JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Naveen Sharma faced trial for offences under Sections 302 & 307, IPC before Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who by his judgment dated 16.3.1994 has convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment six months on the second count. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Smt. Madhu Shastri, widow of deceased Ramjilal Shastri has filed Cr. Revision Petition No. 165/94 for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant from life imprisonment to capital punishment. 3. Since the afore mentioned appeal and revision petition arise out of the same judgment and incident, they are being decided by this common judgment. 4. Briefly the relevant facts are that deceased Ramjilal Shastri was running educational institutions namely the Rajasthan Education College & Rajasthan Sanskrit College, which are housed in 'Samrat Ka Bagh' situated in Brahampuri, Jaipur. This Bagh consists of a Haveli and a big campus. In a portion of the said `Havel' known as `Mardana Bagh', many tenants including appellant Naveen Sharma & his brother Chandra Bhushan Sharma were also residing. In another portion of the Haveli known as `Janana Bagh', besides the aforesaid Institutions, is also situated. The way leading to `Mardana' & `Janana' Bagh portions of the `Haveli' are also separate. 5. It is the prosecution case that the said tenants unauthorisedly put some construction on the way leading to `Janana Bagh' of the `Haveli' and that in May, 1992, a stair case was also being constructed by them. Deceased Ramjilal Shastri protested and on his instructions, PW 22 Suresh Shastri, Office Secretary of the Rajasthan Sanskrit Sansad Shiksha Samiti submitted a written complaint dated 11.5.92, Ex.P 57, to the Station House Officer P.S. Brahampuri Jaipur alleging that tenants Kailash Sharma, Chandra Bhushan Sharma, the appellant Navin Sharma and others had put an unauthorised construction, that they were also constructing a stair case obstructing the way leading to the Hostel and that they were bent upon to commit breach of peace and threatened to cause injuries. It was therefore, prayed that the said tenants be bound down to keep peace. 6. It was therefore, prayed that the said tenants be bound down to keep peace. 6. On 12.5.92, Chandra Bhushan Sharma brother of the appellant also submitted a written complaint Ex.P 58 to the SHO PS Brahampuri, wherein he alleged that he was a tenant in `Samrat Ki Haveli' for last 35/36 years, that Ramjilal Shastri (deceased) had fraudulently taken possession of a major portion of the said `Haveli' and the land appurtenant thereto by getting certain documents executed by Smt. Lilawati Samrat, the owner of the Haveli, who was blind and not in a fit mental state. It was further alleged that the deceased with an intention to harass him wanted to put construction on a plot of land with a view to close the way leading to their house. It was further alleged by Chandra Bhushan Sharma that on a plot of land with a view to close the way leading to their house. It was further alleged by Chandra Bhushan Sharma that on 12.5.92 at about 7.30 A.M. deceased Ramjilal alongwith Gajadhar, Satyavart and two others armed with lathies came to his house, started removing stones of his stair case and threatened to cause injuries to them. Chandra Bhushan Sharma, therefore, prayed that necessary legal action be taken against Ramjilal Shastri. 7. It is also the prosecution case that on 13.5.92, deceased Ramjilal Shastri had also sent a letter Ex.P 59 to the Administrator, Nagar Parishad Jaipur alleging that the appellant Naveen Sharma and his brothers Kailash Chandra & Chandra Bhushan Sharma were raising unauthorised construction on the way leading to the Hostel and causing obstruction by constructing a stair case and prayed that they should be restrained from raising unauthorised construction and directed to remove the said obstruction. A copy of letter Ex.P 59 was also submitted to the SHO PS Brahampuri, who in turn handed over those complaints Ex.P 57, 58 & 59 to PW 19 Jasveer Singh, Sub-Inspector for inquiry and in pursuance thereof the latter had asked both parties to appear before him on 14.5.92 at 10 A.M. at the police station. 8. It appears that on 14.5.92 at about 11.45 A.M. the deceased alongwith his son Annu alias Anshuman (PW 1) and brother-in-law (Sala) PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was going from his house situated in Gangori Bazar, Jaipur to Rajasthan Sanskrit College in his ambassador car No. DHC 7738. 8. It appears that on 14.5.92 at about 11.45 A.M. the deceased alongwith his son Annu alias Anshuman (PW 1) and brother-in-law (Sala) PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was going from his house situated in Gangori Bazar, Jaipur to Rajasthan Sanskrit College in his ambassador car No. DHC 7738. The deceased was driving the said car; PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was sitting by his side on the front seat, while PW 1 Anu was sitting on its rear seat. It is alleged that that when the car reached in Sitaram Bazar, appellant Navin Sharma came there on a Yezdi motor cycle No. RNB 167 from the opposite side with the result that car came to a halt. The appellant stopped the motor cycle in the middle of the road, whipped out a knife; opened driver sides gate of the car and indiscriminately inflicted numerous knife blows causing multiple injuries to the deceased. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar tried to intervene but the appellant also dealt knife blows causing injuries to the former on the palm of his right hand. At that time, one Matador RJ-14- P417, which was being driven by PW 4 Laxman Singh had also reached the place of occurrence from the opposite side. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant by crossing the said matador had come in front of the car, and the deceased was forced to stop his car. It is further the case of prosecution that when the appellant was belabouring the deceased, Anshuman (PW 1) alighted from the car and ran away towards the College, where he informed PW 3 Radhey Shyam Chaukidar, PW 5 Sunil Sharma, Accountant and PW 17 Gajadhar LDC of the Sanskrit College that the appellant was inflicting knife blow to his father Ramjilal. It is alleged that in the said Matador PW 6 Dharampal Singh, Constable Police Station Chomu (Jaipur) was also travelling; that seeing the said incident, he came down from the Matador and tried to intervene but the appellant also threatened him by waving the knife and that thereafter the appellant fled away on his motor cycle. The deceased Ramjilal Shastri, who had sustained multiple injuries and who was bleeding, managed to come out of the car and fell down on the stair of a nearby house. The deceased Ramjilal Shastri, who had sustained multiple injuries and who was bleeding, managed to come out of the car and fell down on the stair of a nearby house. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar also rashed towards the College, but in the way he saw Sunil Sharma, Radhey Shyam, Gajadhar alongwith Anshuman coming towards place of incident and as such, he accompanied them and came back where the deceased was lying. It is alleged that thereafter Sunil Sharma took the injured Ramjilal Shastri and Rajendra Sharma in that car and brought them to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The condition of PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was also serious, so he was immediately admitted as an indoor patient and taken to C.T. Ward. The doctors, however, declared Ramjilal Shastri dead. The dead body of Ramjilal Shastri was, therefore, placed in the mortuary. 9. As per prosecution case PW 6 Dharampal Singh, Constable had jotted down the number of the motor cycle on his palm. He informed about the incident immediately to PW 23 Jeevan Singh SHO PS Brahampuri, who at that time was busy to laying siege to outpost (Nakabandi) on Amer Road. 10. It appears that on the same day at 11.52 A.M. the duty officer of the Police Control Room Jaipur received a telephone message from one Rajesh, from the bungalow of Shri Shanker Sharan IG Police to the effect that in Sitaram Bazar near Police out-post of Brahampuri, one person had inflicted knife injuries at about 11.50 A.M. and that the crowd assembled there. The duty officer of the Control Room received another message on wireless set from the circle Officer directing him to inform the SHO PS Brahampuri to reach the place of incident. Again on the same day at 12.10 PM, the duty officer of the Control Room received a message from one person of Sanskrit College to the effect that Ramjilal Shastri, who was the Director of Sanskrit College had been attacked. Again, on the same day at 12.52 P.M. a wireless message was also received by the duty officer that the Circle Officer Kotwali had informed that Ramjilal Shastri was attacked by knife and that two boys Navin & Chandra Bhushan Sharma had come on a black coloured Yezdi motor cycle RNB 167. All these messages were recorded in the Duty Officers Register Ex.D. 4. 11. All these messages were recorded in the Duty Officers Register Ex.D. 4. 11. It is the case of prosecution that PW 23 Jeevan Singh SHO on receiving the information from PW 6 Dharampal Singh Constable and also on his wireless set, rushed to Sitaram Bazar, where staff of the police station had already reached at the place of incident. There he was informed that injured persons had already been taken to the Hospital. Therefore, PW 23 Jeevan Singh, after instructing his police staff to safeguard the place of occurrence and to maintain the law and order, went to the SMS Hospital, where he came to know that injured Rajendra Kumar (PW 2) had already been admitted in the C.T. Ward. Some students also told him that Ramjilal Shastri had succumbed to his injuries. Thereupon, Jeevan Singh went to CT Ward and in the presence of the attendant doctor, he recorded the `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 of PW 2 Rajendra Kumar at 1.35 P.M. In Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1, Rajendra Kumar stated that he did not know the assailant by name, but he could identify him. He further stated that on that day, he along with his brother-in-law deceased Ramjilal Shastri and his nephew Anu aged 8 years were going in the Car towards Sanskrit College; that at about 12 noon when they reached Sitaram Bazar, a person on a Yezdi motor bike came from the opposite side and parked his vehicle in middle of the road and after opening drivers gate of the car inflicted numerous blows by his knife causing multiple injuries to the deceased; that when he tried to intervene, the assailant also inflicted knife blows causing injuries on his right palm. Rajendra Kumar also stated in his Parcha Bayan that just behind the motor cycle, one pink coloured Matador also came from opposite side and stopped there, wherein one Constable, who was donning police uniform tried to sage them but the assailant whipped out his knife and after starting the motor bike fled away. Rajendra Kumar further stated that the incident was witnessed by many persons of the market and passengers of the said bus, that he did not see the number of the motor bike nor he knew the name of the assailant, however, he could identify him. Rajendra Kumar further stated that the incident was witnessed by many persons of the market and passengers of the said bus, that he did not see the number of the motor bike nor he knew the name of the assailant, however, he could identify him. PW 23 Jeewan Singh sent `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 to the P.S. Brahampuri Jaipur, where initially a case under Section 307, IPC was registered. Jeewan Singh thereafter went to the mortuary, where the dead body of deceased was lying. He prepared the inquest report Ex.P 66 and seized blood stained shirt, pants, sandow vest of the deceased, which had corresponding cuts of the knife vide seizure memo Ex.P 50. he also seized blood stained pant, underwear and vest of Rajendra Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.p. 51 and sealed those packets. Thereafter he came to place of occurrence, inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex.P 55. he seized blood stained bitumen of the road and control sample vide seizure memo Ex.P 52. A wrist watch and two pieces of chain strap thereof, alleged to be of the assailant were also found lying there, which he seized and sealed vide seizure memo Ex.P 53. Photographs Ex.P 3 to 9, Ex.P 10 to 13 of the car, which was standing outside the mortuary, so also of the dead body of the deceased were taken by PW 8 Banwarilal Constable of the Police Control Room. The blood lying on the front seat and foot-mat of the car was also lifted through cotton swabs, which were seized and sealed vide memo Ex.P 54. Thereafter offence of Section 302, IPC was also added. 12. On the same day at 2.10 P.M. Circle Officer Kotwali informed the duty officer of the control room on wireless set that seise of out-posts was laid to apprehend the assailant of Ramjilal Shastri, that the assailant Navin was of fair complexion and robust physique, that he was putting on a green shirt and light grey coloured pant and driving a black coloured Yezdi motor cycle No. RNB 167. Thereupon the duty officer intimated all the police outposts etc., about the said wireless message and made entry G to H to that effect In the Duty Register Ex.D. 4. 13. PW 10 Dr. Thereupon the duty officer intimated all the police outposts etc., about the said wireless message and made entry G to H to that effect In the Duty Register Ex.D. 4. 13. PW 10 Dr. H.L. Bairwa, Medical Jurist conducted medicolegal autopsy of dead body of Ramjilal Shastri on the same day at 3.50 PM and per Post Mortem Report Ex.P 4 found the following injuries: 1. Incised wound 5 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep, vertically and oblique placed on left side face middle part. 2. Incised wound 2 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep on left side middle part of mandible oblique and vertically placed 1 cm below injury No. 1 over face. 3. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on left forearm posteriorly middle ⅓rd part oblique and vertically placed. 4. Bruised area 3 x 2 cm left arm reddish in colour laterally middle ⅓rd part. 5. Incised wound 4 x 1/2 cm x palm muscle deep oblique left hand little finger proximal and middle phalanx anterior medially. 6. Abrasion 1 & 1/2 x 1/2 cm over right knee anteriorly reddish in colour. 7. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep oblique vertically over right forearm anterior laterally upper ⅓rd right side. 8. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep oblique right forearm middle ⅓rd and laterally. 9. Incised wound 7 & 1/2 cm x 2 & 1/2 cm x muscle deep tender sheeth visible right forearm posterior medially junction of lower and middle ⅓rd vertically placed. 10. Incised wound 2 cm ii 1/2 cm x muscle deep right hand thumb posteriorly bare part. 11. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm 1/2 cm x muscle deep on right thigh anteriorly and upper ⅓rd. 12. Incised wound 2 x 1 cm x skin deep through and through coming out joining other incised wound of size 2 x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin flap scored right thigh anterior laterally middle ⅓rd. 13. Stab wound (incised) 2 cm x 1 cm x 4 & 1/2 cm on right thigh anterior medially upper ⅓rd. 14. Incised wound of size 2 x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x sole muscle deep right foot below little toe obliquely placed. 15. 13. Stab wound (incised) 2 cm x 1 cm x 4 & 1/2 cm on right thigh anterior medially upper ⅓rd. 14. Incised wound of size 2 x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x sole muscle deep right foot below little toe obliquely placed. 15. Incised wound 5 x 1/2 cm x 2 & 1/2 cm x muscle deep oblique posterior laterally right thigh middle ⅓rd part. 16. Stab wound (Incised) 3 & 1/2 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm muscle deep and another incised wound stab wound 2 x 1/2 cm x 2 cm x 4 cm muscle deep and 1/2 cm above the wound mentioned above posteriorly middle ⅓rd. 17. Incised wound (Stab) 5 x 2 cm x thoracic cavity deep placed over right side scapular region - 8 cm laterally to midline vertically oblique and narrow end is towards supra scapular region to upwards. 18. Abrasion of size 10 cm x 2 cm transversely right supra scapular region of back of chest reddish in colour. 19. Incised wound (stab) 2 x 1/2 cm x 3/4 cm x ?? deep placed over left side chest 4 cm lateral to left nipple oblique placed. 20. Stab wound (Incised) 3 x 1 & 1/2 cm x abdominal cavity deep and omentum was seen coming through the wound placed over front of abdomen - 4 cm below umbilicus. On further exploration and dissection, there was wound crossing the abdominal muscles peritoneum and the mesentery pierced in same size wound and mesentory of small intestine is through and through around clotted blood" present and infra peritoneal about 300 cc of clotted blood present. On further dissection and exploration of chest cavity of injury No. 19, the wound was crossing the chest wall and muscles and in between 5-6 ribs anterior laterally intercostal space between 5-16 ribs and upto the pleura deep - not crossing the pleural cavity around clotted blood present.On exploration of wound No. 17 over right side back of chest scapular region. It was crossing the skin, muscles and in between 6 to 7th ribs posteriorly obliquely in same length and width but the 7th rib upper part border obliquely and crossing the pleura, posteriorly lower part and left side lower lobe posterior laterally upper part, a wound was present of size 2 x 1/2 cm x through and through the right lower lobe, the inferior part of right lower lobe obliquely and the pleura right side contained about 1000 cc of blood. All above injuries are ante mortem in nature.The doctor opined that the cause of death was shock brought about as the result of injuries to the vital organs and that all injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 14. PW 10 Dr. Bairwa also examined injuries of PW 2 Rajendra Kumar on the same day at 8.45 P.M. and vide injury report Ex.P 42 found following injuries: (i) Right arm lower ⅓d elbow and upper fore-arm covered with pressure bandage for treatment. (ii) Right wrist, hand and left ring finger covered with pressure bandage for treatment. (ii) Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm x palm skin deep proximal phalanx oblique dark reddish clotted blood present with clean cut margins on right middle finger. 15. Injured PW Rajendra Kumar was operated on the same day by PW 21 Dr. R.K. Saxena for brachial artery injury in his right palm and thumb. After perusing the operation notes and x-ray reports, Dr. Bairwa vide his report Ex.P 43 opined that injury No. 1 sustained by PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was dangerous to life and that other injuries were simple in nature. 16. On 19.5.92 at about 8 A.M. the appellant was arrested at railway station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur vide arrest memo Ex.P 49. He had three injuries in between thumb and fingers of his right hand. The appellant was also putting on green coloured shirt and light grey coloured pant, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P 45. The appellant was also directed by the investigating Officer to keep himself duly veiled (Baparda). 17. He had three injuries in between thumb and fingers of his right hand. The appellant was also putting on green coloured shirt and light grey coloured pant, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P 45. The appellant was also directed by the investigating Officer to keep himself duly veiled (Baparda). 17. The case of prosecution is that on 20.5.92 the appellant volunteered information Ex.P 70 to the effect that he could get his motor cycle recovered, which was lying underneath a culvert (pulia) near village Mandhan situated on Rajasthan-Haryana border, and in pursuance thereof, he took the investigating officer to that place but no motor cycle was found, there. However, some tyre marks of a motor cycle were visible there vide memo Ex.P 71. 18. It is further the case of prosecution that on 18.5.92 PW 18 Ramakant while he was going towards village Mandhan had seen a motor cycle lying near a culvert. He informed the SHO PS Mandhan, whereupon on the same day PW 7 Mohan Singh, ASI PS Mandhan u/s 102 Cr.P.C. seized motor cycle RNB 167 vide seizure memo Ex.P 18. He also made entries in daily diary of the police station. On 20.5.92 the said motor cycle was taken into custody by PW 19 Jeevan Singh, the investigating officer. It is alleged that the handle of the accelerator and the brake lever of the said motor cycle bore blood stains. The handle and lever were taken out from the motor cycle by a mechanic and those were seized and sealed by the investigating officer vide seizure memo Ex.P 44. 19. It is alleged that on 21.5.92 the appellant volunteered information Ex.P 72 and in pursuance thereof got knife Art. 1 recovered from a tank full of water situated near an old well opposite Muslim University Ramgarh Road, Jaipur, which was seized and sealed vide recovery memo Ex.P 48. 20. On 25.5.92, PW 6 Dharampal Singh correctly identified the appellant during the test parade vide memo Ex.P. 17, which was conducted by PW 20 Gurupal Singh Nimoria, Judicial Magistrate. Since PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was confined to bed and was not permitted by the doctor to move, another test identification parade was conducted by the said Magistrate on 4.6.92 wherein Rajendra Kumar correctly identified the appellant vide Test Parade memo Ex.P. 2. 21. Since PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was confined to bed and was not permitted by the doctor to move, another test identification parade was conducted by the said Magistrate on 4.6.92 wherein Rajendra Kumar correctly identified the appellant vide Test Parade memo Ex.P. 2. 21. The sealed packets of blood stained bitumen, control sample, apparels of the deceased and Rajendra Kumar, handle of accelerator and brake lever were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. As per F.S.L. report Ex. P 74, blood stained bitumen, vest, pant and underwear of the deceased and vest, shirt and pant, pieces of cloth, cotton swabs of blood lifted from the car were found stained with human blood. The shirt and pant of injured Rajendra Kumar were found to be stained with AB group blood. However, blood group of the stains on the bitumen, vest, pant, underwear of the deceased could not be determined due to disintegration. Similarly, on pieces of clay and blood swabs taken from the car also the blood group could not be determined due to disintegration. No blood was detected on the shirt of the appellant and knife Art. 1. Similarly, origin of blood stains on the accelerator and brake lever could not be determined. 22. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions. 23. The appellant was charged for offences under Sections 302 and 307, IPC. He denied the indictment and claimed trial. To prove the prosecution case, as many as 23 witnesses were examined. The appellant in his plea recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and in his written statement submitted separately denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he was not present in Jaipur City on the date of the incident, that on 12.5.92 he had gone by bus to attend the marriage of his relative in Hansi (Haryana), that on that day, he suddenly slipped and fell down and thus sustained injuries on his hand. He admitted that he is the registered owner of the motor bike RNB 167 but claimed that on 7.5.92 he had given his motor bike to his friend Charuchandra Nirmal, who left the same near a culvert on Mandhan-kund road, because the petrol therein had exhausted and that before Charuchandra returned there, the police had already taken away that motor bike. He stated that one police officer had taken his photograph from his house, which was shown to Rajendra Kumar. He asserted that during test parade, the persons, who were mixed were not having similar physique and health and their dresses were also different. He also asserted that he did not know Anshuman and that he had seen the latter for the first time in the Court. He stated that he did not meet Ramjilal Shastri that on Ashok Pareek so Jagdish Pareek, Retired Sub-Inspector of police resides in Sitram Bazar and that his structure and physique resembles with his structure and physique. He denied to have given any information to the investigating officer and the alleged recovery of the knife. In defence, he examined DW 1 Jeevatram, DW2 Ashok Kumar Pareek and DW3 Jagdish Narain Duty Officer of the Police Control Room and got proved Ex.D. 1 to D. 4. 24. The learned trial Judge held that the wireless message received in the Control Room of police cannot be treated as first information report in this case and the `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 of PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was the FIR, that the pet name of eye witness PW 1 Anshuman is Anu. He repelled the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that Anu and Anshuman were different boys. The learned trial Judge held that eye witnesses PW 2 Rajendra Kumar and PW1 Anshuman were reliable witnesses, whose testimony was duly corroborated by statements of other eye-witnesses PW4 Laxman Singh, driver of the matador and PW 6 Dharampal Singh constable, who had proved factum of the incident and who however, did not Identify the appellant in the Court and were declared hostile. The learned trial Judge also held that the testimony of PW 1 Anshuman was fully corroborated by statements of PW 3 Radhey Shyam, PW 5 Sunil Sharma and PW 17 Gajadhar, who deposed that Anshuman had told them that appellant Naveen had inflicted injuries to the deceased and Rajendra Kumar. The learned trial Judge also held that the testimony of PW 1 Anshuman was fully corroborated by statements of PW 3 Radhey Shyam, PW 5 Sunil Sharma and PW 17 Gajadhar, who deposed that Anshuman had told them that appellant Naveen had inflicted injuries to the deceased and Rajendra Kumar. The learned trial Judge further held that the identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, wherein Dharampal Singh (PW6) and PW 2 Rajendra Kumar correctly identified the appellant as assailant, did not suffer from any vice of infirmity or illegality. The learned trial Judge also held that DW 1 Jeevatram and DW 2 Ashok Kumar were concocted and unreliable witnesses and that the plea of alibi raised by the appellant was not at all proved. The learned trial Judge however, held that due to lack of evidence, the prosecution failed to prove that the wrist watch and piece of chain strap found lying on the place of incident belonged to the appellant. The trial Judge relied upon the information memo Ex.P 70 of the appellant regarding recovery of motor bike and held that the appellant had left the said motor bike underneath the culvert, which was later on seized u/s 102 Cr.P.C. by the police of Mandhan and that the plea of accused that he had given the said motor bike to Charuchandra Nirmal was totally false. The learned trial Judge held that since no human blood was found on the handle of accelerator and brake lever-seizure thereof was meaningless. As regards the recovery of the knife the same was held to be well proved. However, since no blood was found on the knife as it was immersed in water tank, the trial Judge held that the recovery of knife did not help the prosecution. Similarly no blood was detected on the pant, shirt, and vest of the appellant, seizure thereof was also immaterial. As regards the injuries found on the right hand of the appellant, the learned trial Judge held that those could not have been caused in the manner stated by the appellant. On the other hand, those were caused during the incident. He also held that the investigation was not fained and that persons of locality were so terror stricken, that they did not disclose the details of incident to the investigating officer and as such their non production was not fatal to the prosecution. On the other hand, those were caused during the incident. He also held that the investigation was not fained and that persons of locality were so terror stricken, that they did not disclose the details of incident to the investigating officer and as such their non production was not fatal to the prosecution. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment impugned convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. 25. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the complainant at length and carefully perused the record of the trial court in extenso. 26. It has been strenuously canvassed by Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate that in this case identification of the assailant has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and as such it is a clear cut case of mistake identify. He asserted that in `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1. It has been mentioned that Anu son of the deceased age 8 years was present in the Court but during trial, PW1 Anshuman aged 12 years has been examined by the prosecution. According to Shri Bajwa, there is no evidence that Anu and PW1 Anshuman are none and the same boy and that Anshuman is also known by the name Anu, and that as a matter of fact. PW 1 Anshuman has been later on substituted in place of Anu. He reiterated that PW 1 Anshuman did not know the appellant previously because had it been so. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar ought to have been informed by PW5 Radheyshyam, Sunil Sharma and Gajadhar that the assailant was appellant Naveen Sharma, but in Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1, name of appellant Naveen Sharma as the assailant is conspicuously missing. On the other hand, PW2 Rajendra Kumar in Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 has stated that he did not know the assailant by name. Shri Balwa urged that statements of PW 1 Anshuman, and PW2 Rajendra Kumar are also replete with material contradictions, significant inconsistencies and substantial improvements and as such they are wholly unreliable witnesses. His another thrust of argument is that the prosecution has not examined any independent person of the locality when admittedly the alleged incident had taken place in a broad day light in Sitaram Bazar, Jaipur, where a crowd had assembled. His another thrust of argument is that the prosecution has not examined any independent person of the locality when admittedly the alleged incident had taken place in a broad day light in Sitaram Bazar, Jaipur, where a crowd had assembled. On the other hand employees/office bears of the Sanskrit College, who were interested witnesses have been examined. Thus, the learned trial Judge has committed a patent illegality in placing reliance on their testimony. Another contention of Shri Bajwa is that PW 1 Anshuman is a child witness and this possibility cannot be ruled out that he was duly prompted and tutored. Shri Bajwa urged that as per testimony of PW 23 Jeewan Singh, Investigating Officer, when he reached the Hospital, he had come to know that Ramjilal Shastri had already died, but still then instead of conducting autopsy and registering the case under Section 302, IPC, he recorded Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 of Rajendra Kumar and initially registered the case under Section 307, IPC. He asserted that as per the message Ex.D. 4 received on wireless set of the Control Room, two persons had come on motor bike, that the width of various incised/stabbed wounds sustained by Ramjilal Shastri also indicate that those were caused by more than one sharp edged weapons, but the learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored this material effect and committed illegality in holding that there was only one assailant. Another plank of argument of Shri Bajwa is that the ocular testimony, is in conflict with medical evidence, that photograph of the appellant was shown to PWs Rajendra Kumar and Dharampal Singh prior to the test parade and that since persons of similar size, height, structure and appearance were not mingled with the appellant during the test parade by the Magistrate, the test parades are meaningless and unreliable. The recovery of the knife as also recovery of the motor bike also do not incriminate the appellant with the crime, that the prosecution case suffers from vice of tainted investigation and as such no reliance can be placed on the prosecution evidence. Shri Bajwa has urged that the defence taken by the appellant stands duly probabilised. Shri Bajwa has, therefore, strenuously contended that the learned trial Judge has not correctly discussed, analyzed and evaluated the evidence recorded in this case and committed patent illegality in convicting the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 27. Shri Bajwa has urged that the defence taken by the appellant stands duly probabilised. Shri Bajwa has, therefore, strenuously contended that the learned trial Judge has not correctly discussed, analyzed and evaluated the evidence recorded in this case and committed patent illegality in convicting the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 27. On the other hand, Shri S.R. Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that the pet name of PW1 Anshuman is Anu, that this fact has been well proved by the sworn testimony of PW2 Rajendra Kumar that during trial no suggestion was put to any of the prosecution witnesses that Anshuman and Anu are different boys, that it is merely a figment of imagination on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant that Anshuman and Anu are different boys or that Anshuman has been later on substituted as an eye witness. Shri Yadav has maintained that from the prosecution evidence, it stands firmly established that Anshuman knew the appellant previously; that immediately after the incident he had informed PWs Sunil Sharma, Radhey Shyam and, Gajadhar that the appellant Navin had inflicted knife blows and caused injuries to the deceased. Since Rajendra Kumar had sustained serious injuries and his condition was serious, he was immediately admitted as indoor patient in the C.T. ward of SMS Hospital and that he neither knew nor any person informed him about the death of Ramjilal Shastri. That is why in his `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 he disclosed about the details of the incident and did not inform the Investigating Officer that Ramjilal Shastri had succumbed to his Injuries. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that PW 23 Jeewan Singh, Investigating Officer deposed that though some students had told him that Ramjilal Shastri had died but, he did not believe them and he first of all recorded the Parhca Bayan Ex.P 1 of Rajendra Kumar. According to him, there was nothing abnormal or unnatural on the part of Jeewan Singh to have first recorded the Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 of Rajendra Kumar. Shri Yadav has urged that even in the information received by the duty officer of the Control Room there was no mention that Ramjilal Shastri had succumbed to his injuries. According to him, there was nothing abnormal or unnatural on the part of Jeewan Singh to have first recorded the Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 of Rajendra Kumar. Shri Yadav has urged that even in the information received by the duty officer of the Control Room there was no mention that Ramjilal Shastri had succumbed to his injuries. Besides this, the information was received on the wireless set by the duty officer of the Police control from cannot be equated or treated as F.I.R. received by the S.H.O. PS Brahampuri Jaipur. He has asserted that the learned trial Judge has correctly scanned, examined and assessed the evidence recorded in this case and has not committed any illegality either of fact or law in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 and 307, IPC. He has also reiterated the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge. 28. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner Smt. Madhu Shastri, the widow of the deceased has emphatically urged that it is a case of broad day light murder in the market; that the appellant bore animosity with the deceased as the latter had objected the appellant and his brother from raising unauthorised construction on the way leading to the Hostel of the Sanskrit College and had also reported against them to the police prior to the incident, that the appellant acted like a dare devil, stopped the car by parking his motor bike in the middle of the road and by opening the drivers gate of the car indiscriminately dealt innumerable blows causing fatal injuries affecting vital organs of the deceased and that when Rajendra Kumar intervened, he also caused knife injuries to him. Thus, it is a case of premeditated murder in a brutal manner. Hence, it is a rarest of the rare cases wherein death penalty should be awarded to the appellant. 29. Shri Bajwa learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand has maintained that there aggravating circumstances calling for exaction of extreme penalty do not exist in this case. 30. We have given our most thoughtful and careful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. First of all, we think it proper to closely scan, scrutinise, and re-appraise the evidence on record. 31. PW1 Anshuman Shastri was examined on 28/10/1992 on that day his age was about 12 years. 30. We have given our most thoughtful and careful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. First of all, we think it proper to closely scan, scrutinise, and re-appraise the evidence on record. 31. PW1 Anshuman Shastri was examined on 28/10/1992 on that day his age was about 12 years. He was a student of 7th Class. The learned trial Judge put several questions to him and keeping in view answers given by him, came to the conclusion that he very well understood the questions put to him, that he knew the importance of oath and held that he was a competent witness. He, therefore, administered oath to this witness. Anshuman deposed that his father died on 14.5.92 at about 11 A.M. He along with his father and maternal uncle Rajendra Kumar (PW 2) left his house situated in Gangori Bazar and proceeded to Sanskrit College in their car, that his father was driving the car while Rajendra Kumar was sitting by his side on the front seat and that he (Anshuman) was sitting on the rear seat of the car. When their car reached near the turn of Sitaram Bazar, a matador came from the opposite side. In the meantime, one motor cycle from the side of the matador also came there. That motor cycle being driven by appellant Navin, to whom he knew previously. He correctly identified the appellant in the Court, Anshuman stated that the appellant stopped his motor cycle in between the said matador and their car. Thereafter the appellant got down from his motor cycle, opened the gate of their car and started inflicting knife blows to his father. He dealt about 18-20 blows of knife; that Rajendra Kumar tried to intervene but the appellant also inflicted knife blows to him. Thereafter the appellant got down from his motor cycle, opened the gate of their car and started inflicting knife blows to his father. He dealt about 18-20 blows of knife; that Rajendra Kumar tried to intervene but the appellant also inflicted knife blows to him. Anshuman further stated that Rajendra Kumar opened the door of the car of his side and that his father came out from the car and fell down, and that a police personnel also tried to stop the appellant, but the latter warded off his knife towards him and thereafter fled away on his motor cycle, which bore registration No. RNB 167 Anshuman deposed that thereafter he opened the door of his side and ran away towards Sanskrit College, where he informed about the incident to his brother Manohar Shastri and brother in law Sunil Shama that Navin had inflicted knife blows to his father. In cross examination, he stated that the colour of the matador was rosy, but he did not remember number of that matador nor colour of the motor cycle. He stated that number of the motor cycle of his maternal uncle was RNE 625. He stated that due to summer vacations, he some times used to go to Sanskrit College; that just opposite the boundary of Sanskrit College, his father had laid down foundation for constructing a house, that in front of the said foundation, some construction was going on in the house of the appellant Navin Sharma, that his father knew the appellant; that the foundation of their house was laid down on 25.4.1992, and that a few days prior to the incident, his father had exchange of words with the appellant Naveen in his presence. He deposed that his father had a dispute with the appellant about the construction work, and, therefore, he knew the appellant by name. He pleaded his ignorance as to who was the owner of the `Samrat Ke Haveli' and as to whether Lilawati, who was living in a closed room, is the owner of the said `Haveli' or not? He also pleaded his ignorance as to whether his father had taken possession of the said `Haveli' by inducing `Lilawati' or whether some civil suit was pending against his father in respect of the said `Haveli'. He also pleaded his ignorance as to whether his father had taken possession of the said `Haveli' by inducing `Lilawati' or whether some civil suit was pending against his father in respect of the said `Haveli'. He also pleaded his ignorance to the suggestion that his father had illegally confined `Lilawati' and did not permit her to meet any other person. He also did not know as to whether his father with the help of the students got some portion of `Samrat Haveli' forcibly evicted for using that portion as Hostel. He deposed that on 14.5.92 the appellant did not cause any injury to him; that when he returned from Sanskrit college with Manohar and sunil Sharma to the place of incident, then at that time, his father was lying on a stair case, but he was not speaking; that thereafter he went away to his house, where he informed his mother and aunt about the incident. He stated that his brother Manohar and Sunil Sharma did not talk to his father in his presence; that the blood was oozing out of the injuries of his father, which fell down on the stair case also and which was later on washed off; that when he again reached place of incident along with his mother but by that time, his father and maternal uncle had already been taken to the hospital. He emphatically stated that the appellant had inflict all the knife blows to his father, when the latter was inside the car and that none of the injuries was caused to his father when he came out side the car. He strongly denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of the incident and empathically asserted that he was very much present there in the car. He was also confronted with his police statement Ex.D. 1, but no substantial or significant improvement or omission from his police statement has been established. It may be pointed out here that no suggestion was put to this witness on behalf of the appellant that his pet name was not Anu or that there was another son of the deceased by the name Anu. Anshuman has been cross examined at length. He has given straight forward answers to all the questions put to him during his examination-in-chief and cross examination. Anshuman has been cross examined at length. He has given straight forward answers to all the questions put to him during his examination-in-chief and cross examination. He has clearly and categorically deposed that the appellant had inflicted repeated knife blows and caused multiple injuries to his father in his presence and that when his maternal uncle Rajendra Kumar tried to intervene to save the deceased, the appellant also caused injuries to him. The learned trial Judge noted his demeanour and made a specific note that from the questions put by him to this witness, it was manifest that he was an intelligent boy who very well knew the importance of oath. In our considered opinion, PW1 Anshuman's testimony has not been shattered at all. He does not appear to be a tutored witness. On the other hand, he has answered all the questions put to him intelligently and fearlessly. He has successfully withstood the test of cross examination. His presence at the time of the incident was also most natural. The version given out by PW1 Anshuman has also been fully corroborated by Rajendra Kumar, Radhey Shyam, Sunil Sharma, and Gajadhar to whom he had informed about the incident immediately after the incident. The learned Trial Judge, therefore, did not commit any error in holding him as a reliable witness. 32. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar deposed that on the ill fated day, he alongwith his wife had come to the house of his brother-in-law deceased Ramjilal Shastri situated in Gangori Bazar, Jaipur. On that day at about 11-12 noon they proceeded for Sanskrit College in Ambassador Car of the deceased. The deceased was driving the car while he was sitting by formers side on the front seat and his nephew Anu was sitting on the back seat of the car. He specifically stated that the pet name of Anshuman is Anu and that is why he had mentioned the presence of Anu in his Parcha Bayan Ex.P. 1. Again, no suggestion was put to this witness that in fact, Anu and Anshuman were two different boys nor that there was any other son of deceased Ramjilal Shastri named `Anu'. This witness has categorically refuted the suggestion that PW1 Anshuman was not present in the Car at the time of the incident. He stated that the age of Anshuman was about 8-10 years. This witness has categorically refuted the suggestion that PW1 Anshuman was not present in the Car at the time of the incident. He stated that the age of Anshuman was about 8-10 years. Since Anshuman was a student of class VII, it was quite natural that his age was around 10-11 years. It may be just possible that PW1 Anshuman Singh while giving his statement before the trial Court might have wrongly assessed his age as 12 years. Therefore, simply because in `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1, the age of Anshuman was given as 8 years by PW 2 Rajendra Kumar, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the boy mentioned as Anu aged 8 years in `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 was a different boy then PW1 Anshuman or that the latter has been substituted during investigation. It may also be pointed out here that PW 23 Jeewan Singh had recorded statement Ex.D. 1 of Anshuman Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.5.92 i.e. on the day of incident, itself. Therefore, it cannot be held that Anu and Anshuman were two different boys and that Anshuman was substituted in place of Anu during investigation. On the other hand, it stands well established that the pet name of Anshuman is Anu. Therefore, there was nothing wrong or unnatural on the part of Rajendra Kumar, who in his Parcha Bayan Ex.P. 1 had mentioned the presence of his nephew Anu in the car at the time of incident. 33. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar deposed that when their car reached Sitaram Barar then a rosy coloured matador came from the opposite side and since there was no space their car was stopped, that in the meantime, a boy driving a Yezdi motor cycle also came there in front of their car crossing that matador and parked the motor cycle on the middle of road. He identified the appellant and stated that he was that boy. He told that the appellant came to their car, opened its driver side gate and started giving indiscriminate knife blows to Ramjilal causing multiple injuries to him. The appellant had inflicted about 20-25 knife blows to Ramjilal. He stated that Ramjilal lay down towards him but the appellant continued inflicting knife blows on abdomen buttocks, thighs and other parts of the body of Ramjilal. The appellant had inflicted about 20-25 knife blows to Ramjilal. He stated that Ramjilal lay down towards him but the appellant continued inflicting knife blows on abdomen buttocks, thighs and other parts of the body of Ramjilal. He deposed that in order to save Ramjilal, when he tried to catch hold of appellants knife, he also sustained injuries on his right palm, fingers, thumb and right forearm and that thereafter the appellant after starting his motor cycle tried to run away. At that time, one police man tried to stop the appellant but the latter frightened him by waving his knife and whisked away. He deposed that Ramjilal came out of the car and walked for a few steps and fell down near the stair case of a house situated at the road side. He stated that thereafter he rushed towards Rajasthan Sanskrit College but before he reached the College in the way he saw Anshuman, Sunil Sharma coming from the college side. Therefore, he accompanied them and came to the place of incident, where by that time, students of the College had also assembled. He deposed that thereafter injured Ramjilal was lifted and placed in the Car, that Sunil Sharma drove the Car and that he and his another nephew also sat in the Car and proceeded for SMS Hospital. He stated that they were taken to the Emergency Ward, where he was admitted as indoor patient and immediately taken to the C.T. Ward. He told that the police recorded his Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 on the same day. Rajendra Kumar deposed that he had correctly identified the assailant, who was appellant Navin in the jail during the test identification parade before the Magistrate. He proved his signature on the test parade memo Ex.P 2. In cross examination, he stated that after receiving injuries Ramjilal was moaning and that the latter did not ask to take him to the hospital. Rajendra deposed that he came to know about death of Ramjilal (deceased) on the third day of the incident and that when his `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 was recorded, he did not know that Ramjilal had succumbed to his injuries. Rajendra deposed that he came to know about death of Ramjilal (deceased) on the third day of the incident and that when his `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 was recorded, he did not know that Ramjilal had succumbed to his injuries. He admitted that, at that time, he was suffering from pain and perplexed and, therefore, he did not inform the investigating officer that the appellant had stopped his motor cycle just by the side of the matador on the road. Similarly, he did not tell to the Investigating Officer that the appellant after getting down from his motor cycle had glanced on both sides of the road before coming to their car, that the appellant had inflicted 20-25 knife blows to the deceased and that the deceased Ramjilal in order to save his life descended from the Car. Similarly also, he did not tell the Investigating Officer that by giving support to the deceased, he got the latter laid down on the stair case and that thereafter had gone away towards the College. In our considered opinion, the afore mentioned omissions in the police statement of PW 2 Rajendra Kumar are neither significant nor material. Rajendra Kumar had sustained severe injuries mentioned in his injury report Ex.P 42. His brachial artery was cut, which necessitated his operation on the same day. He was suffering from great pain and mental agony. In such circumstances, it was not expected for him to have given a photographic description of the Incident in his `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1. 34. In State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram and others (1983 Cr.LR (SC) p. 507). It has been held that the FIR need not be stuffed with meticulous details of the incident. It is merely meant to narrate brief facts which led to the incident viz. names of the assailants and the place of occurrence, etc. 35. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was not informed about the death of Ramjilal, because he was immediately taken to the C.T. Ward for treatment and operation. Had he known about the death of the deceased, there was no reason for him to have not narrated this fact in his `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1. 35. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was not informed about the death of Ramjilal, because he was immediately taken to the C.T. Ward for treatment and operation. Had he known about the death of the deceased, there was no reason for him to have not narrated this fact in his `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1. He did not state in `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 that Anshuman had told him that the assailant was appellant Navin Sharma or that Radhey Shyam, Sunil Sharma and Gajadhar had told him that as per the information given by Anshuman, the assailant was Navin. As a matter of fact, Rajendra Kumar had no occasion to have any conversation with Anshuman after the incident. In such circumstances, PW 2 Rajendra Kumar frankly stated in Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 that he did not know the name of the assailant but could identify him. 36. On 15.5.92, PW 20 Gurupal Singh, Judicial Magistrate had also recorded the statement Ex.P 60 of Rajendra Kumar U/s. 164 Cr.PC in the C.T. Ward of SMS Hospital, Jaipur, wherein he had given similar details of the incident. He was operated on 16.5.92. He had been relieved of some pain. In his statement Ex.P. 60, he deposed that the assailant was a young boy of fair complexion having robust physique and that he could identify him. He stated that he was informed about the death of Ramjilal on the third day of the incident. It is common knowledge and experience that when a person sustains serious injuries generally his relatives avoid disclosing said news to the injured especially the sad news about death of a close relative so that it might not have any adverse effect on his serious condition. 37. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar further deposed that prior to the incident and thereafter till test identification parade, he was in the hospital and that he had not seen the appellant and that he had correctly identified him during the test parade. He categorically denied the suggestion that the police had shown the photograph of the appellant to him prior to the test parade. He stated that the blade of the knife was about 5-6 inches in length and that when the appellant inflicted injures to the deceased, the latter had simply exclaimed, "Kya Ho Raha Hai" and that Ramjilal did not utter the name of the assailant nor hurled abuses to him. He stated that the blade of the knife was about 5-6 inches in length and that when the appellant inflicted injures to the deceased, the latter had simply exclaimed, "Kya Ho Raha Hai" and that Ramjilal did not utter the name of the assailant nor hurled abuses to him. He stated that when Sunil Sharma and Manohar asked him as to who had belaboured Ramjilal, he told them that he did not know the name of assailant. However, he told them that the assailant was of fair complexion and had robust physique. He specifically stated that when Sunil Sharma and Manohar had asked him about the assailant, Anshuman was at a distance of 2-4 paces and that thereafter they placed Ramjilal in the car and rushed to the hospital. Thus, it is crystal clear that there was no occasion for this witness to have any conversation with Anshuman and that is the reason that he did not name the assailant in his `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1. During operation he was given anaesthesia. He stated that after operation he regained consciousness in the night at about 10 P.M. This witness has been put to searching cross examination, but his testimony has remained un-shattered and unshaken. He also received injuries during the incident as such, he is a stamped witness and his presence at the time of the incident cannot be doubted. We do not find any material improvement in his statement. We also do not find any material contradiction or substantial inconsistency on the testimony of PW 1 Anshuman and PW 2 Rajendra Kumar, Their testimony cannot be brushed aside, simply on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased. 38. In Gopal Singh v. State of U.P. (1978 Cr.LR SC p. 297) , the murders were committed at broad day light. The main stay of the prosecution was the ocular account given by two injured persons, who were relatives of the deceased. They had received gun shot injuries, which were hall marks of their presence at the scene of incident. It was contended on behalf of the accused that they were interested witnesses related to the deceased and as such, their testimony should be discarded. They had received gun shot injuries, which were hall marks of their presence at the scene of incident. It was contended on behalf of the accused that they were interested witnesses related to the deceased and as such, their testimony should be discarded. It was held by the Apex Court that true, they were interested witnesses, being related to the deceased but far from undermining In the circumstances of the case, it guaranteed the truth of their testimony and being relations, they would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant or substitute him In place of the real culprit. 39. It is true that the testimony of interested and relative witnesses has to be carefully and closely scrutinised. We have extensively read the statements of PW 1 Anshuman and PW 2 Rajendra Kumar and we are of the considered opinion that their presence at the time of the incident was quite natural, that they are truthful witnesses and that their testimony inspires confidence. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality either of the fact or law in placing reliance on the statements of these witnesses, which also stand duly corroborated by the medical evidence and statements of the other prosecution witnesses. 40. PW 4 Laxman Singh deposed that he was the driver of Matador No. RJ 14 P-417; that on the ill-fated day, he was taking passengers in his matador from Jawahamagar to Amer and when he turned the matador near Sitaram Bazar, he saw a motor cycle and car parked on the middle of the road; that one person was inflicting knife blows to the car driver; and that in the said car, beside the driver, one more person and a boy were sitting. Other person was sitting besides the driver. He, however, stated that he did not know as to whether the person sitting besides the driver of the Car had received injuries or not? He deposed that in his Matador one police constable was also travelling, who seeing the said incident got down from the Matador but the assailant showed knife towards that police Constable and thereafter fled away on his motor cycle. He stated that one of the passengers in the Matador had told that the said assailant was son of a Thanedar. He deposed that in his Matador one police constable was also travelling, who seeing the said incident got down from the Matador but the assailant showed knife towards that police Constable and thereafter fled away on his motor cycle. He stated that one of the passengers in the Matador had told that the said assailant was son of a Thanedar. It may be pointed out here that the appellant is also son of Murlidhar, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police. 41. With the permission of the Court, this witness was allowed to be contradicted U/s. 154 read with S. 145 of the Evidence Act with portion A to B of his previous police statement Ex.P 15, wherein it was mentioned that when the other person sitting in the Car, intervened, he also received injuries. In his cross-examination, Laxman Singh stated that his Matador had stopped for about 3-4 minutes at the place of occurrence and by the time he left the place of incident, the crowd which had assembled had also dispersed; that the driver of the car, who had sustained injuries was lying in the Car, whereas the other person had run away from the Car. He stated that he could not identify that assailant. He also pleaded his ignorance to the suggestion put by the defence as to whether Ashok s/o Jagdish Retired Sub-Inspector used to loiter in that Bazar or not? This witness has thus proved the factum of incident, but he has not identified the assailant. 42. PW 6 Dharampal Singh deposed that he was posted as Constable at Police Station Chomu and that on 14.5.92, he was on casual leave and had come to Jaipur; that he was travelling in a Matador Mini bus from Jorawar Singh Gate to Brahampuri; that at about 11.45 A.M. when the mini bus reached Sitaram Bazar, he saw that one boy was manhandling the driver of an ambassador Car; that since the mini bus was heavily loaded and mostly girls were travelling therein, he took some time to alight from the bus. He saw that the car driver had sustained severe injuries and blood was oozing out therefrom; that another person who was sitting near by the driver seat of the Car had also received injuries. He stated that he could not see as to whether any person was sitting on the back seat of the Car or not. He saw that the car driver had sustained severe injuries and blood was oozing out therefrom; that another person who was sitting near by the driver seat of the Car had also received injuries. He stated that he could not see as to whether any person was sitting on the back seat of the Car or not. He stated that he took 2-3 minutes to board down from the bus and that at that time he did not see the motor cycle on the road. However, the driver of the matador told him that the number of that motor cycle was RNB 167, which he had jotted down on the palm of his hand. He further deposed that the said motor cyclist was of robust physique and that due to lapse of time, it was difficult for him to identify the assailant. He, therefore, did not identify the appellate before the trial Judge. Accordingly, he was declared hostile. In his cross examination, he denied the contents of portions A to B, C to D and G to H of his police statement Ex.P 16, wherein he had stated that the motor cyclist after whipping out the knife had indiscriminately inflicted knife blows to the driver of the ambassador car and that when he proceeded towards the assailant, the latter ran towards him; that in the car one boy was also sitting, and that he could not identify the assailant. He stated that when the Matador reached near Ramgarh Chauraha, where the police had laid `Nakabandi', he informed the SHO about the incident. He also admitted his signatures on the test identification memo Ex.P 17 and that he had identified the appellant. However, he added that prior to the test parade, which was held on 25.5.92, a photograph of the appellant was shown to him. It may be pointed out here that this witness did not inform the Magistrate during test parade that a photograph of the appellant had been shown to him prior to the test parade. It appears that this witness has deliberately given false statement on this count. He admitted that he did not inform about this fact either to his officer or to Jeewan Singh SHO that his statement Ex.P 17 was not correctly recorded. It appears that this witness has deliberately given false statement on this count. He admitted that he did not inform about this fact either to his officer or to Jeewan Singh SHO that his statement Ex.P 17 was not correctly recorded. He admitted that it was incumbent for him to have given information about the incident to the Police but since his brother in-law had met with an accident and he was in a perplexed mood, he did not lodge any report at the police station or inform any senior officer of the police. In our considered opinion, PW 6 Dharampal Singh has proved the factum of incident but deliberately spoken a lie regarding the identification of the assailant. 43. Thus from the statements of PW 4 Laxman Singh and PW 6 Dharampal Singh, the factum of the incident stands fully proved though they have not identified the appellant. It is needless to mention that doctrine of `falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' does not hold true in India and the Court after meticulously analysing and assessing the statement of such a witness has to sift the grain from the chaff. The Court should make efforts in disintegrating truth from falsehood. Merely because a portion of the testimony of a witness is unreliable, it is not a ground to brush aside his entire testimony. Therefore, from the testimony of PW 4 Laxman Singh and PW 6 Dharampal Singh it stands fairly established that the motor cyclist having fair complexion and robust physique had inflicted innumerable knife blows to the driver of the said ambassador car causing multiple injuries, that he also inflicted injuries to the person, who was sitting by the side of the car driver and who had tried to intervene, in Sitaram Bazar and that in fact the alleged incident had occurred. 44. PW 3 Radhey Shyam; who worked as Chowkidar of Rajasthan Sanskrit College, deposed that on 14.5.92 at about 11.30 A.M. Anshuman s/o deceased Ramjilal had come to the College and told that a quarrel had taken place. He however, stated that he could not hear as to between whom the quarrel had taken place and as to who had inflicted injuries to whom. He however, stated that he could not hear as to between whom the quarrel had taken place and as to who had inflicted injuries to whom. He stated that thereafter he went to Sitaram Bazar, where he saw dead body of Ramjilal lying on the road, that Raju alias Rajendra was also present there, who had also sustained injuries and that thereafter Sunil Sharma, Manohar and two other students took Shastri Ji in the Car to the hospital. This witness has been declared hostile. When this witness was confronted with portion A to B of his police statement Ex.P 14, wherein he had stated that at about 11.45 A.M. Ramjilal Shatri's son Anshuman came to the College running In a perplexed condition and told that Navin Sharma had inflicted knife blows to his father in Sitaram Bazar, this witness simply stated that he did not remember as to whether he had given such a statement or not. thus, he did not have any courage to deny contents of portion A to B of his police statement Ex.P 14. Again, this witness avoided the question and stated that he did not remember as to whether he had given portions C to D of his police statement Ex.P 14, wherein he had stated that Anshuman had informed him that Rajendra Sharma had also received knife injuries and that he was also lying there. He also did not deny the suggestion that he was telling a lie due to the pressure of the appellant and his family members. In cross examination he admitted that when he reached the place of incident Shastri Ji was lying on the stair case and that the blood was also spread over the road as well as on the stair case and that about 10 to 25 persons had also assembled there. He stated that near the car also, the blood was also visible. He is therefore, not a reliable witness. He does not prove the prosecution case. 45. PW 5 Sunil Sharma is the son-in-law of the deceased. He was working as an Accountant in the Sanskrit College. He deposed that at about 11.30 A.M. Anshuman came running to the College and told him that Navin had inflicted knife blows to his father in Sita Ram Bazar. He does not prove the prosecution case. 45. PW 5 Sunil Sharma is the son-in-law of the deceased. He was working as an Accountant in the Sanskrit College. He deposed that at about 11.30 A.M. Anshuman came running to the College and told him that Navin had inflicted knife blows to his father in Sita Ram Bazar. He further deposed that at that time Gajadhar and Suresh were also sitting there, that thereupon all of them got up; and reached the place of incident; that in the way they also saw PW 2 Rajendra Kumar coming towards the College who had also sustained injuries on his hand and blood oozed out therefrom. He stated that they saw that the car of the deceased was standing in Sitaram Bazar and Ramjilal Shastri was lying down on the stair case, and that they lifted and placed him on the rear seat of the car. He drove the car to SMS Hospital. He stated that he also took Rajendra Kumar in the Car that they went to the Emergency Ward of the Hospital, where Rejendra was admitted in the C.T. Ward and the doctors declared Ramjilal Shastri Ji dead. He stated that the distance between the Sanskrit College and place of incident was about 100 yards. In cross-examination, he stated that none of them enquired from Rajendra Kumar as to who had inflicted blows to the deceased because Anshuman had already intimated them that Navin was the assailant. He asked Gajadhar to inform the police on phone that Saras Sadan, where the deceased was residing in Gangori Bazar was at a distance of half km. from the place of incident. He stated that he requested the doctor of the Emergency Ward of SMS Hospital to immediately examine the deceased and also informed him that the deceased had received injuries but did not name the assailant. In our view, there is nothing unnatural in the conduct of this witness because attendants of a patient are not required to given out the name of the assailant to the doctors. 46. PW 5 Sunil Sharma further stated that when the deceased was being taken in the car to the Hospital, he was moaning due to excessive pain and crying "Baar Re Baar Re". The deceased was telling that he should be immediately taken to the hospital. 46. PW 5 Sunil Sharma further stated that when the deceased was being taken in the car to the Hospital, he was moaning due to excessive pain and crying "Baar Re Baar Re". The deceased was telling that he should be immediately taken to the hospital. He stated that he did not ask Rajendra Kumar about the incident in the Car. He further stated that the deceased was lying unconscious and as such, he did not try to talk to him. He stated that blood was coming out of the mouth of the deceased and, therefore, he was sure that he had not died and was alive. He was confronted with his previous police statement Ex.D. 2 but in our considered opinion, he has not made any substantial improvement, in his statement during trial. Again, not a single question has been put to this witness on behalf of the accused that the deceased besides Anshuman had another son by the name of Anu or that Anshuman and Anu are two different boys. This witness categorically refuted the suggestion that the attack on the deceased had taken place at about 9 A.M. and that he has died in Sitaram Bazar due to the excessive loss of blood. This suggestion put on behalf of the accused appears to be without foundation. There is no evidence on record to the affect that the incident had taken place at 9 A.M. It is also quite unnatural that in busy market like Sitaram Bazar, dead body of a person lay for more than 3 hours unattended especially when the Police outpost is situated just nearby the place of incident. Therefore, the defence theory on this count appears to us to be without foundation and merely a creature of an after-thought. 47. PW 17 Gajadhar stated that he was working as LDC in the Rajasthan Sanskrit College; that the deceased Ramjilal Shastri was Director of the College, that on 14.5.92, at about 11.30 A.M. He alongwith Sunil Sharma and Manohar were sitting in the office and that in the mean while PW 1 Anshuman son of the deceased came there and told them that Navin had inflicted knife to his father and maternal uncle; that thereupon, they rushed to Sitaram Bazar, which was hardly at a distance of about 1/4 km., where they saw that Shastri Ji (deceased) was lying on the road. He also stated that while he was coming to the place of incident. PW 2 Rajendra Kumar had also met them at the door of the College and that the latter had also sustained injuries and blood was oozing out of his injuries. He deposed that thereafter Sunil Sharma took injured Ramjilal Shastri and Rajendra Kumar in the Car and took them to the SMS Hospital and that Manohar Radhey Shyam had also accompanied them. Thereafter he came to the College and informed SP (Rural), Jaipur, who gave him the number of police control room and whereupon he informed the control room that knife blows were inflicted to the deceased. He has identified the appellant in the Court and proved various seizure memoes of the blood stained clothes of the deceased and injured and seizure memo wrist watch and pieces of chain strap thereof. Hence from statements of PWs Sunil Sharma and Gajadhar, it stands well established that immediately after the occurrence PW 1 Anshuman had informed them that the appellant had inflicted knife blows causing injuries to the deceased as also to Rajendra Kumar. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that from the statements of the eye witnesses, PW 1 Anshuman and PW 2 Rajendra Kumar, whose testimony has been duly corroborated by PWs Sunil Sharma and Gajadhar the prosecution has successfully proved that the assailant of the deceased was none else but appellant Navin Sharma. 48. PW 7 Mohan Singh ASI and PW 8 Ramakant have proved the seizure of motor cycle No. RNB 167 vide seizure memo Ex. P 18, which was lying deserted underneath a culvert near village Mandhan on the Rajasthan-Haryana border. As per the registration certificate and the insurance cover note Ex.P 73 and 73-A, the owner of the said motor cycle was the appellant. The appellant has also admitted this fact in his plea recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC. It is worthy to note that the appellant has not cared to examine his friend/relative Charuchandra Nirmal in support of his defence plea that the latter had taken away his motor cycle and left the stranded/deserted underneath the culvert near village Mandhan as the petrol in the tank thereof had exhausted and that when he returned to the culvert, the said motor cycle had already been seized by the police. Had it been so, Charuchandra Nirmal would have positively contacted SHO PS Mandhan or submitted a report incorporating those facts but admittedly no such report was filed. This fact manifestly reflects the hollowness of the defence plea. 49. On the other hand, PW 23 Jeewan Singh Investigating Officer deposed that on 19/5/92 the appellant was arrested at Gandhi Nagar Railway Station, that at that time, he was donning a green coloured shirt and light grey coloured pant and that he also had injuries on his finger and palm of his right hand. 50. PW 9 Dr. B.C. Temani proved the injury report Ex.P 40 of the appellant and deposed that duration of the injuries found on the finger and palm of the right hand of the appellant was about 5-7 days and that those were caused by some pointed weapon. The appellant in his written statement has asserted that on 12.5.92, he had gone to attend some marriage functions at Hansi (Haryana), where he slipped down and sustained those injuries but as per the testimony of Dr. Temani such injuries could not have been caused by having a fall on the ground. The appellant has also not adduced any evidence in support of his plea of alibi. 51. PW 8 Banwarilal Constable of the Police Control Room proved photographs Ex.P 3 to P. 13 and the negatives thereof Ex.P 20 to P 39 of the said ambassador Car and the dead body of the deceased 52. PW 10 Dr. H.L. Bairwa has proved injury report of Rajendra Kumar Ex.P. 42 and his supplementary opinion Ex.P 43 to the effect that injury No. 1 of Rajendra Kumar in Ex.P 42 in respect of the stabbed wound cutting brachial artery was dangerous to life and that other injuries sustained by the latter were simple in nature. 53. PW 21 Dr. R.K. Saxena deposed that brachial artery, which is a major artery, of Rajendra Kumar had been cut, that he was in a state of shock, and that he was operated upon and advised not to have any movements for a fortnight. He stated that Rajendra Kumar was in a state of shock for 2-3 days after the operation. As per the advise of the doctor, PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was not allowed to participate in the test parade which took place on 25.5.92. He stated that Rajendra Kumar was in a state of shock for 2-3 days after the operation. As per the advise of the doctor, PW 2 Rajendra Kumar was not allowed to participate in the test parade which took place on 25.5.92. that is why another test identification parade was conducted by the Magistrate on 4.6.92, wherein Rajendra Kumar correctly identified the appellant. 54. PW 10 Dr. H.L Bairwa also proved post mortem report of the deceased and opined that injury Nos. 17 & 19, which were on vital organs were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW 11 Prahlad Singh Head Mohrir is a formal witness, who has taken eight sealed packets to State Forensic Science Laboratory Jaipur. PW 12 Narpat Singh Constable proved seizure memo of the handle of accelerator and brake lever of the motor cycle. The trial Court has rightly held that as per FSL Report, no blood was detected thereon and, therefore, the said seizure did not connect the appellant with the crime. 55. PW 13 Badshah Singh is incharge of Malkhana. PW 14 Kailash Singh and PW 23 Jeewan Singh Investigating Officer have proved recovery of the knife Art. 1 at the instance of the appellant from a water tank situated just opposite Muslim University, Ramgarh Road, Jaipur. PW. 15 Raghuvir Singh (HC), PW 16 Om Prakash (FC) have proved arrest memo (Ex.P 49) of the appellant. PW 19 Jasvir Singh ASI has stated that on the basis of `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 he had registered the case. PW 20 Gurupal Singh, Judicial Magistrate has proved statement (Ex.P 60) of Rajendra Kumar (PW 2) recorded under Section 164, Cr.PC and the identification parade memoes (Ex.P 17 and P. 20 respectively). He deposed that he had taken all necessary precautions during the test parades and that PW5 Dharampal Singh and Rajendra Kumar had correctly identified the appellant. 56. PW 22 Suresh Shastri, who was working as Office Secretary in Rajasthan Sanskrit College has proved reports Ex.P 57 dated 11/5/92 and Ex.P 59 dated 13/5/92, which were submitted to the SHO P.S. Brahampuri Jaipur complaining against the appellant and his brother. Thus, from the testimony of PW 22 Suresh Shastri, the motive for crime stands well established. 57. PW 23 Jeewan Singh Investigating Officer has given elaborate details of the investigation conducted by him in this case. He has proved all relevant documents. Thus, from the testimony of PW 22 Suresh Shastri, the motive for crime stands well established. 57. PW 23 Jeewan Singh Investigating Officer has given elaborate details of the investigation conducted by him in this case. He has proved all relevant documents. 58. We have also gone through statements of DW1 Jeewan Ram, and DW 2 Ashok Kumar, in our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge rightly held that they are cooked up and unreliable witnesses. DW3 Jagdish Narain ASI, who was Duty Officer in Police Control Room deposed that he maintained the duty Register Ex.D. 2 and proved its various entries marked at portions A to B, C to D and E to F of 14.5.92. 59. Now we dwell upon various contentions raised before us. As mentioned earlier, in our considered opinion PW 1 Anshuman had witnessed the incident, and he is a reliable witness. He knew the appellant previously. Immediately after the incident he had informed PWs Sunil Sharma and Gajadhar that appellant Navin Sharma had inflicted numerous knife blows to his father Ramjilal Shastri causing injuries and also to PW 2 Rajendra Kumar. It stands amply proved that the pet name of PW 1 Anshuman was `Anu'. No suggestion was put to any of the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the appellant that Anu and Anshuman were two different boys. In such circumstances, we do not find any force in the contention of Sri Bajwa that the boy named Anu mentioned in Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 was not PW 1 Anshuman and that latter has been substituted former during investigation. PW 1 Anshuman has given cogent reasons as to how he came to know about name of appellant Navin. Statement of PW 1 Anshuman finds sufficient corroboration from the testimony of eye witness PW 2 Rajendra Kumar and PW 4 Laxman Singh and PW 6 Dharm Pal Singh regarding factum of the incident. The testimony of PW 1 Anshuman is straight forward and natural, which has been fully corroborated by the sworn testimony of injured eye witnesses PW 2 Rajendra Kumar and other witnesses namely Sunil Sharma and Gajadhar. Anshuman has given answers to all questions put to him intelligently and fearlessly and withstood the test of cross examination valiantly. Thus, we do not find any valid and sufficient reason to discard his testimony on the ground that he is a child witness. 60. Anshuman has given answers to all questions put to him intelligently and fearlessly and withstood the test of cross examination valiantly. Thus, we do not find any valid and sufficient reason to discard his testimony on the ground that he is a child witness. 60. Admittedly the incident had taken place at about 11.15 noon i.e. in broad day light in Sita Ram Bazar. Appellant Navin was correctly identified by PW 1 Anshuman, PW 2 Rajendra Kumar as also PW 6 Dharampal Singh though he was declared hostile. Thus it is not at all a case of mistaken identity. 61. We have carefully gone through the dimensions of the injuries sustained by the deceased Ramjilal Shastri enumerated in post mortem report Ex.P 41. Dr. H.L. Bairwa, who conducted post mortem examination has specifically stated that the incised wound and stabbed wounds sustained by the deceased could have been caused by one weapon or by different weapons. But there is no conflict of evidence to prove that either there were two assailants or the injuries were caused by more than one weapon. The same knife may cause wounds of very different sizes. If knife is driven in vertically and lifted out vertically then and then only the wound will exactly correspond with the width of the blade at the depth to which it entered. A tapered blade would have a different width according to the amount of blade that has entered the body. Due to elasticity to the skin and subcutaneous tissues which tend to contract, the breadth and depth of the incised or stabbed wounds may be slightly smaller than the object with which it caused. Quite often a knife, which is stabbed into body may be withdrawn at a different angle, thus appreciably widening the wound, sometimes to twice the original width of the blade. 62. Dr. Bernard Knight in his treatise, 'HMV Cox Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology 5th Edn. at p. 241 has opined that such rocking of the knife is extremely common, especially when a struggle is taking place and the victim and assailant are moving their positions relative to each other. In other cases the knife may be twisted and the resulting wound may be V-shaped or totally irregular due, to rotation of the knife into the wound with consequent enlarging and secondary cutting. In other cases the knife may be twisted and the resulting wound may be V-shaped or totally irregular due, to rotation of the knife into the wound with consequent enlarging and secondary cutting. In cases like these, it is almost impossible to relate the size of the weapon to the wound. 63. In the instant case, when the appellant was inflicting repeated knife blows to deceased Ramjilal Shastri, the latter was changing his positions in order to save himself and thus difference in size of width of the incised wounds does not indicate that those wounds were caused by more than one sharp edged weapons. Besides this, there is no convincing evidence to prove that either there were two assailants or that the appellant had two sharp-edged weapons. Therefore, the contention of Shri Bajwa on this count does not appear to be sound and the same is hereby repelled. 64. In this case, PW 23 Jeewan Singh recorded the statements of all material witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC without delay and the delay, if any, has been well explained. 65. It is true that in this case, the witnesses of local vicinity have not been produced. PW 23 Jeewan Singh has specifically deposed that he had interrogated and made enquiry from various shop keepers and inhabitants of Sita Ram Bazar but due to fear, none of them gave out details of the incident. 66. In Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, (1988(1) Crimes 608), appellants were convicted for the murder of one T and attempt to commit murder his brother `D'. The incident was an off-shoot of Panchayat Election, which took place at bus-stand. There was evidence of eye-witnesses having animus against the accused. It was contended on behalf of the accused that independent witnesses have not been examined, which raised adverse inference against the prosecution story. The Apex Court held that it was no doubt true that the prosecution was not able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the Bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses but the prosecution case could not be thrown out/doubted on the ground alone. Their Lordships observed as under- "Experience reminds us that civilised people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. There must have been several of such witnesses but the prosecution case could not be thrown out/doubted on the ground alone. Their Lordships observed as under- "Experience reminds us that civilised people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This Kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns of cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any suggested by the accused. The Court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their courses of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner." 67. In Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana [1983 (3) SCC p. 327] their Lordships of the Apex Court observed as under: "Every person who witnesses a murder treats in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way." 68. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way." 68. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge, in our opinion, has taken into consideration all these aspects and rightly held that non-production of independent witnesses did not make the prosecution case doubtful or suspicious. In view of the clear, cogent and convincing statements of PW 1 Anshuman, PW 2 Rajendra Kumar and other evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the non-production of any independent witness of the locality does not affect the prosecution case. 69. The learned trial Judge has rightly not believed the recovery of wrist watch and two pieces of the chain strap, which were found lying at the scene of occurrence. Recovery of the knife Art. 1 at the instance of the appellant stands well proved. Since the knife was found lying in the tank full of water, no blood was found on its blade. It also stands well proved that the appellant had volunteered an information regarding recovery of the motor cycle lying underneath a culvert in village Mandhan situated at Rajasthan Haryana border. Admittedly the motor cycle belonged to the appellant. He has failed to satisfactorily explain as to how that motor cycle was found lying stranded underneath that culvert which is at a instance of about 150 Kms. away from Jaipur? The explanation given by the defence that his relation Charuchandra Nirmal had taken away that motor cycle appears to be patently false and a creature of an after thought. 70. In the duty officers register Ex.D. 4 there is specific entry at portion G to H in respect of a wireless message received at the Police Control Room on 14.5.92 at 2.30 P.M. the identity of assailant as appellant Navin was known. Besides this, a perusal of his arrest memo Ex.P 49 discloses that on 19.5.92 when he was arrested, he was putting on a green coloured shirt and light grey coloured pant. This fact also corroborates the prosecution case to a considerable extent. 71. In this case, the question of parallel investigation does not arise. Besides this, a perusal of his arrest memo Ex.P 49 discloses that on 19.5.92 when he was arrested, he was putting on a green coloured shirt and light grey coloured pant. This fact also corroborates the prosecution case to a considerable extent. 71. In this case, the question of parallel investigation does not arise. Wireless messages received at Police Control Room Jaipur on 14.5.92 cannot be treated as informations to the SHO PS Brahampuri. In Tehal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1989 Cr. L.J. p. 1350 -supra) a Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "Whether a telephonic message can be treated as an F.I.R. or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection. If the telephonic message has been given to officer-in-charge of a police station, the person giving the message is an ascertained one or is capable of being ascertained, the information has been reduced into writing as required by S. 154, Cr.P.C and it is a faithful, record of such information and the information discloses commission of a cognisable offence, and is not cryptic one or incomplete in essential details, it should constitute an F.I.R. An anonymous information, or information which is vague or cryptic and lacks in essential details or an information which has not been faithfully recorded, would not constitute an F.I.R. Section 154, Cr.PC requires that the oral information given to the officer-in-charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing and shall be read over to the first informant and shall be signed by him." 72. Section 154, Cr.PC mandates that the information so received must be reduced in writing by the Officer-in-charge of the police station or by any person under his direction. In the instant case, wireless messages-received by the Duty Officer of Police Control room and which were recorded vide entries A to B, C to D and E to F in the Register Ex.D. 4 cannot be held to be an information giving to the SHO PS Brahampuri. Moreover these information's were cryptic, and vague besides short of necessary details. Thus, those messages cannot be treated as F.I.R. Those wireless messages were also not conveyed to PW 23 Jeewan Singh before he recorded Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 of Rajendra Kumar. Moreover these information's were cryptic, and vague besides short of necessary details. Thus, those messages cannot be treated as F.I.R. Those wireless messages were also not conveyed to PW 23 Jeewan Singh before he recorded Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 of Rajendra Kumar. PW 6 Dharam Pal Singh Constable had also given a vague information while going in a Bus to PW 23 Jeewan Singh. He had simply intimated that a quarrel had taken place in Sitaram Bazar. In such circumstances, the entries of duty register Ex.D. 4 cannot be termed as an F.I.R. `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 is not hit by provisions of Section 162, Cr.PC. On the other hand, `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 was the F.I.R. in this case and same was admissible in evidence. 73. As earlier stated, test parades conducted by PW 20 Gurupal Singh Judicial Magistrate do not suffer from any vice of illegality and irregularity. 74. In the premises of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge has rightly and correctly assessed and appreciated the evidence recorded in this case and has not committed any error either of fact or law in holding the appellant guilty for offences under Sections 302 to 307, IPC. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant fails. 75. As regards the revision petition filed by Smt. Madhu Shastri widow of deceased Ramjilal Shastri, it will suffice to say that though such a dastardly act was perpetrated by appellant Navin Sharma in a broad day light in a market. But complaint and counter complaint were also made by the deceased and brother of the appellant prior to the incident in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction, which was being carried out by the deceased and by the appellant and his brothers. The appellant at the time of the incident was a young lady of about 21 years. Keeping in view all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this case does not fall within the ambit of rarest of rare case as laid down by the Apex Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1979 SC p. 898) and as elaborated in latter cases- Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 957 ) . We also do not find aggravating circumstances in this case warranting exaction of extreme penalty of death sentence. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge of the appellant under Section 302, IPC is just, proper and adequate. Hence this revision petition also deserves to be dismissed. 76. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal No. 175/95 filed by appellant as well as revision petition No. 165/94 filed by Madhu Shastri are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 302 & 307, IPC are hereby maintained. The appellant is in jail and he be informed accordingly. *******