K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS appeal by Ramesh @ Meshi is directed against the judgment and order dated 26. 4. 93 of an Additional Sessions Judge whereby he was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine0 of Rs. 500. 00. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8. 6. 91 at about 1. 20 P. M. information received from Control Room that HC Ram Kumar of PCR had informed that somebody had given knife blows to Naveen near B-11515 Raghubir Nagar, was recorded in DD No. 11 by Constable Rattan Chand Public Witness-14 and a copy thereof was made over to ASI Mahinder Singh Public Witness-20 for inquiry who along with Constable Ram Singh reached the said place. In the meantime, SI Ravinder Kumar Public Witness-22 along with ASI Gian Chand Public Witness-11 also reached the place. As Naveen, injured, was stated to have been removed to D. D. U. Hospital, Public Witness-22 along with Public Witness-11 left for that hospital leaving behind Public Witness-20 to guard the place of occurrence. In the hospital Public Witness-22 collected the MLC exhibit Public Witness-18/a of Naveen who was declared unfit for making statement vide endorsement exhibit Public Witness-18/b. Public Witness-2 Desh Raj, father of Naveen met Public Witness-22 in the hospital and he recorded his statement exhibit Public Witness2/a to the effect that he resides along with his family in House No. B-1/515 (25 yards), Raghubir Nagar and sells fruit on a rehri to earn his livelihood. His son Naveen, aged 15 years runs a fruit juice shop in front of his house. Last evening Naveen had an altercation with Ramesh @ Meshi who had left holding out threat to him. That day around 1. 00 P. M. when he came home to take meals, he found his son and Ramesh @ Meshi standing outside Anand Gas Service and in his presence uttering the words " Tu is mohalle ka dada banta hai main tujhe aaj nahin chhodunga , Ramesh gave three knife blows to Naveen as a result whereof he sustained injuries on his head, hand and chest. On raising alarm by him Ramesh fled from the spot and the occurrence was witnessed by other persons also. After making endorsement exhibit Public Witness-22/a, this statement was sent by Public Witness-22 through Public Witness-11 to Police Station Rajouri Garden and on the basis thereof FIR No. 447/91 ( carbon copy exhibit Public Witness-13/a) was recorded against the accused. It is further alleged that Public Witness-22 came to the spot along with Public Witness-2 and on his pointing out he prepared the rough site plan exhibit Public Witness-22/b; Blood soaked earth and control earth were also lifted from the spoony Public Witness-22 and those were taken into possession after converting into two separate parcels and sealing vide memo exhibits Public Witness-20/a and Public Witness-20/b respectively. Naveen expired on 11. 6. 91 in the Ganga Ram Hospital. Public Witness-22 conducted the inquest proceedings vide exhibit Public Witness-22/c and sent the body of the deceased for postmortem along with inquest papers etc. Autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. L. T. Ramani Public Witness-3 and exhibit Public Witness-3/a is the post mortem report in the hand of Public Witness- 13. On 13. 6. 91, on receipt of secret information a raiding party was organized by Public Witness-22 and the accused was apprehended from near the bus stand of route No. 857 in f Block,raghubir Nagar. Pursuant to the disclosure statement exhibit Public Witness-4/a accused got recovered a blade of scissors exhibit P-l from the dustbin near the cremation ground. He further got recovered yet another blade of the scissors alongwith boh exhibit P-2 and a safari suit exhibit P-3 from residence-cum-shop No. 2 in d Block Exhibit P-1 after preparing the sketch was taken into possession vide seizure memo exhibit Public Witness-4/d while exbit (P-2 was seized vide memo exhibit Public Witness-4/e. Safari suit exhibit P-3 was also taken into possession vide memo exhibit Public Witness-4/g after converting into a parcel and sealing with the seal of RK. It is stated that Public Witness-22 recorded the statements of the Public Witnesss besides getting the articles sent to CFSL for opinion. Exhibit Public Witnesss 17/a to C are die reports of CFSL. After completion of investigation chargesheet under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused by Inspector Rajinder Singh Public Witness-17. ( 3 ) IN his statement under Section 313 Cr. Exhibit Public Witnesss 17/a to C are die reports of CFSL. After completion of investigation chargesheet under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused by Inspector Rajinder Singh Public Witness-17. ( 3 ) IN his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. plea taken by the accused is that he had gone to his native village Tanda in Punjab on 6. 6. 91 because of the illness of his father and was not. in Delhi on 8. 6. 91. On 12. 6. 91 he was arrested from Tanda by the police officials of PP Raghubir Nagar which also included one sardarji Head Constable and was brought to Delhi. He was forced by the police to sign some written and blank papers. Blades of scissors have been planted on him. Safari suit worn by him was taken into possession by the police. He has emphatically denied having assaulted Naveen with the blade of scissors exhibit P-l as alleged. ( 4 ) IN support of the plea of alibi accused has examined Thakur Dass DW-1. DW-1 has deposed that the accused is the son of his wife s brother and on 11. 6. 91 at about 5. 00 or 5. 30 P. M. police officials of PP Raghubir Nagar came to his house and on enquiry he told them that the accused had gone to village Tanda. On the following day he alongwith police left for Tanda by Shane-Punjab train and reached there around 3. 00 P. M. Accused s father was present at the house. Accused was away to the fields and he was called through a girl to the house. Police arrested the accused and they took him the same day to Delhi. He stayed back in Tanda. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested on 13. 6. 91 from the bus stand of route No. 857 , Raghubir Nagar and he never accompanied the police to village Tanda or that the accused was not apprehended from that place. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that the contention advanced by Sh. P. R. Thakur appearing as an amicus curiae for the accused was that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may be ignored while deciding this appeal. Even otherwise that plea does not have any merit. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that the contention advanced by Sh. P. R. Thakur appearing as an amicus curiae for the accused was that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may be ignored while deciding this appeal. Even otherwise that plea does not have any merit. It is settled law that 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 occurrenceat the relevant time. Sudesh Kumari Public Witness-1, Desh Raj Public Witness-2, Shyam Lal Public Witness-8 and Vijay Kumar Public Witness-21 are alleged to be the eye witnesses of the ocurrence and it was not even remotely suggested to any of them in cross-examination that the accused was away to village Tanda at the time the occurrence took place on 8. 6. 91. It was SI Ravinder Kumar Public Witness-22 (I. O)to whom it was suggested for the first time in cross-examination that the accused was arrested from village Tanda by HC Rattan Singh and three others which he has emphatically denied. If HC Rattan Singh and three others had actually visited Tanda to apprehend the accused as alleged entries would have been made about their departure and arrival in the Daily Diary of P. P. Raghubir Nagar. For the reasons best known to the accused he did not summon that record. Omission to cross-examine Public Witnesss 1,2. 8 and 21 on the lines referred to above and non-summoning of the relevant DDs, make the plea of alibi unbelievable. Accused has failed to substantiate the plea of alibi and it must, therefore fail. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea by defence can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused (See Shankarlal Gyarsilal Dixit vs-State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 765 ). ( 7 ) CASE of the prosecution is based on the ocular evidence of Public Witnesss 1. A false plea by defence can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused (See Shankarlal Gyarsilal Dixit vs-State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 765 ). ( 7 ) CASE of the prosecution is based on the ocular evidence of Public Witnesss 1. 2,8 and 21 and the alleged recoveries of a blade of scissors exhibit P-l and safari suit exhibit P-3 having the stains of blood of the group of the deceased on the pointing out of die accused pursuant to the disclosure statement exhibit Public Witness-4/a made by the accused. ( 8 ) WE propose to deal with the reco\ cry pan first. Proceeding on the assumption that revoveriesc of exhibits P-l and P-3 were effected at the behest of the accused as is the case of the prosecution. let us examine how far both these recoveries help the prosecution in bringing home the guilt against the accused As regards the blade of scissors exhibit P-l. it may be noticed that none of the Public Witnesss 1. 2. 8 and 21. the alleged eye-witnesses has deposed that exhibit P -1 is the same weapon of offence which was used by the accused for inflicting injuries to Naveen. deceased. Exhibit P-l was also sent to Public Witness-3 Dr. L. T. Ramani who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased for eliciting the opinion if the injuries on die person of the deceased could be caused by it. It is in the deposition of Public Witness-3 that the weapon of offence brought alongwith the application dated 27. 7. 91 was returned by him without examining the same with the remark that since the injuries were stitched wounds and were already surgical ly interfered with. opinion sought for cannot be given. Public Witness-3 has thus not connected exhibit P-l as the weapon of offence. CFSL report exhibit Public Witness-17/b too docs not link exhibit P-1 as w capon of offence as according to this report the group of blood found on exhibit P-1 could not be detected. ( 9 ) TURNING to safari suit exhibit P-3, it was found to be having stains of blood of group b" that of the deceased as per CFSL report exhibit Public Witness-17/b. It was thus an important piece of evidence against the accused. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. ( 9 ) TURNING to safari suit exhibit P-3, it was found to be having stains of blood of group b" that of the deceased as per CFSL report exhibit Public Witness-17/b. It was thus an important piece of evidence against the accused. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. accused was, however, not specifically put the said piece of incriminating evidence by the trial court to seek his explanation in that behalf. In e absence of putting that piece of evidence to the accused presence of blood of the group of the deceased on exhibit P-1 cannot be read as an evidence against the accused. Thus, both the alleged recoveries of P-1 and P-3 on the pointing out of the accused are of no help to the prosecution. ( 10 ) THIS brings us to the statements of the four alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. FIR (carbon cop exhibit Public Witness-13/a) w as recorded on the basis of the statement exhibit Public Witness-2/a made by Desh Raj. one of the alleged eye-witnesses. Public Witness-2. Contention advanced by Sh. Thakur was that names cither of Smt. Sudes Public Witness-1 or Shyam Lal Public Witness-S or Vijay Kumar Public Witness-21 do not figure in the FIR implying thereby that all of them have been falsely introduced as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence by the prosecution. We propose to scrutinize those statements one by one in the light of the said submission. ( 11 ) PUBLIC Witness-1 who is the wife of informant, lias deposed that Naveen, aged 15 years was her only son an after his 10th class examinations were over they opened a juice shop for him outside their house. On 7. 6. 9 while she was coming along with her daughter Rajni accused along with 4-5 other boys was seen sitting the market and on seeing them he started hurling filthy abuses to her. On reaching the house he informed he husband about the hurling of abuses by the accused. Same day the accused again came to then shop an started abusing and quarreling with them. He went away after extending threat to them. On 8. 6. 91 a about 1. 00 P. M. after serving food to her husband who was at the house, she went to call Naveen for taking food. Same day the accused again came to then shop an started abusing and quarreling with them. He went away after extending threat to them. On 8. 6. 91 a about 1. 00 P. M. after serving food to her husband who was at the house, she went to call Naveen for taking food. When she came out of the house she saw Naveen bleeding and the accused hitting him with an object like scissors or knife. Slie cried and her husband also readied there. Accused gave main blows on the hear and chest other son. Many persons collected there but she did not know their names. Naveen was taken the D. D. U. hospital and from there he was moved to L N. J. P. hospital. In cross-examination she has state that her son was having the juice shop on the readjust in front of their house and went she went to call him for taking meals he was not at the shop but was at the shop situtated just opposite to juice shop and the accused was inflicting injuries on him there. She has admitted that Police recorded her statement and she told the police that she went out of the house to call her son for taking the meals. She was confronted with the statement exhibit Public Witness-1 /da where this was not recorded. She has denied the suggestion that shetold the police that on hearing noise from outside she and her husband had gone out. She was confronted with the statement exhibit Public Witness-1/da where it was so recorded. It is further in cross-examination that she noticed her husband at the spot after she had cried. She-had caught hold other son and in that process her clothes got blood stained but those were not seized by the police. Police met her for the first time in the evening on 8. 6. 91 in the hospital and her statement was recorded there. She has emphatically denied the suggestion cither that she was not present at the house or that she had not seen the accused inflicting injuries on the person of her son. In the scaled site plan exhibit Public Witness-12/a prepared by Devinder Singh, Draftsman, Public Witness-12, place of occurence has been shown opposite the juice shop of Naveen deceased and that juice shop lies opposite House No. B-1/515. In the scaled site plan exhibit Public Witness-12/a prepared by Devinder Singh, Draftsman, Public Witness-12, place of occurence has been shown opposite the juice shop of Naveen deceased and that juice shop lies opposite House No. B-1/515. Raghubir Nagar belonging to Public Witnesss 1 and 2. Identity of the place of occurrence as shown in exhibit Public Witness-12/a was not disputed before us on behalf of the accused. ( 12 ) OBVIOUSLY, spot w as nearby the house of Public Witnesss 1 and 2 and, therefore, likelihood of Public Witness-1 reaching the place of occurrence and witnessing the incident cannot be suspected. In his deposition Public Witness-2 has specifically spoken about the presence of Public Witness-1 at the spot at the time the incident took place. As is manifest from the depositions of both Public Witness-1 and 2. deceased w as their only male issue. At the time statement exhibit Public Witness-2/a of Public Witness-2 was recorded in the hospital on 8. 6. 91, the possibility of Public Witness-2 being not in a proper frame of mind cannot, therefore, be excluded altogether and thus omission to name of Public Witness-1 also as an eye witness cannot be taken as a valid ground to doubt her presence at the spot at the time occurrence took place. ( 13 ) COMING to the statement or Public Witness-8 , he has deposed that on 8. 6. 91 at about 1. 00 P. M. he had gone to the market to purchase house-hold articles and when he reached near Naveen Juice Shop he saw me accused saying to Naveen "tu is molialle ka dada banta hai" and thereafter inflicting 3-4 blows with a knife like object to Naveen on his head. hand and the chest. After inflicting the blows accused ran away towards "k" block. Public Witnesss 1. 2 and Vijay Kumar were present at the time the blows were being inflicted by the accused. In cross-examination he has stated that the distance in between his house and the place of occurrence was about two furlongs and he was going to the shop of jhuggiwala to take goods. It is further in his cross- examination that the did not personally know Desh Raj and his wife from before the occurrence and he only recognised Desli Raj by face as he used to sell fruits. It is further in his cross- examination that the did not personally know Desh Raj and his wife from before the occurrence and he only recognised Desli Raj by face as he used to sell fruits. He was at a distance of 5-7 paces from Naveen at the time the threat was extended and blows given to him by the accused. It is further in his cross-examination that Ins statement was recorded on 8. 6. 91 at the spot at about 5. 00 P. M. Nobody chased the accused when he ran towards "k block. He has denied the suggestion that neither he saw the incident nor was he present at the spot at diat time. Defence has not elicited any information from Public Witness-2 if he actually knew Public Witness-8 prior to the occurrence. ( 14 ) AS stated by Public Witness-8 that he did not personally know either Public Witness-2 or Public Witness-1 before the occurrence, the possibility was that Public Witness-2 also did not personally know Public Witness-8 by the time the incident took place. That being so, there was no occasion on the part of Public Witness-2 to have named Public Witness-8 as an eye-witness in the statement exhibit Public Witness-2/a. This witness has well stood the test of cross-examination and there seems to be absolutely no motive on his part to implicate die accused falsely in mis case. ( 15 ) PUBLIC Witness-21, yet another eye witness of die occurence has deposed that after visiting the house of his sister Usha Rani in Raghubir Nagar he was returning via b block at about 1. 00 P. M. and on seeing her elder sister Smt. Sudesh Public Witness-1 standing in front of her shop, he went there. He saw the accused giving blows with some object on the person of Naveen. After the accused started running he chased him but he succeeded in fleeing away. Father of Naveen Public Witness-2 had chased the accused and he was few steps ahead of him while chasing him. As he was unwell he was made to sit in the house of Public Witness-2 and he closed the door of the house from inside. In cross-examination he has stated that distance between the house of Usha Rani and Public Witness-1 is about 1/2 km. and after meeting Usha Rani, he was coming to see Public Witness-1. As he was unwell he was made to sit in the house of Public Witness-2 and he closed the door of the house from inside. In cross-examination he has stated that distance between the house of Usha Rani and Public Witness-1 is about 1/2 km. and after meeting Usha Rani, he was coming to see Public Witness-1. It is further in his cross- examination that when Naveen was about to fell Public Witness-1 caught him in her arms. He too has denied the suggestion that neither he was present at the spot nor had he seen the occurrence and being a relative of the parents of the deceased has deposed falsely. It may be noticed that the name of this witness also figures in the testimony of Public Witness-8 as one of the persons present at the spot at the time of occurrence. His statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was also recorded by the police on 8. 6. 91 itself. Ground noted while analysing the statement of Public Witness-1 for not mentioning the name of any of the eye-witnesses by Public Witness-2 in the statement exhibit Public Witness-2/a equally holds good for this witness. In our view-testimony of this witness inspires confidence and cannot be brushed aside on the ground of his being closely related to the deceased and he not being cited as a witness in me FIR; ( 16 ) FURTHER submission advanced by Sh. Thakur was that Naveen was declared unfit for making statement on 8. 6. 91 as per the endorsement appearing on the MLC exhibit Public Witness18/a and there is no medical evidence -on record to suggest that he continued to be unfit to make the statement till he expired on 11. 6,91. According to him Naveen was the best witness of the occurrence and the I. O. should "have recorded his statement which after his death could have been used as a dying declaration in this case. As is manifest from the MLC exhibit Public Witness-18/a deceased was admitted in DW hospital on 8. 6. 91 at 1. 45 P. M. by Desh Raj Public Witness-2. It is in the deposition of Public Witness-2 that the deceased was removed from that hospital to LNJP hospital and from there he was taken to Ganga Ram hospital in the evening on 9. 6. 91. Dr. 6. 91 at 1. 45 P. M. by Desh Raj Public Witness-2. It is in the deposition of Public Witness-2 that the deceased was removed from that hospital to LNJP hospital and from there he was taken to Ganga Ram hospital in the evening on 9. 6. 91. Dr. Ashok Anand from Ganga Ram hospital Public Witness-9 has deposed that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 9. 6. 91 and was transferred to Intensive Care Unit on 10. 6. 91 and he died on 11. 6. 91. He was one of the Registrars of that unit and exhibit Public Witness-9/a is the death summary while exhibit Public Witness-9/b is deathi certificate bearing his signatures pertaining to the deceased. Death summary Public Witness-9/a clearly goes to show that at the time deceased was shifted to Ganga Ram hospital on 9. 6. 91 his condition was critical and the same continued to be so till he expired on 11. 6. 91 at 7. 45 A. M. On the face of that evidence it is fallacious to contend that there is no medical evidence on record to suggest that thedeceased continued to be unfit to make the statement till he died on me said date. As the condition of tile deceased continued to be critical uptill his death, there was no occasion on the part of the 1. 0. to have recorded his statment in; regard to the occurrence in question. ( 17 ) IT was further urged by Sh. Thakur that there are variations in the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence and the prosecution has also failed to offer any plausible explanation why the blood stained clothes of Smt. Sudesh Public Witness-1 were not seized by the I. O. . by way of evidence. According to him inconsistencies in the statements and also failure to seize the; blood stained clothes of Public Witness-1 render the prosecution story as it stands highly doubtful. Inconsistencies in the statements pointed out by Sh. Thakur mainly relate to the words actually uttered by the accused before opening assault on the deceased and the fact if tile accused was at all chased after the occurrence by any of the witnesses. Inconsistencies in the statements pointed out by Sh. Thakur mainly relate to the words actually uttered by the accused before opening assault on the deceased and the fact if tile accused was at all chased after the occurrence by any of the witnesses. In our view those inconsistencies are hardly significant as the eye-witnesss of the occurrence have fully supported the prosecution case in the main, i. e the assault by the accused on the deceased. ( 18 ) IT is in the deposition of Public Witness-1 that her clothes had come in contact with the blood of the deceased at the time she caught hold of him after the assault. Seizure of those blood stained clothes of Public Witness-1 by the I. O. would have only indicated the presence of Public Witness-1 at the spot at the time the occurrence took place. Non- seizure thereof in no way renders the prosecution case doubtful as contended. ( 19 ) DR. L. T. RAMANI. AUTOPSY surgeon. Public Witness-3 has opined the injuries on the skull of the deceased to be sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. Depostions of Public Witnesss. 1,2. 8 and 21 prove the guilt of the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code beyond any shadow of doubt. Motive for committing that offence by the accused seems to be the incident which took place a day earlier on 7. 6. 91. Trial court had thus rightly convicted the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code in terms of the impugned judgment. ( 20 ) APPEAL lias no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. .