JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by convict Surendra Kurnar has been directed against the Judgment & Order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur dated 13.1.1989 whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default 6 months R.I. 2. The prosecution case is that on 30.5.87 deceased Saheb Ram who was going on the way was called by the accused, dragged to his field. Accused caused multiple injuries to Saheb Ram by a Kassi. Saheb Ram succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The FIR Ex.P 1 was lodged by Jagdish PW 1 (brother of the deceased) within 3 hours of the occurrence. The police registered C.R. No. 29/87 and proceeded to investigate the matter. The accused was arrested on the same day and a Kassi was recovered at his Instance. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted. On a charge having been framed against the accused under Sec. 302 IPC he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW 1 Jagdish, PW 2 Dr. Ratan Lal Agrawal, PW 3 Dr. Jitendra Chopra, PW 4 Ramchandra, PW 5 Jeet Singh, PW 6 Mani Ram, PW 7 Mani Ram II, PW 8 Mohanlal, PW 9 Prakash Chandra, PW 10 Nathu Ram, PW 11 Prithvi Singh and PW 12 Triloki Nath, Accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied having committed any offence. He took specific plead that some two days before the alleged occurrence, Saheb Ram had a quarrel with him but they were separated by the villagers and that on the date of occurrence when he was sitting under a `Sesam' tree, deceased Saheb Ram went there having lathi in his hand and he inflicted lathi blows on his elbow, arm, back and legs and abused him and he, therefore, picked up the Kassi lying there to defend himself and gave only one blow to Saheb Ram and ran away to the Police Station after throwing the Kassi there. He denied that any Kassi was recovered at his instance. He examined no witness in his defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, found the accused guilty and sentenced him as above. 3. We have heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. He denied that any Kassi was recovered at his instance. He examined no witness in his defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, found the accused guilty and sentenced him as above. 3. We have heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Chandralekha, learned counsel for the State respondent and have-perused the record of the case. 4. The contention of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad is that the testimony of Jagdish (PW 1) and Mani Ram (PW 6) should not be believed in view of the fact that according to them Saheb Ram was dragged yet no marks of dragging were found on his person. According to him, both these witnesses had not seen the occurrence and the occurrence had taken place as stated by the accused and at the most it was a case of exceeding the right of private defence. In reply, Mrs. Chandralekha submitted that both the witnesses have stood well the test of cross examination and simply on the ground that no injury of dragging was found on the person of Saheb Ram, they should not be disbelieved. 5. We have bestowed the arguments our utmost consideration. Jagdish (PW 1) is the real brother of the deceased and Mani Ram (PW 6) is his uncle. It is not in dispute that the field of Mani Ram is situate in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The presence of Mani Ram in that field was natural Jagdish (PW 1) has deposed that he had gone to plough the field of Mani Ram. Jagdish cannot be disbelieved on the mere ground that Mani Ram has 4 sons and there was no occasion for Mani Ram to have called Jagdish for ploughing. Jagdish (PW 1) has deposed that out of the 4 sons of Mani Ram, only one was engaged in agriculture and others were either reading or were employed. It is not uncommon in the village that the relations are called to plough the fields. In the cross-examination of Jagdish or Mani Ram, It has not been suggested that they bore ill-will against the accused. It is not understood as to why these persons would falsely implicate the accused for the murder of Saheb Ram. Both these witnesses have stood well the test of cross-examination and we find no discrepancies in their statements on material points. 6. It is not understood as to why these persons would falsely implicate the accused for the murder of Saheb Ram. Both these witnesses have stood well the test of cross-examination and we find no discrepancies in their statements on material points. 6. As regards the mark of dragging on the persons of the deceased, it may be stated that the occurrence had taken place on the sandy ground. It has not come in the statements of both the witnesses that wire fencing was placed in such a position that by dragging Saheb Ram was bound to touch the wire fencing. As a matter of fact, It has come in the statement of PW 1 Jagdish that Saheb Ram was dragged for about one step when he was on the Pagdandl and then he was dragged further for one step when he was inside the field of the accused.He has further deposed that Saheb Ram has fallen on the ground near the wire fencing. This goes to show that Saheb Ram had not touched the wire fencing. In these circumstances, on the ground that the deceased had not sustained dragging marks, the testimony of the two eye witnesses cannot be disbelieved. It is significant to point out that as per the medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Ratanlal Agrawal (PW 2) there was one injury on the right knee of the deceased. This injury could certainly be sustained by coming into contact of wire fencing. There is no other ground on which the testimony of these two eye witnesses can be seen with suspicion. In our opinion, the trial Judge has not committed any error in placing implicit reliance on the testimony of PW 1 Jagdish and PW 6 Mani Ram in holding that the accused had caused injuries. 7. Accused has of course denied the recovery of the Kassi at his instance. However, this fact is amply proved by the statements of PW 1 Jagdish and PW 7 Mani Ram. Prithvi Singh (PW 11) has deposed that the accused had given him information Ex.P. 22 and thereafter he got the kassi recovered from his Kotha. Mani Ram (PW 7) has fully corroborated the testimony of the I.O. regarding the recovery of the Kassi at the instance of the accused. Prithvi Singh (PW 11) has deposed that the accused had given him information Ex.P. 22 and thereafter he got the kassi recovered from his Kotha. Mani Ram (PW 7) has fully corroborated the testimony of the I.O. regarding the recovery of the Kassi at the instance of the accused. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the Kassi was stained with human blood and the blood group was `O' which was that of the deceased. The recovery of the blood stained Kassi from the accused strengthen the prosecution case. 8. Accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C has admitted that the occurrence had taken place in his field and he had caused Kassi injury to the deceased. He has set up the case of right of private defence by saying that he was sitting under the Sesame tree and the deceased had gone there having lathi in his hand and he inflicted injuries on his person and abused him and as such he had to pick up the Kassi in order to defend himself. The circumstances appearing on record obviously falsify the defence case. Firstly, according to the accused he had given only one blow to the deceased whereas the deceased was found to have sustained as many as 5 incised wounds. Secondly, the accused has stated that he had suffered lathi blows on his elbow, arm, back and legs, however, not a single injury was found on the person of the accused when he was arrested and was medically examined on 23.5.87 by Dr. Jitendra Chopra (PW 3). Dr Chopra has deposed that the accused had only two boils on his person. He has not stated that there was any injury on the person of the accused on 23.5.87. There is lot of difference in a boil and an injury mark. The Medical Officer had no reason to describe the injuries as boils. It has not been suggested to the doctor that he had no experience and therefore, he might have mistook the injuries as boils. It Is relevant to state here that in the Arrest Memo Ex.P. 22 prepared by Prithvi Singh (PW 11) on 20.5.87 also it was stated that the accused was having a boil on his elbow which was bleeding. It Is relevant to state here that in the Arrest Memo Ex.P. 22 prepared by Prithvi Singh (PW 11) on 20.5.87 also it was stated that the accused was having a boil on his elbow which was bleeding. It was stated in the Memo Ex.P. 21 as follows: " eqfYte ds nkfgus gkFk dh dksguh ls mij iqjkuk QksM+k gS ls [kwu fudyk gqvk gSA " It is, thus, evident that there was no injury mark on the person of the accused even on 20th May, 1987 and only a boil on his right elbow was bleeding. Of course, In the Recovery Memo of the shirt Ex.P. 22 it was stated that on the elbow portion of the shirt there was blood which seems to be of the injury. Prithvi Singh has deposed that by mistake he wrote the word `Injury' in this memo. When we see his statement in the light of the medical evidence, it becomes clear that there was no injury mark on the elbow of the accused but it was only boil from which blood was oozing and the shirt of the accused was stained with that blood. According to the accused, he had sustained injuries not only on his elbow but also on arm, back and legs, but as already stated no injury was found on the person of the accused. This fact falsifies the version of the accused. 9. As already stated, the accused has not denied the occurrence and we have found that the accused had not sustained injury in the manner stated by him and, therefore, his plea that he had caused injuries to the deceased in the right of private defence cannot be accepted. That being so, the contention of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad that it might be a case of exceeding the private defence, is not sustainable. In our opinion, the accused was in search of an opportunity to hit the deceased and when he saw the deceased coming by the side of his field he pulled him on his side, caused multiple injuries by the Kassi. Looking to the weapon used by the accused and the vital parts of the body chosen for inflicting injuries, the irresistible inference is that the accused wanted to cause the death of Saheb Ram. We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge. 10. Looking to the weapon used by the accused and the vital parts of the body chosen for inflicting injuries, the irresistible inference is that the accused wanted to cause the death of Saheb Ram. We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge. 10. For the reasons stated above, we find no force in this appeal, which is hereby, dismissed. *******