JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The appellant Kashmir Singh has been convicted on November 30, 1994 by the Sessions Judge, Una under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the commission of murder of one Tilak Raj and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Fs 3,000. In default of payment of fine, to suffer one year further rigorous imprisonment. Through this appeal, he has questioned his conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated that on 13-4-1977 Smt. Harmesh Devi (PW 6) alongwith her Devar (younger brother of husband) Tilak Raj was coming after milking the cattle in their cattleshed in village Chalet police station Gagret to her house. At about 8 p. m. when they reached near the pond of the village, appellant Kashmir Singh alias Guddu alongwith Raj Kumar alias Raju were found standing there. They tried to mis-behave with Harmesh Devi with an intention to molest her. Tilak Raj intervened but the appellant gave a knife blow in the abdomen of said Tilak Raj who died instantaneously. The appellant then allegedly handed over the knife to Raju who while advancing towards Harmesh Devi gave a stab wound to her. On raising alarm both the persons ran away. Kalu Ram (PW 7) and Tarsem (PW 8) witnessed the occurrence and came to the spot. Harmesh Devi was brought to the hospital at Daulatpur on 13-4-1977 in injured condition. On a Ruqa from the doctor, the police reached the hospital and recorded the statement of PW. Harmesh Devi under section 154, Cr. P. C. on the basis of which a formal F. I. R. Ex. PL/1 was registered at police station Gagret on 14-4-1977 at 2 a. m. under sections 302/ 307/354/324, I. P. C. 3. Shri Bhupinder Singh (PW 16), Station House Officer, Police Station, Amb took investigation in his hand, During the investigation it was found that both the accused had also criminally assaulted one Ram Parshad at the shop of Arjan Singh in Daulatpur on the same day and thereafter they came to the pond of village Chalet and assaulted Harmesh Devi and Tilak Raj. Doctor S. D. Bharwal (PW 13) conducted postmortem on the body of Tilak Raj on 14-4-1977 and opined that the deceased had died due to stab injury. PW Harmesh Devi had received a simple injury with sharp edged weapon. Doctor S. D. Bharwal (PW 13) conducted postmortem on the body of Tilak Raj on 14-4-1977 and opined that the deceased had died due to stab injury. PW Harmesh Devi had received a simple injury with sharp edged weapon. One Dupatta9 and small tin of milk belonging to PW Harmesh Devi had fallen on the spot. The police took the articles into possession from the place of occurrence, Raj Kumar alias Raju was apprehended with knife on 20-4-1977 from an isolated hut of one Pardhana situated in the garden of the village, but the appellant had absconded After completing the investigation of challan against Raj Kumar alias Raju was put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una under sections 354/307, I. P C. and an application under section 82, Cr. P C for declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender was filed and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una on 22 6-1977 passed an order declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender. After trial Raj Kumar alias Raju was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 324, I. P, C. by the Sessions Judge, Una on 14-4-1978 and the case of the present appellant was got separated. 4. In March 1991 when an application of the appellant addressed to the Prime Minister was received for verification, it was noticed that he was residing in Yamuna-Nagar (Haryana). The police went to Yamuna-Nagar in search of the appellant but he was not found available. However, his pass-port was seized from the custody of his brother Chanan Singh (PW 5) and nephew Rakesh Kumar (PW 1). Lateron on 7-2-1992 it was noticed from the magazine Manohar Kahanian that the appellant was residing in Chandigarh, The police arrested him on 9-2-1992 and was challaned to face the trial for the offences punishable under sections 302/3:14, I. P. C, for the murder of Tilak Raj and assaulting PW Harmesh Devi with intent to out-rage her modesty. The trial Court charge-sheeted the appellant under section 302/354, I. P. C. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and tendered into evidence the relevant documents and the weapon of offence u e knife (Ext. P-5/1). 5. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313> Cr. P. C. He denied his identity as Kashmir Singh son of Shri Udham Singh resident of village Nangal Jarialan. He has also admitted the passport (Ex. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and tendered into evidence the relevant documents and the weapon of offence u e knife (Ext. P-5/1). 5. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313> Cr. P. C. He denied his identity as Kashmir Singh son of Shri Udham Singh resident of village Nangal Jarialan. He has also admitted the passport (Ex. PA) belonging to him and that he had given his interview in the magazine Manohar Kahanian’ (Ex. DA/1) He has also admitted his arrest by the police from Chandigarh on 9-2-1992 However, he has shown his lack of knowledge about the incident in which PW Harmesh Devi received stab wound at the hand of Raj Kumar alias Raju and the death of Tilak Raj due to stab injury. He has also shown his lack of knowledge about the recovery of Dupatta and a small tin of milk belonging to PW Harmesh Devi and also blood stained earth from the place of occurrence taken into possession by the police during the investigation. Further he has also shown his lack of knowledge about the arrest of Raj Kumar alias Raju and consequent recovery of the knife from him on 20 4-1977. He has denied his involvement in the commission of the crime alleging that during the period in question he was away to Karachi (Pakistan) as an Indian Spy, In defence he has examined himself on oath as DW 1 and tendered into evidence some photostat copies (Ex. D 14 and D-15) of his diary allegedly maintained by him in Pakistan. 6. The trial Court on appraisal of the evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties found the appellant guilty of the murder of Tilak Raj, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 7. Mr. T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the very genesis of the alleged occurrence brought on record by the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. The appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 7. Mr. T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the very genesis of the alleged occurrence brought on record by the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was the assailant as his identity was not established by leading cogent and credible evidence, The alleged recovery of weapon i e knife from Raj Kumar alias Raju could not be used against the appellant and such recovery is not admissible in evidence against him The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and has given undue weightage to the testimony of injured witness Smt Harmesh Devi who could not identify the appellant the author of the alleged crime. Lastly, he contended that if the prosecution version is accepted as true, the evidence falls short of requisite proof to fasten the liability on the appellant for under section 302, I P. C. According to the learned Counsel if maximum and permissible allowance and premium are given to the credibility of the evidence of the prosecution, at the most it could be only a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution has failed to prove on record that the appellant intended to kill the deceased and he had no mens rea to do so, therefore, the appellant could only be held guilty under section 304 (II), I. P. C. 8. Ms. Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General hes sought to support the judgment of the trial Judge and contended that PWs Harmesh Devi and Kalu Ram have testified the identity of the appellant who inflicted the fatal blow with knife on the stomach of Tilak Raj and killed him. She contended that the name of the appellant as Guddu resident of village Nangal Jarialan had been mentioned in the F I. R. (Ex. PL/1). However, she contended that PWs Kashmir Singh and Ram Parshad have also testified that appellant Kashmir Singh had been known as Guddu. 9. We have scrutinised the evidence brought on record to find out if the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime has been correctly appreciated by the trial Judge in arriving at his conclusion that it was the appellant only and none else who committed the crime. 9. We have scrutinised the evidence brought on record to find out if the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime has been correctly appreciated by the trial Judge in arriving at his conclusion that it was the appellant only and none else who committed the crime. Dr, S. D. Bharwal (PW 13) conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of Tilak Raj on 14-4-1977 and found a stab wound on the anterior abdomen wall in the right paramadian region 3" x 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" and opined that Tilak Raj had died of this injury within a few minutes. He also opined the possibility of inflicting this fatal injury with the knife Ex. P-5/1). He stated that the injury on the abdomen was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He did not agree with the suggestion of the defence that this type of injury could be caused by fall on the pointed article with force or on broken glass bottle. He also clarified that the probable time during the injury and death was a few minutes because (a) major vessel was involved, (b) Vital structure cut was involved (c) and intestines were lying outside the abdomen which could cause immediate intesteneous death. 10. Smt. Harmesh Devi (PW 6) stated that she alongwith Tilak Raj was going to their house after milking the cattle in the cattle-shed in village Chalet and when they reached near the pond they found appellant Kashmir Singh alias Guddu with his co accused Raj Kumar alias Raju. She stated that both these persons tried to advance towards her with ill-intention on which Tilak Raj intervened but the appellant Kashmir Singh alias Guddu inflicted the knife blow on his stomach and thus caused his death. The appellant handed over the knife (Ex. P-5/1) to his co-accused Raj Kumar alias Raju who gave a knife blow in her stomach and that on her raising the alarm both of them ran away. She has also stated that Kalu Ham (PW 7) and Tarsem Lal (PW 8) came to the spot and had seen the occurrence. She was immediately brought to the hospital at Daulatpur where Dr Suresh Kaul (PW 21) medically examined her and found a stab wound on her person and issued the medico-legal certificate (Ex PH/1). She has also stated that Kalu Ham (PW 7) and Tarsem Lal (PW 8) came to the spot and had seen the occurrence. She was immediately brought to the hospital at Daulatpur where Dr Suresh Kaul (PW 21) medically examined her and found a stab wound on her person and issued the medico-legal certificate (Ex PH/1). Injury on her person was noticed being fresh, therefore, her presence at the place of occurrence and seeing the occurrence cannot be doubted. Her testimony has not been impeached by the defence nor she can be said to be an interested witness implicating the appellant falsely. It is well settled law that the injured witness being the natural witness to the occurrence, his testimony cannot be rejected mechanically on hyper technical ground ground (see : Brathi alias Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 CrLJ 402). In Rangi Lal and others v. State of U P , 1991 Cr LJ 1916, the apex Court held that even the improvements and minor contradictions in the statements of injured witness does not cast reflection on his evidentiary value. In Bharti v. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 839, their Lordships of the apex Court said that in a murder case, it is an error to reject the evidence of witnesses on the ground that they are related to the deceased. Close relatives of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real assailants and to falsely mention the name of another person The oral testimony of PW Harmesh Devi finds corroboration from the version of PW 7 Kalu Ram. PW Kalu Ram deposed that he knew the appellant and other co-accused. The appellant had been running a shop at Daulatpur about 5 years prior to the present incident. Near the pond of the village he saw co-accused Raju holding his son Tilak and appellant Guddu inflicting the knife blow on him. The knife struck in the abdomen of his son Tilak as a result of which his intestines came out He saw co-accused Raju chasing his daughter-in-law PW Harraesh Devi with a knife and inflicting injury in her abdomen. He raised alarm whereupon the appellant alongwith this co accused jumped over a fence and ran away from there. His son Tilak Raj died due to the stab injury on the spot. He raised alarm whereupon the appellant alongwith this co accused jumped over a fence and ran away from there. His son Tilak Raj died due to the stab injury on the spot. PW Harmesh Devi and deceased Tilak Raj were taken to hospital at Daulatpur chowk. In his cross-examination he stated that the appellant and his co-accused had been meeting Tarsem resident of his village at his cattle shed for quite sometime. After the incident he did not see the appellant till he was apprehended by the police and shown to him. He has also identified the appellant to be an assailant. His statement has also been corroborated from the recitals in F. I. R (Ex PL/1), recorded at the earliest at the instance of PW Smt. Harmesh Devi. The oral testimony of these witnesses has also been fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. S. D Bharwal and Dr Suresh Kaul Tarsem Singh (PW 8) has turned hostile to the prosecution, if he had seen the occurrence but his confrontation with his earlier statement made before the police under section 161, Cr. P. C. (Ex PW 8/A) would go to show his presence at the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor he admitted that while appearing as prosecution witness in a case against the co-accused Raju he made the statement that the knew both Raju and the appellant Further, he admitted that he had made a statement in that case in the court that at the time of occurrence he had seen the appellant, co accused Raju, Tilak Raj (deceased) and PW Harmesh Devi near the pond of village Chalet and had seen the appellant Kashmir Singh giving a knife blow to Tilak Raj who had fallen on the ground after receipt thereof. Raju then chased Smt Harmesh Devi and gave her some blow at which she tried to run away from there leaving her Dupatta. Raju then fled away from the spot. He also admitted that after the incident he came to know that the appellant had run away and had gone to Pakistan. However, in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he admitted that he did not witness any incident of murder of Tilak Raj or of causing injuries to Harmesh Devi and he had made a statement under the fear of the police. 11. However, in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he admitted that he did not witness any incident of murder of Tilak Raj or of causing injuries to Harmesh Devi and he had made a statement under the fear of the police. 11. No doubt, in the F. I. R the name of Kashmir Singh is not specifically mentioned, but is described by the name of Guddu son of Udham Singh of village Nangal Jarialan, It is not disputed that appellant Kashmir Singh is the son of Udham Singh of village Nangal Jariaian There is no suggestion on record if there is any other person by the name of Kashmir Singh son of Udham Singh of the said village. Therefore, it can be safely taken that it was the appellant Kashmir Singh who is named as Guddu son of Udham Singh of that village This fact finds further support from the evidence of Kashmir Singh (PW 11) Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Nangal Jarialan, who categorically stated that the appellant Kashmir Singh belonged to his village, who has also Ken called by the name of Guddu occasionally. Baldev Singh (PW 18) was posted as constable at Police Station, Gagret in April 1977. He stated that he was associated in the search of the appellant Guddu alias Kashmir Singh and went for his search in the area of Amb, Ambala and Kurali. In his cross-examination he categorically stated that he knew the appellant since his childhood as both belong to the same village He has also stated that it was the appellant who was declared a proclaimed offender in this case under section 82, Cr. P. C. The proceedings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender also shows that it was the appellant Kashmir Singh son of Udham Singh of village Nangal Jarialan and none else. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not identified by the prosecution witnesses does not hold good. There is over-whelming evidence on record as discussed above identifying the appellant as author of the crime. It has come on record that the appellant had a Karyana shop in his village Nangal Jarialan before the occurrence and the distance of his village from the place of occurrence is not more than 2-3 kilometers. There is over-whelming evidence on record as discussed above identifying the appellant as author of the crime. It has come on record that the appellant had a Karyana shop in his village Nangal Jarialan before the occurrence and the distance of his village from the place of occurrence is not more than 2-3 kilometers. PW Harmesh Devi has unequivocally stated that she had been knowing the appellant Kashmir Singh personally as he had been running a Karyana shop in his village. Simply because according to the appellant he closed his shop of Karyana in 1972 and PW Harmesh Devi stated that he had been running the Karyana’ shop upto two years prior to the occurrence, her testimony as a whole has to be rejected This is not a material infirmity in her statement for which she ought not to be believed This minor version cannot always be treated to be the result of embellishment and concoction This discrepancy does not go to the root of the case and should be discarded and she being an injured witness is considered as the best eye-witness. The appellant while appearing as DW 1 has also not stated if he had not been known as Guddu Thus, the result is that the prosecution had established the identity of the appellant who inflicted the fatal blow with knife (Ex. PW 5/A) on the abdomen of Tilak Raj and thereby caused his death. 12. The appellant in his statement has taken the plea that during April 1977 he was present in Karachi (Pakistan) an Indian Spy He produced some photostat copies of documents in support of his defence. PW 5/A) on the abdomen of Tilak Raj and thereby caused his death. 12. The appellant in his statement has taken the plea that during April 1977 he was present in Karachi (Pakistan) an Indian Spy He produced some photostat copies of documents in support of his defence. From photostat copies of Warrant (Exts D 25 and D26) it is borne out that the appellant was arrested at village Malana (Sialkot) on 22-2-1978, He was convicted under section 59 of Pakistan Army Act and suffered 14 years imprisonment, but was released and exchanged with Pakistani prisoners on 7-6-1990 From his statement on oath as DW 1 it is clear that he crossed over to Pakistan as an Indian Spy in 1976 But there is no evidence placed or proved on record by him if he remained in Pakistan throughout the period from 1976 to 1/78 and did not visit India during this period He tendered in evidence his personal diary—murks (D-1 to D-19) He has placed much reliance on photostat copy (mark D-15), in which it is mentioned that he remained in Karachi for one month and 1.1 days from April 5, 1977 to May 16, 1977 in activities of destruction (Tor-For). The originals of his diary according to him had been sent to the Indian Government and the same were not got proved by him from the authority concerned who had received them in India Therefore, the trial Judge is right in holding that without proper proof, mark D-15 is not admissible in evidence nor any reliance can be placed on it The testimony of the appellant that from 1976 to 1978 he remained in Pakistan stand falsified from his admitted interview published in magazine Manohar Kahanian (Ex DA/1). At page 29 of the said magazine it was—stated by the appellant himself in the interview that from June 1976 to February 1978, he came to India for 12 times. Therefore, the possibility for his coming to India in April 1977 could not be ruled out and after committing the crime in question on 30 4-1977 he might again crossed over to Pakistan The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is not an absolute law that the injured witness will always speak truth is not acceptable in the present case. No enmity or false implication of the appellant has been brought on record by the appellant against PW Harmesh Devi, The decisions in Sevi and another v State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1981 Cr LJ 736 and State of Himachal Pradesh v Prem Chand, 1993 (2) Sim LC 213, are of no avail to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is settled law that the plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place of occurrence Though it is not necessary for an accused to render an explanation to prove his innocence and even if he renders a false explanation, it cannot be used to support the prosecution case against him and that the entire case must be proved by the prosecution itself but it is well settled that a plea of alibi, if raised by an accused is required to be proved by him by cogent and satisfactory evidence so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The belated and vague plea of alibi which has not been sought to be established by leading any evidence is only an after-thought and a plea of despair. The defence of alibi taken by the appellant is not proved by cogent and satisfactory evidence and no reliance can be placed on it. It has come in the evidence that after committing the crime the appellant had absconded from the scene of occurrence and could not be apprehended till he was released and exchanged with Pakistani prisoners. He was declared proclaimed offender by the competent court of law. The abscondence of the appellant is thus a material circumstance which has been satisfactorily and conclusively established by the prosecution against the appellant. The abscondence of the appellant further aggravates the situation and lends credence and corroboration to the prosecution case. On close scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses as discussed above nothing adverse is found to doubt their credibility. There is no reason to discard the same on the specious ground that they are interested witnesses. Therefore, th-2 prosecution has established by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence the guilt of the appellant. 13. On close scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses as discussed above nothing adverse is found to doubt their credibility. There is no reason to discard the same on the specious ground that they are interested witnesses. Therefore, th-2 prosecution has established by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence the guilt of the appellant. 13. In support of his last submission that the offence, if any, committed by the appellant falls under section 304 (II) I. P. C Shri T, R. Chandel learned Counsel placed reliance on the series of decisions of the apex Court, namely, Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1984 Cr LJ 478 ; Han Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 185 ; Jawnhar Lal and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 284 ; Jagtar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 463 ; Gurdip Singh and another v State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1151 ; Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, (1981) 4 SCC (Cri) 826 and Hem Raj v The State (Delhi Administration), 1990 (3) Crimes 220. The Honble Supreme Court in those cases had converted the conviction and sentence of the accused from section 302, I. P, C to section 304, I. P. C But looking to the totality of the established facts and circumstances of the present case the appellant caused solitary injury on the vital part of the body of Tilak Raj which resulted his instantaneous death and the appellant could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. The particular injury inflicted by him was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause ckath of Tilak Raj as opined by the Dr. S D. Bharwal (PW 13). We hold in the present case that the offence committed by the appellant is the one punishable under section 302, I. P. C. 14. No other submissions was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal and maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Appeal dismissed. -