occiput 1.5x1 cm in size with abrasion over it measuring .5 x .5 cms, in size. 4. Oblique bruish over the left leg, placed medial to the knee joint 5x2 cm. in size. Pink in colour. 16. All the injuries were found simple in nature and probable dura-don of the injuries was I to 2 hours. Weapon used was blunt. He issued Medico Legal Certificate (Ext, PC) in this regard. He admitted that these injuries could be caused by a fall. In his cross-examination he admitted that injury Nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in Ext, PC could be caused by ‘Danda’ blow. Weapon used was blunt. He issued Medico Legal Certificate (Ext, PC) in this regard. He admitted that these injuries could be caused by a fall. In his cross-examination he admitted that injury Nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in Ext, PC could be caused by ‘Danda’ blow. Injured were examined at the instance of the Police, He has stated that he neither received X-ray nor the report conducted by the Doctor of Civil Hospital Dharamshala regarding injury No. 1 on the person of appellant Janak Singh According to him there might be a slight fracture of pleura of lungs in case of appellant Janak Singh as mentioned in injury No, 1 of Ext. PB. However, he showed his ignorance whether appellant Janak Singh was admitted as indoor patient in District Hospital at Dharamshala. He also stated that injury No. 1 could have been dangerous to the life of appellant Janak Singh. 17. Doctor S. K Sharma was recalled for re-examination on 25-6-1991. On such re-examination he has stated that he received Photostat copy (Ext. PQ) of the opinion of the Surgeon from Dharamshala on 6-11-1990 However, he has admitted in his cross-examination that the depth of the injury had not been given by the Surgeon. He stated that injury No, 1 could have been proved dangerous if it had ruptured the pleura. 18. Doctor R. K, Chaudhary (PW 15) was posted as surgical Surgeon at Zonal Hospital Dharamshala in the year 1989. He examined injured Janak Singh at 2 00 a m on 1-11-1989 and found the following injuries on his person:— 1. There was a stitched wound on right side of the chest on the back aspect. The wound was in the intra scapular region in the line of about 3” medial to posterior axillery lone. 2. There was no sign of haemopheumothorax. 3. The vital signs were normal The injured was X-rayed on 2-11-1989. On perusal of the X-ray film, it was found to be normal. The injured was discharged on November 3, 1989 19. The wound was in the intra scapular region in the line of about 3” medial to posterior axillery lone. 2. There was no sign of haemopheumothorax. 3. The vital signs were normal The injured was X-rayed on 2-11-1989. On perusal of the X-ray film, it was found to be normal. The injured was discharged on November 3, 1989 19. Shri T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has pointed out some contradictions in the F. I. R. and testimony of PW Yash Pal, The first contradiction pointed out is that in the F. I. lithe witness had stated that appellants Ravinder Kumar and Rajinder Singh entered the room, took Desh Raj outside by dragging and started scuffling with him and there was a quarrel for some time, whereas in his statement he has stated that appellants Ravinder and Rajinder also went inside the Dera and brought Desh Raj outside. We find that this minor variation cannot always be termed to be the result of embellishment, concoction and padding. This minor contradiction does not affect the merit of the case since it does not improve the defence version The material witnesses PWs. Yash Pal, Kulvinder Singh and Roop Chand have stated in one voice that Desh Raj was called by appellants Ravinder and Rajinder and was taken to a dark place. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses do find corroboration from the defence of the appellants. The appellants Janak Singh and Ravinder Kumar have stated in their statements under section 313, Cr. P. C. that (deceased) Desh Raj has attacked them on the fateful evening when they aloiigwith others were going in a Maruti Van for attending the ‘Barat’ of brother of appellant Janak Singh. According to their statements Desh Raj (deceased) and other persons accompaaying him were drunk and when the appellants reached at Sapru they were stopped and were given beatings by Desh Raj (deceased), Roop Chand and few other persons with Lathies. According to appellant Janak Singh when he was trying to go inside the Van then someone stabbed him from behind, This incident is stated to have occurred at about 8 or 8.30 p. m. Appellants Janak Singh and Ravinder Singh went to the Primary Health Centre Haripur for medical treatment. According to appellant Janak Singh when he was trying to go inside the Van then someone stabbed him from behind, This incident is stated to have occurred at about 8 or 8.30 p. m. Appellants Janak Singh and Ravinder Singh went to the Primary Health Centre Haripur for medical treatment. The presence of the appellants at the scene of occurrence at about 9 p. m, and their participation in the commission of the offence have been clearly established by the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5. These witnesses have come to this place to earn their livelihood by catering the labour demand of M/s. Mahesh Udyog. They have no reason to falsely implicate the appellants, 20. The next submission of Shri T.R. Chandel, was that the medical evidence had not supported the ocular version of the prosecution According to the learned Counsel Dr. J. R Azad has stated that size of the knife (Ext P-11) was not sufficient enough to cause the injury in question especially injury No. 1. In support of this contention he relied upon Mohinder Singh v. The State, AIR 1953 SC 415. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or atleast possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it must prove the whole of the case. In the present case it has come in the evidence of PWs Yash Pal, Kulvinder and Roop Chand that the appellants came in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. DNH-3017, to the ‘Dera’ where the deceased was taking meal with them. The appellants alighted from the said Van and shouted the name of Desh Raj as Sood Sood’. In the present case it has come in the evidence of PWs Yash Pal, Kulvinder and Roop Chand that the appellants came in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. DNH-3017, to the ‘Dera’ where the deceased was taking meal with them. The appellants alighted from the said Van and shouted the name of Desh Raj as Sood Sood’. On hearing his name being called by the appellants, Desh Raj came; outside the ‘Dera’ and on seeing the appellants, he went inside the Dera, Appellants, Ravinder Kumar and Rajinder Singh entered the Dera’ and brought Desh Raj outside the Dera and took him on a side of theDera where it was dark, In the mean while, the other appellants followed Sood by joining them. It is clear from the evidence of PW Yash Pal, that when appellant Ravinder took out a knife, he shouted to the other witnesses saying that the deceased was being taken to a dark place by the appellants; but by the time all could collect the appellants had fled away in the Maruti Van as the driver of the vehicle had kept the engine on so that it could take off immediately. Desh Raj returned to the Dera with a severe wound on his stomach. He lied on the cot and breathed his last instantaneously. These three witnesses have adduced their evidence in a straight forward manner and remained unshaken in cross-examination. We are unable to discover any reason to discredit their testimony. There is no denial of the fact that Desh Raj had any wound before he was attacked by the appellants in the manner aforesaid. The deceased could not be expected to have been assaulted by any other person than the appellants. There cannot be any dispute regarding identity of the appellants as they were known to the witnesses and were together though in different firms. The witnesses had placed their identities with clarity, The Doctor has opined that injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by a sharp edged weapon and probable time between injuries and death was within an hour. He has also stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused with a knife and injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The medical evidence has corroborated the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses in its entirety. He has also stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused with a knife and injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The medical evidence has corroborated the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses in its entirety. The opinion of Doctor J. R. Azad to the fact that injury No. 1 was not caused by knife (Ext. P-11) is not sustainable. This opinion was given by him because according to him blade of the knife was short and the wound found on the chest of the deceased was longer than the blade of the knife. According to Doctor Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Twentieth Edition the learned Author at page 212 observed as under :— “The depth of a stab or punctured wound is much larger than its length or width, and may be equal to, or less than, the length of the blade of the instrument causing it. In some cases the depth may even be greater than the length of the blade owing to the fact that the force of the blow may depress the tissues of the part struck, allowing the point to reach the deeper tissues such as in abdomen." Therefore, it is clear from the passage referred to above that in some cases the depth of the wound can be greater than the length of the blade. The opinion to the contrary given by Doctor Azad is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. Shri Chandel has also cited Pratap Misra and others v State of Orissa, 1977 Cr LJ 817 and Kttsa and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 1980 SC 559. 22. We have perused these decisions and are of the view that theses decisions are not helpful to the appellants. In Pratap Misras case it was observed that where there was a discrepancy of some hours between the opinion of the Doctor and the version of the prosecution about the time of commission of rape, it was futile for the Courts to make a detailed research on the point and the opinion of the Doctor should not have been disbelieved on that ground alone. In Kusas case (supra) their Lordships observed that while making dying declaration the deceased was fully conscious and was not suffering from any confusion or hallucination and in the absence of any question put to the Doctor by the accused in his cross-examination regarding view expressed by the author regarding the state of mind of the deceased, the dying declaration could not be attacked on the ground that the deceased was in a state of shock. In our humble view the facts of those cases are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case. 23. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that appellant Janak Singh was attacked at the first instance by Dash Raj (deceased), PW Roop Chand and other persons at the road side when he was going in the Maruti Van for attending the marriage ceremony of his brother alongwith other occupants and he lodged the First Information Report earlier to the alleged occurrence. According to the learned Counsel the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by appellants Janak Singh and Ravinder Kumar. In the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt Undisputedly, appellant Janak Singh lodged First Information Report earlier to the incident in which Desh Raj (deceased) died He was also medically examined by the PW Doctor S. K. Sharma on 31st October, 1989 at 9.30 p. m. and found injuries on his person. Similarly, appellant Ravinder Kumar was also examined by him on the same day at about 10.45 p. m, and found some minor injuries on his person. The defence of these two appellants was that they were given beatings by Desh Raj (deceased), and PW Roop Chand and some other persons under the influence of liquor while they were going to Haripur to attend the marriage of brother of appellant Janak Singh and Janak Singh was also stabbed by one of the assailants, S. I. Durga Datt (PW 14) has no doubt admitted that the deceased Desh Raj and Roop Chand have interrupted the car in which Janak Raj was going to Haripur accompanied by the appellants and some other persons. From the evidence on record, it appears that some dispute arose between the appellants and deceased Desh Raj on the day of occurrence at about 8 or 8.30 p. m in which appellants Janak Singh and Ravinder Kumar received injuries and F. I. R was also lodged about the occurrence by appellant Janak Singh against deceased Desh Raj and others. From these facts it appears that the appellants had come to the ‘Dera of the deceased with intention to take revenge and ultimately Desh Raj deceased was done to death with lethal weapon like knife which appellant Ravinder was concealing in his pocket. In the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants had taken law in their hands by killing Desh Raj deceased, therefore, they are not entitled to get benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case, 24. The last submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the alleged eye-witnesses did not name any of the assailants to PW Lachman Singh, Pradhan at the first instance which shows that their names were subsequently inserted in the F I. R. after due deliberations We are afraid we cannot accept this submission. After perusing the evidence of the material witnesses, as discussed above, we are left with the impression that they are truthful witnesses. One of the witnesses namely Roop Singh (PW 5) is the relation of appellant Rajinder. There is also no such suggestion as to why PW Roop Singh the relative of the appellant Rajinder has deposed falsely against the appellants nor any enmity has been shown against other witnesses by the appellants The totality of the evidence and the circumstances relied on clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reached the correct conclusion after assessing the entire evidence on record. 25. No other submission was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Judge and dismiss the appeal. The appellants are on bail, they shall surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby cancelled and they shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence. Appeal dismissed. -