N. G. Nandi,j. ( 1 ) THE conviction recorded and sentences imposed vide judgment dated 29/01/1994 in F. I. R. No. 363/91, Police Station Jahangir Puri,delhi by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for the offence under Sections302/323/34, Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act have been assailed by theappellants/convicts in this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, shortly stated, is that Dharmajit @ Nanha was residingin Jhuggi No. 7 in Jahangir Puri with his parents whereas his brother Kishore residedin Jhuggi No. 86; that both the brothers were doing electrical works; that 6/11/1991 was a Diwali day and so in the late evening Nanha went out to meethis friends; that Raju Singh @ Raju, S/o Vikram Singh, r/o Jhuggi No. H-3, Jahangirpuri, Rajesh @ Pocky and Rakesh @ Sanjay, the two brothers, S/o Kishan, R/o Houseno. 4/1563, Jahangir Puri, Arjun s/o Devi, r/o H-3/1088, Jahangir Puri, Delhihappened to be the frends of Nanha; that Kishore also knew all of them; that whenhis brother Nanha did not return home till 11. 4/1563, Jahangir Puri, Arjun s/o Devi, r/o H-3/1088, Jahangir Puri, Delhihappened to be the frends of Nanha; that Kishore also knew all of them; that whenhis brother Nanha did not return home till 11. 30 p. m. , Kishore went out in searchof Nanha and at about 12 O clock in the midnight, near the public park in 1600, Waligali, H-4, Jahangir Puri, Rakesh @ Sanjay and Rajesh @ Pocky were quarrelling withhis brother Nanha because they had gambled and Raju had won in gambling; thatrajesh was not paying the mony won by Raju; that Nanha asked Rajesh to pay moneyto Raju and on this, Rajesh and Rakesh were quarrelling with Nanha; that Rakeshstarted grappling with Nanha; that Kishore tried to intervene; that Rakesh andrajesh fist gave blows on his (Kishore) mouth and he received injuries on face nearhis eyes and mouth; that Kishore fell down and received injuries/bruises on hisback; that Rakesh @ Sanjay took out a chhuri (knife) from his left dub and askedrajesh @ Pocky what he was seeing, catch hold of the rascle (Nanha); that he (Nanha)poses to be a big dada finish him"; that in the meantime, Rajesh caught Nanha andrakesh dealt knife blow in his chest; that Kishore was frightened because Rakeshwas having an open knife in his hand and he, Raju Singh and Arjun Singh could notcatch them and Rakesh and Rajesh, both the brothers ran away; that Rajesh alsoreceived minor injuries in the scuffle; that thereafter Arjun Singh put Nanha on hisshoulder, Raju held Nanha and he was taken to home; that because of the injury inthe chest, Nanha was profusely bleeding and because of this the shoulder of Arujunsingh got blood marks; that Kishore brought a three-wheeler scooter from the roadand put Nanha in the three-wheeler scooter; that Kishore, his mother Kalawati andraju took Nanha to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctors. ( 3 ) THAT a complaint to the above effect came to be lodged by Kishore, the brother of deceased Nanha, whereupon the offence was registered. On completion of theusual investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against Rajesh @ Pocky andrakesh @ Sanjay for the offence under Sections 302/323/34, Indian Penal Code and additionalagainst accused Rakesh @ Sanjay also for the offence under Sections 27,54,59, Armsact. The charge came to be framed against both these accused persons for theaforesaid offences. On completion of theusual investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against Rajesh @ Pocky andrakesh @ Sanjay for the offence under Sections 302/323/34, Indian Penal Code and additionalagainst accused Rakesh @ Sanjay also for the offence under Sections 27,54,59, Armsact. The charge came to be framed against both these accused persons for theaforesaid offences. The prosecution, in order to bring the guilt home to the accused,adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial Judge, appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution andconsidering further statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 313,criminal Procedure Code, held both the accused persons guilty for the offences alleged and chargedwith and sentenced both the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment forlife for the offence under Sections 302/34,1. P. C. and a fine of Rs. 500. 00 each and indefault to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. That for the offences under Sections 323/34, 1. P. C. the learned trial Judgesentenced both the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periodof six months and pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 each and in default to undergo simpleimprisonment for a further period of one month. Accused Rakesh, in addition, hasbeen sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and afine of Rs. 500. 00and indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of twomonths for the offence under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. All the sentences,as above, awarded to the accused persons have been made to run concurrently. Itis this finding of guilt and the imposition of sentences, as stated above, which havebeen assailed in this appeal by the appellants/convicts. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Nanha, S/o Behari Lal, r/o Jhuggi No. 87, H2 Market, Jahangir Puri, Delhi was caught hold of by Rajesh during the night of 5th/ 6/11/1991 below the electric pole in public park of Gali No. 1600, Jahangirpuri while Rakesh dealt a knife blow in the chest by Rakesh; that Nanha was takento Hindu Rao Hospital where he was declared dead. The inquest report. Ex. PW12/on the dead body of deceased Nanha had been proved through the evidence ofpw 12. Perusal of the same suggests that external injuries were found on the deadbody of Nanha. ( 5 ) PUBLIC Witness 10 Dr. The inquest report. Ex. PW12/on the dead body of deceased Nanha had been proved through the evidence ofpw 12. Perusal of the same suggests that external injuries were found on the deadbody of Nanha. ( 5 ) PUBLIC Witness 10 Dr. L. T. Ramani of Civil Hospital, Delhi has stated in the evidence that the dead body of Dharamjit @ Nanha, S/o Behari Lal was brought before him forpost-mortem examination on 6/11/1991; that he noted the external injuriesfound on the dead body; that he also noticed external injuries during the postmortem examination; that external injury No. 6 was seen to have entered the leftchest cavity after cutting 5th sterno costal junction and muscle of 4th under costalspace, right ventricle of the heart was found pierced on its anterior surface wherehalf an inch long cut was seen, total depth of the injury was 3 from the bodysurface; that injuries were ante-mortem; that injury No. 6 was caused by sharpedged weapon and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thecause of death is the shock and haemorrhage following the injury to the heart; thatthe post-mortem report is Ex. Public Witness 10/a prepared by this witness. Takingtheevidence of Public Witness 10 and the post-mortem report. Ex. Public Witness IO/a, the death of deceasednanha, S/o Behari Lal is established by the prosecution to be the homicidal death. ( 6 ) EX. Public Witness I/b is the F. I. R. (complaint) given by Public Witness 7 Kishore S/o Behari Lal. It is specifically alleged that as Nanha did not return home till 11. 30 p. m. in the nightof 5/11/1991, the complainant, Kishore, went out in his search and reachednear the park of Gali No. 1600, H-4, Jahangir Puri at about 12 O clock midnight; thatrakesh @ Sanjay and Rajesh @ Pocky were found quarrelling with Nanha, thebrother of complainant Kishore because they had lost money in the gamble that theyhad played with Raju who had won in the said gamble and as he was not paid hismoney by Rakesh and Rajesh, Nanha took the side of Raju and quarrelled withrakesh and Rajesh, upon which Nanha was given beating. The complainant triedto intervene, whereupon both the brothers, Rakesh and Rajesh, gave fist blows on hisface and also on the portion near the eyes of the complainant and he also sustainedbruise injury on back as he fell down; that Rakesh @ Sanjay took out a knife from hisleft side and asked Rajesh as to what he was seeing and exhorted him to catch holdof Nanha; that Rakesh further told Rajesh that Nanha posed much himself and thathe would finish him. The actual words uttered by Rakesh have been reproduced inthe complaint reading "dekhta KYA HAI, PAKAD SALE KO. YEH BADA DADABANTA HAI. ISKO MAIN KHATAM HE KAR DETA HOON whereupon Rajeshcaught hold of Nanha and Rakesh hit Chhuri (knife) in the chest of Nanha; thatkishore got frightened because Rajesh was having a open knife in his hand and Rajusingh,arjun and the complainant could not apprehend them and both the brothers,rakesh and Rajesh, fled away. Thus, the part played by Rakesh and Rajesh, boththe appellants, alongwith the words uttered by Rakesh have been clearly stated inthe complaint. ( 7 ) PUBLIC Witness 7, Kishore (complainant) deposed that he lived in Jhuggi No. 86, H-2market, Jahangir Puri; that his brother Nanha lived in Jhuggi No. 87; that both thebrothers were working as electricians; that on the day of incident, his brother Nanhawent out to meet his friends on the occasion of Diwali; that the witness knows theaccused persons who were present in the Court and identified them as Sanjay andthe other as Pocky; that both happened to be the friends of his brother Nanha; thatthe witness was sent by his mother to trace Nanha as he had not returned home till12. 15. a. m. (6. 11. 91); that the witness came to 1600 Wali Gali, H-4, Jahangir Puri,delhi at about 12. 30 a. m. and saw accused persons fighting with his brother; that hewas told that the last tip of Rs. 500. 15. a. m. (6. 11. 91); that the witness came to 1600 Wali Gali, H-4, Jahangir Puri,delhi at about 12. 30 a. m. and saw accused persons fighting with his brother; that hewas told that the last tip of Rs. 500. 00 was won by Raju; that Nanha had asked Pockyas to why he was not paying the amount to Raju, and on this both the accused personsstarted scuffling with Nanha; that the witness also tried to intervene whereuponboth the brothers i. e. Sanjay and Pocky gave fist blows to the witness; that he alsosustained injuries below both the eyes and on mouth, he fell down and receivedinjuries on his back and had got some bruises; that Sanjay asked Pocky to catchnanha because he posed to be a big Dada and he would finish him there. Pockycaught Nanha and Sanjay, taking out a dagger from his left dub, hit Nanha directlyon his chest and one at the back of this neak; that the witness was frightened becausesanjay was having a open dagger in his hand; that Arjun and Raju Singh tried tocatch the accused but they ran away and in this scuffle. Pocky also had receivedminor injuries; that Arjun had put Nanha on his shoulder and Raju had held himand took him to his house in injured state where from he was taken to Hindu Raohospital in a three-wheeler scooter where Nanha was declared dead. ( 8 ) THE witness was shown Ex. P 1, the shirt which has been identified to be thatof Arjun Singh and he stated that the same was put on by Arjun at the time of theincident and while carrying Nanha in injured condition on his shoulder. The witnesshas also deposed about the discovery of the weapon namely dagger by accusedrakesh @ Sanjay vide Discovery Panchnama, Ex. Public Witness 6/b and the said weapon wastaken by th^ LO. which is Ex. P2 which has also been identified as the weapon ofoffence the the witness. The witness was shown clothes i. e. shirt and Banian, Exs. P3 and P4and Exs. P5 and P6, Pant and underwear respectively which the witnessidentified to be the clothes put on by deceased Nanha at the time of the incident. which is Ex. P2 which has also been identified as the weapon ofoffence the the witness. The witness was shown clothes i. e. shirt and Banian, Exs. P3 and P4and Exs. P5 and P6, Pant and underwear respectively which the witnessidentified to be the clothes put on by deceased Nanha at the time of the incident. Inthe cross-examination, it has been categorically stated that he was told by his motherto inquire about Nanha as he had not returned till midnight; that it was a nightintervening 5th/ 6/11/1991; that he reached in 1600 Wali Gali and saw theaccused and the deceased quarrelling as the accused were not paying the money toraju which he had won in gambling and Nanha had taken the side of Raju againstthe accused persons. It is further suggested that Pocky, Sanjay and Nanha werequarrelling and the remaining two were standing and they were trying to intervene. It is further stated that he was Sanjay inflicting knife blow to the deceased and thetime was 12. 15 a. m. to 12. 30 a. m. ( 9 ) THUS, it would be seen from the evidence of Public Witness 7, Kishore (complainant)that he had come to Gali 1600 Wali, near the park of Jahangir Puri, in the night of 5th/ 6/11/1991 and found two accused persons quarrelling with Nanha on theissue of paying bet money to Raju as he had won while playing gambling with theaccused persons; that there were two other persons namely Arjun and Raju Singhand that they were standing there. The words uttered by accused Sanjay at the timeof the occurrence, as stated in the complaint, have also been reproduced in thedeposition and the part played by both the accused have been specifically and in nomistakable terms deposed by Public Witness 7. It is quite natural for a elder brother to makeenquiry of his younger brother if he does not return till midnight. The incident hasbeen categorically deposed to by Public Witness 7, the complainant and the averments in thecomplaint have been in all particulars substantiated/corroborated by the evidenceofpw7. ( 10 ) THE other witness to the occurrence is Public Witness 6, Raju S/o Vikram Singh. The incident hasbeen categorically deposed to by Public Witness 7, the complainant and the averments in thecomplaint have been in all particulars substantiated/corroborated by the evidenceofpw7. ( 10 ) THE other witness to the occurrence is Public Witness 6, Raju S/o Vikram Singh. It has been deposed by him that on 5/11/1991, during the night he alongwithrajesh and Rakesh, accused persons present in Court, was playing gamble in H4 Block Park, Gali 1600 Wali under electric pole; that deceased Dharamjit @ Nanhawas also standing there and watching the game; that the witness won in the gamblefrom the accused persons; that accused Rajesh did not pay the witness the bet moneywhich he had lost and the witness had won; that Nanha sided with the witness andasked the accused Rajesh to pay bet money and the quarrel ensuing between Nanhaand accused persons. Kishore, the brother of Nanha, also reached the place; that theaccused persons gave beating to Nanha and Kishore; that Kishore sustained injuries;that the accused Rakesh @ Sanjay took out a knife (Chhuri) from his left side dub ofhis Pant and instigated his brother Rajesh to catch hold of Nanha saying that he wasbecoming Dada and he will finish him whereupon accused Rajesh caught Nanhaand accused Rakesh stabbed Nanha in his chest and heart; that both the accusedpersons ran away from the place; that Arjun lifted the injured Nanha on his shoulderand the witness held Nanha and took him to his house alongwith his brotherkishore. From there, Nanha alongwith Kishore was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital;that the witness and the mother of Kishore also went to hospital; that the doctorsdeclared Nanha dead; that the witness has identified Ex. P 2 as the weapon of offencediscovered by the accused from the debris of the rubbish. It is also stated by thiswitness that the accused made a voluntary statement. Ex. PW-6/c staling todiscover the weapon and the same was recovered vide Seizure Memo, Ex. PW6/e. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted the suggestion that they weregambling under electric pole and the electric light was on at that pole. It is denied thatat the time of scuffle, 10/12 boys were there. Ex. PW-6/c staling todiscover the weapon and the same was recovered vide Seizure Memo, Ex. PW6/e. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted the suggestion that they weregambling under electric pole and the electric light was on at that pole. It is denied thatat the time of scuffle, 10/12 boys were there. ( 11 ) IT is suggested from the evidence of Public Witness 6 that he was very much present at the lace of occurrence inasmuch as below an electric pole in 1600 Wali Gali, nearthe park of jahangir Puri, the witness was playing gamble with the accused persons;that the witness won Rs. 500. 00 from the accused in the said gamble which theaccused were not prepared to pay to the witness; that Nanha, the deceased, who wasstanding there and watching the gamble played by the accused and witness and asthe accused did not pay bet money to the witness which he had won and they hadlost, Nanha took side of witness and asked the accused persons to pay money toraju which he had won, whereupon quarrel took place between Nanha and accusedpersons; that Kishore, brother of Nanha, also arrived at the place searching fornanha as it was midnight; that Kishore also received injury on a part below the eyes;that the witness has also narrated the incident and reproduce the words uttered byaccused Rakesh @ Sanjay at the place of incident and also asking his brother, theother accused Rajesh, to catch Nanha and also Rajesh having caught hold of Nanhaand Rakesh having dealt Chhuri (knife) blow in the chest of Nanha. ( 12 ) THAT witness has given the complete and clear account of the occurrence as right from playing of gamble with the accused, his winning and the accused personslosing in the gamble, accused having refused to pay bet money to the witness whichhe had won in the gamble, deceased having taken side of the witness and quarrelensuing between accused and Nanha on that score, Kishore, the brother of deceasednanha, coming to the place in search of Nanha, he also receiving injury on face inthe incident. Rakesh having uttered the words instigating Rajesh to catch hold ofnanha, whereupon Rajesh having caught hold of Nanha and Rakesh having dealtknife blow in the chest with the knife which he had taken out from the left side pocketof his trouser. Rakesh having uttered the words instigating Rajesh to catch hold ofnanha, whereupon Rajesh having caught hold of Nanha and Rakesh having dealtknife blow in the chest with the knife which he had taken out from the left side pocketof his trouser. ( 13 ) THUS, Public Witness 6 and Public Witness 7 have given consistent version of the occurrence, asstated in the complaint/rukka. Both the witnesses have identified P-2, knife, as theweapon of offence discovered by accused and taken by the 1. 0. vide Seizure Memo,ex. PW-6/c. Both the witnesses have identified P 3 and P 4, the shirt and Banian andp 5 and P 6 the Pant and underwear to be the clothes put on by the deceased at thetime of occurrence. ( 14 ) PERUSAL of CFSL Report, Ex. PW9/c2 suggests that Ex. PI was a full sleevedshirt having many brown stains at places. The result of analysis is at Ex. PW9/dwhich suggests that the said shirt contained human blood of a group. Ex. Public Witness 9/e suggests that Exs. 3a and 3b (P-3 and 4) are the full sleeved shirt and one sleevelessbainan whereas Exs. 2a and 2b (P-5 and 6) are Pant and underwear. The result of theanalysis on page 128 suggests the presence of human blood detected on Exs. 2a, 2b,3a and 3b. It is also suggested from the CFSL Report, Ex. Public Witness 9/f that daggercontained human blood of a group. ( 15 ) IT has been deposed by Public Witness 5 in his evidence that his blood stained shirt was taken into possession by the police vide memo. Ex. PW5/a. The witness admits hissignature at point a on this memo. The witness was then declared hostile andpermitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution as he did not support theprosecution on the main incident. In the cross-examination, it has been deposed thatex. P 1 is the shirt of the witness and is the same which was blood stained when heremoved the injured/deceased to his house. The shirt. Ex. PI as per Ex. Public Witness 9/c2suggested the blood on the said exhibit and as per the analysis report. Ex. PW9/d,the said shirt contained human blood of a group, whereas Exs. PW9/e and PW9/suggest the human blood of a group on the Pant, underwear, shirt and Banianof the deceased. It is also suggested from the evidence on record, especially Ex. P 9that Ex. Public Witness 9/c2suggested the blood on the said exhibit and as per the analysis report. Ex. PW9/d,the said shirt contained human blood of a group, whereas Exs. PW9/e and PW9/suggest the human blood of a group on the Pant, underwear, shirt and Banianof the deceased. It is also suggested from the evidence on record, especially Ex. P 9that Ex. 1 is the dark brown gauge cloth piece and as per the report of the analysis,human blood of group a was detected on Ex. I, the gauge and on Ex. 4, one allmetallic dagger and the group of human blood was a . Thus, it would be seen thatthe weapon of offence discovered by the accused person, as aforestated, was foundto contain human blood of a group. The clothes of the deceased, Exs. P 3 to P 6 werealso found to contain human blood of a group, the shirt recovered from Public Witness 5, Ex. I was also found to contain human blood of a group. The medical evidence pointedout above suggests the injuries received by the deceased in the incident. Thus, themedical evidence and CFSL report, as above, lend complete corroboration to theocular version given by Public Witness 6 and Public Witness 7. We do not find any inconsistency betweenthe ocular version and the medical evidence. ( 16 ) IT has been contended by learned Counsel for appellants that there isdiscrepancy in the timing given by Public Witness 6 and Public Witness 7. It may be appreciated that theincident took place during the night intervening 5th/ 6/11/1991. Theevidence of the witnesses has been recorded on 6/12/1993 i. e. after a gapof about more than two years of the occurrence. We have to make allowance of thetime gap in the date of incident and the recording of the evidence of the witnessesas some discrepancies are bound to be there. It may also be appreciated at the sametime that the time of the occurrence given by the witnesses are always approximate. Appreciating the evidence of Public Witness 6 and Public Witness 7, we do not regard the discrepancy inthe timings given by Public Witness 6 and/or Public Witness 7 in their evidence to be such which wouldrender the evidence of either of the witness unreliable or untrustworthy. Appreciating the evidence of Public Witness 6 and Public Witness 7, we do not regard the discrepancy inthe timings given by Public Witness 6 and/or Public Witness 7 in their evidence to be such which wouldrender the evidence of either of the witness unreliable or untrustworthy. Taking theincident as narrated in the F. I. R. and the evidence of Public Witness 6 and Public Witness 7 and alsoappreciating the medical evidence and the report of CFSL, as stated above, thewitnesses have fully corroborated the prosecution version in all material particulars. In our opinion, the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Judge onappreciation of evidence does not call for any interference and the same deserves tobe confirmed. ( 17 ) THE above discussion would reveal that accused Rakesh is proved to havepossessed the weapon i. e. knife (dagger) by which he is proved to have dealt fatalblow in the chest of deceased Nanha. Section 2 (c) of the Arms Act, 1959 wouldinclude knife/dagger within the meaning of Arms Act. Since knife/dagger wouldbe covered under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and accused Rakesh is provedto have unauthorisedly possessed the knife/dagger, which is a sharp edged/deadlyweapon and not designed for domestic or agricultural uses, would attract theapplicability of the provisions of the said Act and for that reason, the learned trialjudge, in our opinion, is justified in recording the finding of guilt against accusedrakesh and imposition of consequent sentence for the offence under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. ( 18 ) IN the above view of the matter, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal and confirm the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge andthe appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. ( 19 ) IN the result, the appeal fails. The conviction and sentence of both the appellants/convicts is hereby confirmed.