JAI BHAGWAN v. STATE OF DELHI — 1997 DIGILAW 506 (DEL)

N. G. Nandi ( 1 ) THE appellant Jai Bhagwan s/o Rameshwar stands con-victed in Sessions Case No. 223/90 in FIR No. 30/90 for the offence under Section302, Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present appeal assailing the convictionand sentence imposed, shortly stated, are that Dharam Pal (deceased) and Jaibhagwan (convict/appellant) were residing in the neighbourhood in Villagesurehara; that a plot of land admeasuring 100 sq. yds. was sold for Rs. 9,000. 00 bydharam Pal and his brothers to Jai Bhagwan; that half of the sale considered waspaid whereas half remained payable by Jai Bhagwan; that on demand, there wasrefusal to pay, the remaining sale consideration and Jai Bhagwan used to utter filthylanguage; that on 9/04/1990 at about 12. 30 p. m. Kartar Singh, brother and Gianchand, brother-in-law of Dharam Pal had come to and were in the house of Dharampal and both were talking with each other; that at about 1 p. m. , both heard the cries"bachao-Bachao"; that both came out of the house and saw Jai Bhagwan, residingin the adjoining house, was attacking Dharam Pal with an axe whereupon bothraised cries and Jai Bhagwan ran away towards the well alongwith the axe; thatkartar Singh and Gian Chand tried to apprehended Jai Bhagwan but in vain, thatkartar Singh gave a telephonic message to P. S. Jaffar Pur which was recoided andd. D. No. 9-A at the police station at 1. 30 p. m. informing about the occurrence. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the S. H. O. and the other police persons came to the place ofoccurrence which was near the house of Kartar Singh and Dharam Pal; thatstatement Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/a of Kartar Singh was recorded; that the SHO recorded therukka for registration of the case and the same was sent to the concerned policestation on the basis of which fermal FIR, Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/bwas recorded that in the courseof the investigation, the statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded andsite plan. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/a of Kartar Singh was recorded; that the SHO recorded therukka for registration of the case and the same was sent to the concerned policestation on the basis of which fermal FIR, Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/bwas recorded that in the courseof the investigation, the statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded andsite plan. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/a prepared; that vide seizure memos, blood soaked earth andcontrolled earth was lifted from near the dead body and other articles recovered;that the weapon of offence was recorded at the instance of Jai Bhagwan; that postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Dharam Pal; that on completion of theinvestigation, charge-sheet was filed against Dharam Pal for the offence undersection 302, IPC. The prosecution, in order to bring the guilt home to the accusedjai Bhagwan, adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The statement of theaccused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code withregard to the circumstances incriminating against the accused emerging from theprosecution evidence. The learned trial Judge, appreciating the prosecution evi-dence considering the statement undersection 313 of the Criminal Procedure Codeand the defence evidence, found the accused guilty for the offence charged andsentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life. It is this conviction andsentence imposed which have been assailed in thisappeal by the appellant/convict. ( 4 ) IT may be noted that the appellant has not disputed the death of Dharampal being homicidal. The inquest report. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/c suggests the dead body to bethat of Dharam Pal s/oharisingh. The injuries were found on the dead body. Public Witness PW8, Dr. L. T. Ramani conducted the post-mortem on 10/04/1990 on the dead bodyof Dharam Pal. The post-mortem report has been proved as Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 8/a. Thus, itis sufficiently suggested that deceased Dharam Pal s/o Hari Singh died a homicidaldeath in the occurrence of 9/04/1990. ( 5 ) ONE of the arguments on behalf of the appellant is that as per the FIR andthe charge framed under Section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against theappellant, the plea of incident is near Panchayat Ghar whereas the prosecutionwitnesses, particularly Public Witness PWs 10 and 11, and the site plan Ex. ( 5 ) ONE of the arguments on behalf of the appellant is that as per the FIR andthe charge framed under Section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against theappellant, the plea of incident is near Panchayat Ghar whereas the prosecutionwitnesses, particularly Public Witness PWs 10 and 11, and the site plan Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1 /a do not referto Panchayat Ghar; that in Column 4 of the FIR, the place of occurrence is nearpanchayat Ghar, Village Surehara; that no question has been put to the accusedunder Section 313 with regard to place of occurrence being near Panchayat Ghar andalso with regard to CFSL report. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision incase of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court page1622 (Head Note c ). ( 6 ) IN the statement. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness I/a, which is the complaint given by Kartarsingh, it has been stated that on 9/04/1990, in the noon when he came to takelunch, he found his brother-in-law Gian Chand also in the house of Dharam Pal andwhen he was talking with his brother-in-law in the house of Dharam Pal, he heardthe noise/cries and he came out from the house with his brother-in-law andwitnessed Jai Bhagwan, residing in the neighbourhood of his brother, assaultingdharam Pal with an axe he was holding with both his hands. Thus, according to thecomplaint, the complainant witnessed the incident on coming out of the house ofdharam Pal meaning thereby that the incident had taken place outside the houseof Dharam Pal. In Column 4 of the formal FIR Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/b, the place of occurrenceis shown to be the stress near Panchayat Ghar at village Surehara. ( 7 ) PUBLIC Witness Public Witness 1 prepared the map. He stated that he inspected the place of incidenton 28/06/1990 and at the pointing of Public Witness Public Witness 10, Kartar Singh, he prepared the scaledplan Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1/a. Perusal of Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1/a suggests the place of occurrence to be ina lane/street which is south-north. At the southern end of the said lane/ street a bye-lane/gali, east-west in direction, interests and at the southern side of this bye-lane/gali, the house of Jai Bhagwan (appellant) has been shown. Public Witness Public Witness 1/a. Perusal of Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1/a suggests the place of occurrence to be ina lane/street which is south-north. At the southern end of the said lane/ street a bye-lane/gali, east-west in direction, interests and at the southern side of this bye-lane/gali, the house of Jai Bhagwan (appellant) has been shown. To the west, there ishouse of Dharam Pal (deceased) and to further west, there is vacant plotof land. Public Witness PW13, 1. 0. has stated in his evidence that he prepared the site plan. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/aalongwith, correct marginal notes. It is pertinent to note that on Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/a, thereis no cross-examination of the witness by the defence. Perusal of Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/afurther suggests that at the northern end of the lane/street, which is north-south,there is Panchayat Ghar well. Appreciating Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1 /a and Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/a, in boththere the vacant plot of the west of this lane/street and to the east of the west of thislane/street and to the east of this lane/street, the plot of Narain Singh has beenshown. Further towards north in the said lane/street, the vacant plot of land ofakhari has been shown on the eastern side. It appears that at the northern end ofthis lane/street which is north-south, Panchayat Ghar well is situated. Itmay beappreciated that in Column 4 of the FIR, Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/b, the place of occurrence isshown to be the street near Panchayat Ghar. Appreciating Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1/a and Ex. PW13/a, we do not find any discrepancy in the place of occurrence. It is a way ofdescribing the place of occurrence which may differ from person to person. Lookingat Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1 /a, the place of occurrence could be said to be opposite the vacant plotof Dalip Singh, it can as well be deseribed as opposite the vacant plot of Narain Singhand/or opposite the house of deceased, it can well be described in the Gali/streetopposite Panchayat Ghar well, depending upon the perception of the persondescribing the place of occurrence in his own way and manner. Under Section 313of the Criminal Procedure Code, a question has been put to the accused that Public Witness Public Witness 10and 11, upon hearing the noise bachao-Bachao , came out of House No. 73, Roshanvihar, Najafgarh and found the accused holding an axe and hitting the same ondharam Pal. Thus, the place of occurrence suggested to the accused is oppositehouse No. 73, Roshan Vihar, Najafgarh which is stated to be the house of deceaseddharam Pal. ( 8 ) QUESTION No. 12 in the statement under Section 313 indicates that it wassuggested to the accused therein that on 4/05/1990 all the nine sealed parcelswith sample seal were sent to CFSL through Constable Maha Singh vide R/c No. 4/21 and on 5/07/1990, eight parcels sealed with the seal of CFSL were broughtby SHO from the office of CFSL. In question No. 7, it is brought to the notice of theaccused that the result of CFSL Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/d was brought to the notice of theaccused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It cannot be said thatthe accused was not put the questions under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Codewith regard to the place of occurrence as well as findings in Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13 /d, CFSLreport. It was open to the accused to offer whatever explanation he wanted to withregard to the place of occurrence as well as the report of Ex. PW 13/d of the CFSL. It cannot be said that the accused was not given any opportunity to offer explana-tion, if any, to the findings given in CFSL report. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/d. We do not find anysubstance in the contention in this regard advanced on behalf of the appellant. ( 9 ) IT has been the submission on behalf of the ppellant that axe. Ex. PI is notthe weapon of evidence and that the said weapon, has ^en planted on the accused;that according to the post-mortem notes and the evidence of Public Witness Public Witness 8, there are fourminor injuries. If according to the prosecution the injuries were caused by sharpedge, then how the injuries by blunt substance were caused by the said axe. Public Witness Public Witness 8stated in his evidence that external injuries Nos. If according to the prosecution the injuries were caused by sharpedge, then how the injuries by blunt substance were caused by the said axe. Public Witness Public Witness 8stated in his evidence that external injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by sharp edgedweapon and other injuries were caused by blunt weapon; that the injuries to thescalp were sufficient to cause deathin the ordinary course of nature; that the witnesswas shown a sealed packet by the police and on opening, it was found to containan axe; that the blade of the same contained blood like stains on both the sides, thesharp cutting edge was 10 cms. long; that the injuries found on the dead body of thedeceased were possible by this axe. According to the prosecution, the injuries in theincident were caused by axe. Ex. PI. Public Witness Public Witness 8 stated that the injuries on the dead bodywere possible by the axe shown to him while seeking opinion and the blood-stainswere found on both the sides of the blade. ( 10 ) AS far as the recovery of the axe Ex. PI is concerned, it has been deposedby Public Witness Public Witness 10 that along with Public Witness Public Witness 13 and Public Witness Public Witness 11 the witness in the Government vehiclewent in search of the accused that at about 7p. m. when all of them reached Jhuljhulimod they lccated the accused standing under the trees near the bus stand under thecover of wild trees, that the accused stated that he had kept the axe in the pond bythe side of a culvert in lohar and he made disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/h whichwas signed by this witness; that thereafter the accused took the police party to Dadartohar and pointed out the place and produced axe from underneath the culvert thatthe accused signed the seizure memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/) vide which axe Ex. PI was takenstated in the cross-examination that they had gone in search of the accused viadadar Johar, Dohar, Canal,jungle area and then to Jhuljhuli Mod; that it took about2 to 2 hours in search of the accused that it took about 20 to 25 minutes at Dadarjohar and from that Johar all of them came to police station. PI was takenstated in the cross-examination that they had gone in search of the accused viadadar Johar, Dohar, Canal,jungle area and then to Jhuljhuli Mod; that it took about2 to 2 hours in search of the accused that it took about 20 to 25 minutes at Dadarjohar and from that Johar all of them came to police station. It is suggested from theevidence of this witness that he left in company of the police party in the eveningin Government vehicle in search of the accused and the accused was located at 7p. m. and therefrom at the instance of the accused, they came to the pond by the sideof a culvert in Dadarjohar. It is also suggested from the evidence of this witness thatthe accused took the police party to Dadar Johar and pointed out the place andproduced the axe from underneath the culvert. It is pertinent to note that the witnessdoes not say that it was in his presence that the accused took out the axe fromunderneath the culvert and produced the same. ( 11 ) PUBLIC Witness Public Witness 11, in examination-in-chief has stated to the effect that at about 6 p. m. the police took the witness and Public Witness Public Witness 10 in police Jeep in scatch of the accused andthey searched for the accused for considerable time; that at about 7 p. m. when theyhad reached Jhuljhuli Mod, they saw the accused standing under the cover ofbushes at the Mod; that the accused was apprehended and interrogated. Theaccused told the police that the kulhara was concealed near the culvert at Dadarka Johar. From there, the accused pointed out the place Dadar Ka Johar. Theaccused took out the kulhara from underneath the culvert and produced it to thepolice and that the same was taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex. Public Witness PW10/j which bears the signatures of the witness. In the cross-examination, it has beenstated that the police made enquiries from the accused for about 5/7 minutes afterhe was apprehended. Then the police took the accused, the witness and others tovarious place and then they all reached the place wherefrom kulhara wasrecovered. Public Witness PW10/j which bears the signatures of the witness. In the cross-examination, it has beenstated that the police made enquiries from the accused for about 5/7 minutes afterhe was apprehended. Then the police took the accused, the witness and others tovarious place and then they all reached the place wherefrom kulhara wasrecovered. It is admitted that after accused was apprehended, the police took all ofthem for an hour or two and then reached Dadar Johar where kulhara wasrecovered; that the witness kept sitting in the jeep which was parked over the culvertwhile the accused and the police went underneath the culvert. This part of theevidence of the witness suggests that police made enquiries from the accused forabout 5/7 minutes after he was apprehended and then the police took the witnessand the accused to various places and then they reached the place where kulhara was recovered. This would suggest that after interrogation for about 5/7 minutes,the police took the witness and the accused to various places. If the accusedhadmade a disclosure statement vide Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/h, then why the witness and theaccused were taken by police to various places and that they finally reached theplace where kulhara was recovered. The part of the evidence reproduced aboveitself suggests that after the accused was apprehended, the police took the witnessand others for about an hour or two and then reached Dadar Johar where the kulhara was recovered. It is not suggested that the accused led the policy partyand the witness to the place wherefrom axe was recovered. Had that been so, thepolice party and the witness would not have moved to various places for about anhour or two. It is pertinent to note that the witness kept sitting in the jeep which wasparked over the culvert while accused and police went to the place underneath theculvert meaning thereby, that the witness did not go to the place wherefrom the axewas taken out by the accused and produced to the police. As far as the evidence ofthis witness is concerned, it is suggested that the witness kept sitting in the jeep andthe accused and the police went to the place underneath the culvert and returnedwith an axe. It would not suggest that it was in presence of the witnesses that axeex. As far as the evidence ofthis witness is concerned, it is suggested that the witness kept sitting in the jeep andthe accused and the police went to the place underneath the culvert and returnedwith an axe. It would not suggest that it was in presence of the witnesses that axeex. P1 was taken out by the accused from the place underneath the culvert andproduced in presence of the witness and taken in possession by the I. O. ( 12 ) THE prosecution has examined Public Witness Public Witness 12 as a witness of recovery inasmuchas according to Public Witness Public Witness 12, it was in his presence that axe Ex. PI was recovered videseizure Memo, Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/j pursuant to the disclosure statement. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/hmade by the accused. As far as this witness is concerned, the contention by thelearned Counsel for the appellant is that this witness was never present and that hewas been concocted. It has been deposed by Public Witness Public Witness 13 that at the time of recovery orshirt and axe, public witness Jagdish Kumar (PW 12) was joined meaning therebythat Public Witness Public Witness 12 was not present prior to the recovery of shirt vide Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/fand axevide Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/j. It is pertinent to note that neither Public Witness Public Witness 10 nor Public Witness Public Witness 11 depose in theirevidence that Public Witness Public Witness 12 was presentatany time. According to Public Witness Public Witness 12, on 9/04/1990,he was going to village Jhuljhuli in connection with the replies of a tractor hero since he was running workshop in Village Sidipur; that when his bus stopped at theturning of Jhuljhuli, he saw Kartar Singh, a friend standing there, and police wasalso with him and seeing this, the witness got down from the bus and inquired asto what was the matter and thereafter the witness deposed that on interrogation theaccused told that he had kept axe near culvert at Dadar Johar and witness signedthe disclosure statement. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/h. It may be seen that Public Witness Public Witness 12 is a chancewitness. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/h. It may be seen that Public Witness Public Witness 12 is a chancewitness. His presence at the Jhuljhuli bus stand cannot be said to be natural asaccording to him, he was going to Village Jhuljhuli in connection with repairs of atractor hero and saw Public Witness Public Witness 10 at the bus stand with police persons. It appears thatwith a view to make Public Witness Public Witness 12 present for the purpose of signing Public Witness Public Witness 10/h and Public Witness PW10/1 the witness has been deposing that he was going to village Jhuljhuli and heaccidentally saw Public Witness Public Witness 10 standing there with police and the witness got down. Theevidence of Public Witness Public Witness 12 docs not inspire confidence so as to hold that he was present asdeposed by him. It may be appreciated that Public Witness Public Witness 10 and Public Witness Public Witness 11 have referred to eachother being the member of the party who went in search of the accused and in whosepresence the accused made the disclosure statement, Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/h and producedthe weapon of offence axe. Ex. P-1 which was seized vide Memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/j. Appreciating the evidence of Public Witness PWs 10, 11 and 12,wearenotinclined tobelieve thatpw 12 is a witness to the discovery statement Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/h and the seizure memoex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/j. ( 13 ) PUBLIC Witness Public Witness 9 Moharrar Malkhana S. I. Bhim Singh has deposed in his evidencethat S. H. O. S. S. Malik,p. S. Jaffarpurdeposited six parcels sealed with the seal of sp which were entered at Serial No. 95 in the register as per the details of the Seizurememo. Perusal of Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 9/a and Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 9/b, extracts from the register ofmalkhana maintained at P. S. Jaffar Pur Kalan, Delhi suggest that Item No. 95pertains to Case FIR No. 30 dated 9/04/1990 under Section 302, IPC, P C. Jaffarpur Kalan, Delhi and the name of the S. H. O. has also been mentioned. It is suggestedtherefrom that sealed parcel containing axe with the seal of sp was deposited inthe Malkhana and tha the said axe has been taken on 10/04/1990 to the Deadhouse, Subzi Mandi from Malkhana by Mr. It is suggestedtherefrom that sealed parcel containing axe with the seal of sp was deposited inthe Malkhana and tha the said axe has been taken on 10/04/1990 to the Deadhouse, Subzi Mandi from Malkhana by Mr. S. S. Malik, Inspector/sho for thepurpose of obtaining the opinion. It is further suggested that the said axe wasreturned on 17/04/1990; that from Malkhana, articles contained in parcels 1 to9 with the seal of sp were sent vide R. C. No. 4/21 for being deposited in the officeof CFSL on 4/05/1990; that the articles were returned to the Malkhana on 5/07/1990 from the office ofcfsl. The evidence ofpw 9 and Public Witness Public Witness 13 suggest the sealof sp on the sealed parcel which contained axe. The seizure memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/j alsorefers to the cloth parcel sealed with the seal of sp contained axe Ex. P-1. ( 14 ) THE evidence ofpw 8 and the post-mortem notes Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 8/a suggestthe axe shown to the witness for the purpose of seeking opinion was in a parcelcontaining seal sb Public Witness Public Witness 13, in his evidence, does not suggest that he took the axe Ex. P-1from Malkhana and showed it to Public Witness Public Witness 8 for opinion. According to the postmortem report. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 8/a, the axe showed blood like stains on both sides. Neitherpw 10, Public Witness Public Witness 11 nor Public Witness Public Witness 13 deposed to the effect that when axe Ex. P-1was recovered,it contained blood on both the sides of the metallic part. of the axe. Seizure Memoex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/j also does not refer to stains of blood on both the side. of the metallicpart of the blade of the axe. From this, it appears that the axe shown to Public Witness Public Witness 8 whichcontained blood like stains on both sides of the metallic part of the blade of the axemust be a weapon cither than the weapon Ex. P-1 stated to be the weapon of offenceby theprosecution. In the present case Ex. P1 has not been shown to Public Witness Public Witness 8 at the trial. P-1 stated to be the weapon of offenceby theprosecution. In the present case Ex. P1 has not been shown to Public Witness Public Witness 8 at the trial. It need hardly be said that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examina tionand gave his opinion considering the weapon shown to him ought to have beenshown to the doctor at the trial so as to prove the contents of the post-mortem reportespecially the weapon with which injuries noted in Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 8 / A could be caused andthe opinion part in relation to the weapon of offence produced by the prosecutionas Ex. P-1. In view of the discrepancy in the seal which was found on the parcelnamely seal of sb when the weapon was shown at the time of post-mortemexamination for the purpose of seeking opinion and the seal of sp on Ex. P-1, weare inclined to hold that Ex. P-l was not the weapon shown to Public Witness Public Witness 8 for the purposeof seeking opinion noted in Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 8/a. We are at a loss to understand as to whyaxe Ex. P-1 was not shown to Public Witness Public Witness 8 at the trial. ( 15 ) ONE of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is thataccording to the prosecution, one chappal of the accused was found from near thede?d body at the place of occurrence whereas when the accused was apprehendedat about 7 p. m. in the evening, the accused had one chappal in his left foot; that itis not probable that the accused would move with one chappal in left foot tillevening. ( 16 ) PUBLIC Witness Public Witness 13 deposed in his evidence that chappal Ex. P4 was recovered fromthe place of incident vide memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/d. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/d, the seizure memo,suggests that one used blue chappal of size of No. 8 of the right foot was lying nearthe wall situated on the eastern side of the dead body of the place of occurrence andthe same has been recovered. Thus, blue chappal of right foot has been recoveredfrom near the dead body at the place of incident. Referring to report of the CFSL,it has been contended that the sealed cloth parcel contained blue and white colouredhawai Chappal of right foot. Thus, blue chappal of right foot has been recoveredfrom near the dead body at the place of incident. Referring to report of the CFSL,it has been contended that the sealed cloth parcel contained blue and white colouredhawai Chappal of right foot. Public Witness Public Witness 10 has stated in his evidence that the accused waswearing a chappal of blue colour in his right foot. It is also suggested that Ex. P4 isthe Hawai Chappal which was recovered from the spot and Ex. P3 from the accused. PW 11 stated that one old blue chappal of right foot was lying near the dead bodyof Dharam Pal which was seized and kept in a Pulanda and sealed. Thus, it wouldbe seen that the Hawai Chappal of the right foot recovered from the place of incidentvide seizure memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/d and the Hawai Chappal of the left foot recoveredfrom the accused vide seizure memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/g are of blue colour. It may alsobe appreciated that in the report of the CFSL, article parcel Nos. 8 and 9 are said tocontain blue and white colour rubber Hawai Chappal of right foot and left footrespectively. It may be seen that Hawai Chappal of blue colour appears everywhere. It may also be appreciated that the colour of the rubber strip and the upper portionof the sole where the foot rest may not necessarily be the same and that is why wefind the word blue and white in the CFSL report. No importance can be attachedto this in view of the fact that whatever has been recovered from the place ofoccurrence is a blue Hawai Chappal of the right foot and from the accused bluehawai Chappal of the left foot. ( 17 ) ONE of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is that nospecial report was sent to the Area Magistrate at all which would create doubt aboutthe presence of the accused and the witnesses at the place of occurrence; that thereis violation of Rule 24 of the Punjab Police Rules. In this regard, reliance has beenplaced on the decision in the case of Lain Rain and Am. v. State, 1989 Criminal Lawjournal page 572. In the said case. In this regard, reliance has beenplaced on the decision in the case of Lain Rain and Am. v. State, 1989 Criminal Lawjournal page 572. In the said case. Division Bench of this Court held that failure toenter substance of FIR in Daily Diary with the name of the accused and the namesof the witnesses and the other details of occurrence would be non-compliance withsection 154 Criminal Procedure Code of Rule 24. 1 of the Punjab Police Rules whichwould mean that at the time of making entry, full facts with regard to the occurrencewere not known. ( 18 ) IT may be seen that the complaint Ex. Public Witness PW10/a was recorded at3. 05 P. M. and sent to the police station for registration of the formal FIR Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2-B was at3. 30 P. M. D. D. No. 9-A, Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/a was received at the police station at 1. 30 P. M. which discloses the name of the complainant, the name of the accused and thedeceased. This was a telephonic information about the commission of cognizableoffence. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/c is the copy of report No. 10/a of Daily Diary dated 9/04/1990. It suggests the receipt of a writing and recording of F. I. R. No. 30/90 undersection 302, Indian Penal Code and the time is 3. 30 P. M. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/c, Report No. 10/a of Dailydiary dated 9/04/1990 refers to/males the FIR No. 30/90 partof it. First columnof FIR No. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/b refers to D. D. No. 10-A dated 10/04/1990 at 3. 30 p. m. In the F. I. R. the entire occurrence with the names of the witnesses Public Witness PWs 10 and 11and the names of the accused, the weapon used in the incident, the niotive,etc. havebeen stated. In view of the fact that D. D. No. 10/a, Ex. Public Witness PW2/c makes FIR No. 30/90 P. S. Jaffar Pur Kalan part of it, we do not find any substance in the connectionas regards Rule 24. 1 of the Punjab Police Rules. havebeen stated. In view of the fact that D. D. No. 10/a, Ex. Public Witness PW2/c makes FIR No. 30/90 P. S. Jaffar Pur Kalan part of it, we do not find any substance in the connectionas regards Rule 24. 1 of the Punjab Police Rules. ( 19 ) PUBLIC Witness Public Witness 5 Constable Surinder Singh stated in his evidence that on 4/05/1990, he took the special report of this case from the Duty Officer which the witnessdelivered at the residence of the Ilaqa Magistrate; that he left the police station atabout 4 p. m. ; that he delivered the copy of the FIR at the residence of the llaqamagistrate at about 5 p. m. In the cross-examination, it has been deposed that thewitness cannot tell the address at which he delivered the FIR. It is pertinent to notethat it is not suggested to the witness that he did not deliver the copy of the FIR atall to the llaqa Magistrate nor it is suggested that the same was delivered late to thellaqa Magistrate. There is no reason to disbelieve this witness when he says that heleft the police station at about 4 P. M. and delivered the copy of the FIR at the. residence of the llaqa Magistrateatabout5 p. m. Nothing would turn on the witnessbeing notable to tell the address of the llaqa Magistrate where he delivered the copyof the FIR. The person may know or able to tell the address of the llaqa Magistrate,yet the question would remain whether the copy of the FIR was delivered or not. What is important is that the residence of the llaqa Magistrate should have beenknown/seen by the witness. Simply because the witness is not able to tell/recapitulate the address of the llaqa Magistrate, that would not imply that the copyof the FIR was not delivered to the llaqa Magistrate, as deposed by the witness. Wesee no reason to disbelieve this witness as far as the delivery of the special reportto the concerned llaqa Magistrate, as deposed, is concerned. It may also be seeen thatthe timings given by the witness are always approximate. The substance of theevidence of this witness is that he did deliver the special report of the llaqamagistrate around 5 O clock. Wesee no reason to disbelieve this witness as far as the delivery of the special reportto the concerned llaqa Magistrate, as deposed, is concerned. It may also be seeen thatthe timings given by the witness are always approximate. The substance of theevidence of this witness is that he did deliver the special report of the llaqamagistrate around 5 O clock. ( 20 ) ONE of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is thataccording to the prosecution witnesses, the deceased had gone out of his house justbefore Public Witness Public Witness 10 and Public Witness Public Witness 11 reached his house and in that case they ought to have seenthe deceased going out and in absence of that, these witnesses cannot be said to havewitnessed the occurrence. The evidence of Public Witness PWs 10 and 11 suggest that when theyreached the house of Dharam Pal, he was not in the house and as told by his mother,he had gone to attend his duty. Now, simply because in FIR page No. 1, it is statedthat Dharam Pal was reported to have "just gone" to his duty would not mean thatpw 10 ought to meet Dharam Pal. ( 21 ) AS far as the main occurrence is concerned, it has been suggested fromthe evidence of Public Witness Public Witness 10 that deceased Dharam Pal happened to be his brother; thaton 9/04/1990, he had come to village Sunehara in connection with theharvesting of the wheat crop and had gone to the field in the morning; that at about12. 30p. M. , he came to the house of Dharam Pal for taking his lunch; that his brotherin-law Gian Chand (PW 11 ) was also present in the house; that Dharam Pal was notin the house and had gone to his duty; that while he was talking with his brotherin-law (PW 11), both heard the cries bachao-Bachao . PWs 10 and 11 came out ofthe house and saw that at a distance of about 20-25 ft. PWs 10 and 11 came out ofthe house and saw that at a distance of about 20-25 ft. Jai Bhagwan was hittingdharam Pal with an axe that he was holding in his hand; that Public Witness PWs 10 and 11 rushedto catch hold of accused but he managed to run away towards the well; that attemptto apprehend by chasing the accused Jai Bhagwan was in vain; that they returnedto the spot and found Dharam Pal dead having injuries with bleeding from hismouth, It may be appreciated that Public Witness PWs 10 and 11 have given consistent and detailedaccount of the occurrence specifically implicating accused Jai Bhagwan in theincident, namely causing injury to Dharam Pal with axe. It is suggested from theevidence of both these witnesses that when they came out of the house, they sawjai Bhagwan inflicting injuries with axe to Dharam Pal. The version given by Public Witness Public Witness 10is absolutely consistent with the occurrence stated in the FIR. In the crossexamination also, nothing substantial has been brought out from which thepresence of Public Witness PWs 10 and 11 at the place of occurrence could be said to have beenrendered suspicious or the credibility shaken in any manner. It is natural for Public Witness Public Witness 10as the brother and Public Witness Public Witness 11 as the brother-in-law to be in the house of the deceasedand i t would be natural for them to come out of the house hearing the cries bachao-Bachao out of curiosity to know as to what has happened and to whom and havingseen Jai Bhagwan hitting Dharam Pal with axe in his hands, they would naturallyrush to the rescue of Dharam Pal. The incident occurred at about 1 p. m. The evidenceon record discloses that having witnessed Dharam Pal having sustained injuriesand bleeding from the mouth in theoccurrence,pw 10went to inform the police andgave telephonic information recorded at the police station vide D. D. No. 9-A, Ex. PW 2/aat 1. 30 p. m. wherein the place of occurrence, the name of the deceased andname of the accused have been informed and at 3. 05 p. m. , the complaint. Ex. Public Witness PW10. /a has been recorded at the plea of occurrence by Public Witness Public Witness 13 and the rukka was sentto the police station whereupon the formal FIR was registered at 3. 05 p. m. , the complaint. Ex. Public Witness PW10. /a has been recorded at the plea of occurrence by Public Witness Public Witness 13 and the rukka was sentto the police station whereupon the formal FIR was registered at 3. 30 p. m. ( 22 ) THE blood and the controlled earth were lifted from the place ofoccurrence vide Exs, Public Witness Public Witness 10/r and C; that one Hawai Chappal of blue colour Ex. P-4 was recovered from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/d:that the bloodstained shirt Ex. P-2 of the accused was recovered vide memo Ex. Public Witness PW10/f; that another Hawai Chappal Ex. P-3 was recovered from the accused videseizure memo Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/g; that the CFSL report Exs. Public Witness Public Witness 13/d to F suggests Ex. 3 brown gauge cloth piece. Ex. 5 one shirt having brown stains. Ex. 6 earth describedas blood soaked e:irth are found to contain blood. Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 13/e suggest Ex. 3 blood-stained guage. Ex. 5 shirt and Ex. 6 blood-stained earth were found to containhuman blood of a group. It is suggested from theevidenceofpw2andpw 3 thatthe doctor conducting the postmortem gave three sealed pulandas. Public Witness PWS stated inhis evidence that clothes and sample of blood were preserved, sealed and handedover to the police along with the sample of seal. It is suggested from the evidencethat the deceased had the blood of a group. Considering thecfsl report, Exs. Public Witness PW13/d to F, as above, it is sufficiently suggested that the shirt Ex. 5 recovered fromthe accused contained human blood of a. group which tallies with that of the bloodgroup a of the deceased. ( 23 ) CONSIDERING the prosecution evidence as a whole and the consistent andtrustworthy ocular version of the occurrence given by Public Witness PWs 10 and 11 whichcorroborates the allegations in the FIR Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 2/b, not showing the weapon ofoffence namely. Ex. PI to Public Witness Public Witness 8 at the trial and Ex. P1 not being the weapon of offencewould pale into insignificance. Public Witness Public Witness 2/b, not showing the weapon ofoffence namely. Ex. PI to Public Witness Public Witness 8 at the trial and Ex. P1 not being the weapon of offencewould pale into insignificance. As far as the involvement of the accused in theincident is concerned, the same is sufficiently established by cogent and reliableevidence of Public Witness PWs 10 and 11 and in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has beenable to bring the guilt home to the accused beyond reasonable doubts and there isno room for hypothesis consistent with that of the innocence of the appellant. ( 24 ) IN our opinion, the evidence on record satisfies the requirementspointing to the guilt of the appellant and he has been justifiably found guilty of themurder of deceased Dharam Pal. In our opinion, the recording of the finding of guiltagainst the appellant by the learned Trial Judge is consistent with the evidence onrecord and the legal requirements in this regard. ( 25 ) IN the result, the appeal being devoid of merits fails and the convictionrecorded and the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge in FIR No. 30/90 P. S. Jaffar Pur Kalan in Sessions Case No. 223/90 are confirmed.