( 1 ) PROSECUTION charged the appellant Virender Singh for murdering Raj Kapoor son of Partap Singh Public Witness on 25/05/1991. The learned Additional Sessions judge relying on the testimony of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) father of the deceased, convicted the appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25,000. 00. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 302 Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the additional Sessions Judge dated 8/07/1994 the present appeal was preferred, inter alia, on the grounds that independent witness Surinder Singh (Public Witness- 1) has not supported the case of the prosecution, that the presence of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was doubtful. According to appellant Pratap Singh (Public Witness-5) was brought to the spot after the occurrence. Even the driver and conductor of the bus had not supported the case of the prosecution. No other independent witness was examined. The conviction has not been based on any material on record but on surmises and conjectures. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge raised in this appeal, we may have a quick glance to the facts of this case. As per the prosecution story, on 2 5/05/1991 at9. 00p. IVI. Raj Kapoor along with his father Partap Singh Public Witness boarded the DTC bus from Najafgarh Bus Stand. They were to go to their home. Raj Kapoor, deceased and Surinder (Public Witness-1)saton one seat, while Paratp Singh (Public Witness-5) sat on the seat behind their seat. The appellant herein was also present in that bus. He sat on a seat in front of the seat where deceased and Surinder Public Witness were sitting. Appellant was known to Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) from before. Deceased Raj Kapoor and Surinder, Public Witness were talking loudly in the bus. This was not liked by the appellant. He, therefore, questioned deceased Raj Kapoor as to why was he talking loudly. Appellant was known to Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) from before. Deceased Raj Kapoor and Surinder, Public Witness were talking loudly in the bus. This was not liked by the appellant. He, therefore, questioned deceased Raj Kapoor as to why was he talking loudly. The deceased did not like being questioned, therefore, retorted as to why should appellant feel offended. This led to heated exchange of words between appellant and the deceased. Appellant threatened the deceased by saying that let him alight from the bus he would be set right. On the intervention of some passengers, Partap Singh, (Public Witness-5) and of Surinder (Public Witness-1) matter was sorted out and the appellant calm down. After some time when the bus reached at Guman hera bus stop at about 9. 20 or 9. 25 P. M. the conductor of the bus said announced that since the bus was out of order, passengers should alight. There were about 30 to 40 passengers in the bus. They started alighting. Deceased Raj Kapoor, surinder Public Witness and the appellant alighted whereas Partap Singh Public Witness kept on sitting in the bus. As soon as deceased and appellant got down, the appellant pursuant to the challenge given to the deceased in the bus inflicted knife blows to the deceased. On hearing cries of his son "bachao-Bachao" Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) immediately came down from the bus. He saw appellant Virender Singh giving stab wounds to Raj Kapoor. He along with Surinder and other passengers tried to catch hold of appellant but he successfully escaped towards Najafgarh Road with the knife in his hand. Raj Kapoor fell down due to stab injuries. He bleeded profusely. A passer-by on Scooter was requested by Partap Singh Public Witness to inform about the incident at the Police Chowki. Police Chowki was the nearest. It was situated at a distance of about one Km. from the place of occurrence i. e. Guman hera Bus Stand. On getting the information, DD-15awasrecordedat9. 35p. lvl. DD message was conveyed to Police Station Jafar Pur Kalan at 9. 45 P. M. On receipt of this information ASI Mahinder Singh (Public Witness-15) reached the spot of occurrence. Police official along with Public Witness-5 removed the injured to D. D. U. Hospital in the police vehicle. Doctor declared Raj Kapoor brought dead. Appellant after inflicting the knife blow absconded. 45 P. M. On receipt of this information ASI Mahinder Singh (Public Witness-15) reached the spot of occurrence. Police official along with Public Witness-5 removed the injured to D. D. U. Hospital in the police vehicle. Doctor declared Raj Kapoor brought dead. Appellant after inflicting the knife blow absconded. He was, however, arrested on 30/05/1991, pursuance to the secret information received. On appellant s disclosure statement and pointing a button actuated knife was recovered from the bushes. Scaled site plan was prepared and the articles were taken into possession. C. F. S. L. report obtained. After completion of the investigation challan was filed. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined as many as 21 witnesses. Out of these Statements of Surinder Singh (Public Witness-1), Ram Kumar, Conductor of DTC Bus (Public Witness-2), Partap. Singh, Driver of the DTC Bus (Public Witness-3), Partap Singh (Public Witness-5), father of the deceased, shiv Charan (Public Witness-6) witness to the discovery and Balbir Singh (DW-7) have a bearing on the prosecution s case. ( 5 ) SURINDER Singh (Public Witness-1) was the alleged eye witness of the occurrence. He, however, resiled from his earlier statement hence was declared hostile. In the chief examination he admitted that he along with the deceased sat on the same seat in the said bus. He further admitted that appellant was also travelling in the same bus with them. According to him the appellant was sitting on the seat ahead of their seat. He also admitted that he and deceased were talking loudly in the bus. He, however, denied the presence of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) father of the deceased in the said Bus. According to him Public Witness-5 was called from his village subsequently. When subjected to cross examination by the learned APP he admitted that when the bus reached village Guman Hera at about 9. 20 P. M. it was announced that bus was out of order. He got down and so did deceased Raj Kapoor and the appellant. He resiled from his earlier statement wherein he had stated that appellant had inflicted knife blows to the deceased. In Court he stated that when he came down deceased had already been inflicted with injuries but he could not tell who inflicted those knife blows to the deceased. He was confronted with his earlier statement Ex. He resiled from his earlier statement wherein he had stated that appellant had inflicted knife blows to the deceased. In Court he stated that when he came down deceased had already been inflicted with injuries but he could not tell who inflicted those knife blows to the deceased. He was confronted with his earlier statement Ex. Public Witness-1/a. Barring the admissions made and quoted above namely that deceased, appellant and he were travelling in the same bus, that he and deceased were talking loudly, he denied all other facts. He denied that he resiled from his earlier statement due to the threat exhorted on him by the deceased. According to him the distance between the bus stop of village Guman Hera where bus stopped and the Village Galib Pur where Public Witness-5 resided was6kms. He could not tell who brought Partap Singh (Public Witness- 5) from the village nor he could tell whether father of the deceased was called by police. He admitted that there were 30 to 40 passengers in the bus. ( 6 ) RAM Kumar (Public Witness-2) conductor of the bus denied having witnessed the incident. He, however, testified that the bus started from Najafgarh at about 9. 00 p. M. As soon as it reached Guman Hera bus stop at 9. 20 P. M. driver told that the gear of the bus had struck. Passengers were asked to get down. What happened thereafter he did not know. He denied that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) came to him next day and asked for the bus ticket. To the same effect is the testimony of partap Singh (Public Witness-3) driver of the bus. According to him after announcing the bus to be out of order he went to some shop to inform the Depot that bus was out of order. According to him incident did not take place in his presence. No stabbing took place in his presence. Ram Phal (Public Witness-4) identified dead body. Shiv Charan (Public Witness-6) was a witness to the recovery of knife. He denied having any relation with Public Witness-5 or the deceased. He even denied having known Public Witness-5 from before. He was an independent witness to the said recovery of knife at the instance and disclosure of the accused. ( 7 ) PROSECUTION s case is entirely dependent on the testimony of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5 ). He denied having any relation with Public Witness-5 or the deceased. He even denied having known Public Witness-5 from before. He was an independent witness to the said recovery of knife at the instance and disclosure of the accused. ( 7 ) PROSECUTION s case is entirely dependent on the testimony of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5 ). Prosecution will swim or sink on the acceptance or otherwise of the testimony of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) father of the deceased. If this Court finds his testimony reliable and credit-worthy then the appellant s conviction has to be sustained. But if not, then the appeal has to be accepted. Therefore, case of tha. prosecution revolves around and hinges on the testimony of Partap Singh Public Witness-5. He is the author of the FIR. ( 8 ) MR. SANDEEP Sethi, counsel for the appellant has assailed the testimony of partap Singh (Public Witness-5) on the following amongst other grounds: namely (1) He was not present in the bus at the relevant time. He was subsequently called from his village. Hence he could not have witnessed the occurrence. (2) Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) implicated the accused because of his grudge against the family of the accused. As he suspected that they had been supporting Kartar Singh and Hawa singh, his rival party. (3) There had been a rivalry and animosity between Partap singh (Public Witness-5) and Balbir Singh (DW-7) uncle of the accused on account of election of Sarpanch. (4) Place of occurrence was dark. There being no light, hence question of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) witnessing the occurrence did not arise. Partap singh (Public Witness-5) could not have identified the assailant in that darkness. (5) Appellant was at home through out the day as well as on the intervening night of 25th May and 26th May, 1991. Even at n at the time of alleged occurrence he was at home. He was arrested on the morning of 26/05/1991. His arrest, however, was deliberately not shown till 30/05/1991. (6) Partap Singh s (Public Witness-5) testimony cannot be relied upon because he had been telling lies even on those facts which were known to him, and lastly (7) Deceased was a Constable in Delhi Police. His conduct was such that he had been placed under suspension. His arrest, however, was deliberately not shown till 30/05/1991. (6) Partap Singh s (Public Witness-5) testimony cannot be relied upon because he had been telling lies even on those facts which were known to him, and lastly (7) Deceased was a Constable in Delhi Police. His conduct was such that he had been placed under suspension. Criminal cases were registered against him, therefore, on account of his rivalry he might have been murdered by some one. The appellant had been falsely implicated. ( 9 ) TAKING the last argument first, it must be understood that the Constitution of india gives equal right to all the citizens of this Country. Nobody has a right to take the law in his own hand and kill another person because that person is of bad character or has been facing criminal trials. Even otherwise from the testimony of asi Mazharali (DW-4) it cannot be said that deceased was involved in number of criminal cases. Deceased was a Constable in Delhi Police. He was involved in a case on the registration of which he was placed under suspension. FIRNo. 20/91 was registered under Section 379/411 dated 13/01/1991. He was arrested on 18/01/1991 and was placed under suspension on 29/01/1991. According to ASI Mazhar All (DW-4) prior to this case of theft, the deceased was involved only in a case under Section 92/93/97 of the Delhi Police Act of P. S. Vinay Nagar of the year 1988. Except these two cases he was not involved in any other case. Therefore, it would not be right to say that deceased was involved in criminal activities. Safety of life and liberty is what is provided as a fundamental right by our Constitution. Taking away the life of a person on the ground that he is criminal and involved in criminal activities is no defence. So far as case of FIR no. 20/91 is concerned that was registered in 1991. It was not at the instance of any individual. The complainant in that case was official of Delhi Police. Therefore, there was no question of any individual having rivalry against the deceased nor anyone coming at the bus stop to kill him. Therefore, we find no substance in this argument of Mr. Sethi that since deceased was involved in criminal cases hence he might have been killed by some one. Therefore, there was no question of any individual having rivalry against the deceased nor anyone coming at the bus stop to kill him. Therefore, we find no substance in this argument of Mr. Sethi that since deceased was involved in criminal cases hence he might have been killed by some one. ( 10 ) NOW turning to the question that Partap Singh, Public Witness-5 s testimony cannot be relied because he denied facts known to him, we find no merits in this submission of Mr. Sethi. In order to prove that Partap Singh Public Witness-5 s testimony should not be relied upon, Mr. Sethi drew our attention to the fact that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) deliberately denied the fact of suspension of his deceased son from the service. Secondly Partap Singh denied that his daughter lodged a complaint against kartar Singh s son. He also denied that his deceased son was involved in criminal cases. Partap Singh appearing as (Public Witness-5) did say that he was not aware whether his son was suspended or that deceased was involved in criminal cases. From this reply it cannot be inferred that Partap Singh was telling lie. We are saying so because ASI Mazhar Ali (DW-4) testified that the deceased was in the habit of remaining absent from job without leave as a result of which red entries were given to him. ASI Mazhar Ali (DW-4) further stated that deceased used to remain absent for several days. Moreover, deceased was placed under suspension vide order dated 29/01/1991 whereas he was murdered on 25th May,1991. It is possible that by May, 1991 Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was not aware that deceased had , been placed under suspension because of any criminal case instituted against him. As per record produced by DW-4, the deceased was in the habit of remaining absent from duty for several days. Therefore, Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) may not have acquired the knowledge that deceased was suspended because it was not unusual for them to see the deceased remaining absent from duty. He may not have realised that deceased was under suspension due to criminal case instituted against him. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn from the reply given by public Witness-5. It cannot be said that Partap Singh when showed his ignorance about the suspension of his son was telling lie. He may not have realised that deceased was under suspension due to criminal case instituted against him. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn from the reply given by public Witness-5. It cannot be said that Partap Singh when showed his ignorance about the suspension of his son was telling lie. ASI Daya Ram (DW-8) appearing as defence witness proved Ex. DW^8/a i. e. translation copy ofdd No. 23 dated 25/05/1991 maintained at P. S. Jafarpur Kalan. Reading of the same shows that deceased was placed under suspension on 29/01/1991. No presumption can be drawn that this fact was known to Partap Singh (Public Witness-5 ). ( 11 ) MR. SETHI then contended that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) told lie about his having no rivalry with the family of the accused. From the perusal of the record it cannot be inferred that on this count Partap Singh misrepresented or told lie. Partap singh Public Witness had categorically denied that he ever canvassed for the Sarpanch election against Balbir Singh (DW-7) or supported in any manner the rival candidate of the uncle of the accused namely Balbir Singh (DW-7 ). Whether any charge-sheet Ex. DW-6/a was filed against the deceased pertaining to FIR No. 20/ 91 under Section 379/411, it is not necessary that father of the deceased must have known about the same. Nor can it be presumed that deceased must have told about the same to Public Witness-5. ( 12 ) TURNING to the question of Partap Singh denying the lodging of the complaint by his daughter Babli, the fact of the matter is the complaint bearing FIR No. 47/89 under Section 354/34 Indian Penal Code, Ex. Public Witness-3/a, was filed by Km. Babli daughter of Partap singh (Public Witness-5) against Devender Singh son of Kartar Singh and Daya Nand Billu. Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was signatory to the said complaint. Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) in fact has nowhere denied that his daughter did not file any complaint against devender Singh. The suggestion given to him in cross examination was that his son lodged complaint under Section 354/34 Indian Penal Code against Devender Singh son of kartar Singh to which he denied. Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) in fact has nowhere denied that his daughter did not file any complaint against devender Singh. The suggestion given to him in cross examination was that his son lodged complaint under Section 354/34 Indian Penal Code against Devender Singh son of kartar Singh to which he denied. Reply to the suggestion given by Partap Singh Public Witness is reproduced as under:- "i do not know if my son had lodged a complaint under Section 354 Indian Penal Code against Devender Singh, son of Kartar Singh of my village prior to this occurrence. " ( 13 ) READING of this reply show that suggestion of lodging complaint was not by his daughter Babli but of his son. Hence the witness Partap Singh rightly said he was not aware that his son had lodged a complaint against Devender Singh. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the deceased had also filed a complaint under Section 354 Indian Penal Code against Devender Singh son of Kartar Singh. The fact that a complaint was lodged by his daughter Babli against Devender Singh under Section 354 Indian Penal Code was never put up to this witness. Therefore, there was no question of his denying the same or telling lie on this count. It cannot be said nor would be correct to say that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) deliberately concealed facts or told lie. ( 14 ) SO far as the question of implicating the accused on account of any grudge or rivalry and animosity due to Panchayat election of the village of the accused, nothing has come on record to show that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) ever participated in the panchayat election of the village of accused and DW-7. Nor it has been proved on record that Partap Singh ever canvassed against the uncle of the deceased in any of the election contested by Balbir Singh (DW-7 ). No material has been placed on record to show that Partap Singh suspected that accused party was supporting kartar Singh in a case lodged by his daughter Km. Babli. From the lengthy cross- examination of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) nothing could be elicited where from it could be proved that he had any grudge against the family of the accused and, therefore, to settle his score he implicated the accused. Babli. From the lengthy cross- examination of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) nothing could be elicited where from it could be proved that he had any grudge against the family of the accused and, therefore, to settle his score he implicated the accused. It has also not been proved that Public Witness-5 was related to Ratan Singh or Risal Singh the rival party of Balbir Singh (DW-7) uncle of the accused. Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) is resident of Village Galib Pur whereas accused and Balbir Singh his uncle are resident of village Barsa. Neither from the lengthy cross examination of Partap Singh nor from the testimony of balbir Singh (DW-7) it could be established that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was involved in the Election of Sarpanch of the Village Barsa. Balbir Singh (DW-7) uncle of the accused when subjected to cross-examination admitted that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was not related to Ratan Singh, the rival candidate or for that matter to Risal singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) had any rivalry with accused family on account of Sarpanch Election of the village of Barsa. It is an admitted fact on record that none of the relatives of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) contested any election or filed any election petition against Balbir Singh (DW-7) uncle of the deceased. Hence the contention of Mr. Sethi that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was nursing a grudge, to our mind, is a far fetched argument, not substantiated from the record. ( 15 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Sethi that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) suspected that Balbir Singh (DW-7) uncle of the deceased was supporting Kartar Singh father of Devender singh against whom his daughter Ms. Babli had filed a complaint appears to be an imaginary defence. Case under Section 354 Indian Penal Code was filed by Km. Babli against devender Singh and Daya Nand, in which younger daughter of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was the witness along with some other persons. Kartar Singh and Hawa Singh are relation of Devender Singh, but from that it cannot be presumed that Public Witness-5 falsely implicated the accused. No foundation has been laid to show that there was any rivalry between the family of the accused and that of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5 ). Kartar Singh and Hawa Singh are relation of Devender Singh, but from that it cannot be presumed that Public Witness-5 falsely implicated the accused. No foundation has been laid to show that there was any rivalry between the family of the accused and that of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5 ). Suggestion was given to Public Witness-5 that he filed an application to the authorities indicating that his son was murdered by Kartar Singh and Hawa Singh which suggestion was denied by Public Witness-5. This aspect remained in the realm of suggestion only, no record produced to prove the same. It shows accused tried to build defence without foundation. Hence on this count also we find no substance in the arguments of Mr. Sandeep Sethi. ( 16 ) THE argument of Mr. Sethi that there was no light at the place of occurrence hence Public Witness-5 could not have witnessed the occurrence, has been rebutted by Public Witness- 21, Insp. S. S. Malik when he stated that there was electric connection at the spot and light outside the shops were there. That those shops were situated near the spot. The distance between the place of occurrence and the shops was about 1. 0- 15 paces. He denied that the distance was more that 15 yards. Admittedly, Balbir singh (DW-7) uncle of the deceased denied that there was any light in any shop. According to him three shops belonged to Gram Panchayat of Village Guman Hera, those were without electricity. He denied that there was any tea shop near the bus stand and that other shops also had no provision for the electricity as those were lying vacant. Surinder Singh (Public Witness-1) on the other hand, in the cross-examination by the accused, stated there was complete darkness at the bus stop at that time. The testimony of Public Witness-1 and for that matter of DW-7 that there was darkness or that there was no light cannot be relied upon for the obvious reason that the incident took place on 25/05/1991 at9. 20or9. 25p. lvl. Being a summer month there could not have been complete darkness. Secondly the 1. 0. Insp. S. S. Malik said that there was light. He completed the formalities at the spot. Had there been no light he could not have completed the formalities. Insp. Malik reached the spot at 12. 45 a. M. (midnight) for recording the proceedings. 25p. lvl. Being a summer month there could not have been complete darkness. Secondly the 1. 0. Insp. S. S. Malik said that there was light. He completed the formalities at the spot. Had there been no light he could not have completed the formalities. Insp. Malik reached the spot at 12. 45 a. M. (midnight) for recording the proceedings. The crime team arrived at 1. 30 A. M. Thel. O. first inspected the site, prepared the rough site plan Ex. Public Witness-21/b. He lifted the blood stained earth and controlled earth from the spot. He also recorded the statement of Public Witness-1 Surinder Singh at 2. 00 A. M. He also seized one shoe of the deceased and took possession of the clothes of Public Witness-5 which he deposited in the malkhana of the Police Station. The proceedings which were conducted at the spot and so described by Public Witness-21 could not have been possible without there being any light. Lifting of blood stained earth and controlled earth and preparing of rough site plan and recording of statement could only be possible if there was light. Hence, the version given by Insp. S. S. Malik (Public Witness-21) appears to be more plausible and reliable than that of Public Witness-1 and DW-7. Those shops were situated near the place of occurrence and had light. That there was light in the shops can be inferred from the testimony of bus driver. Driver Partap Singh appearing as Public Witness-3 said that when bus went out of order he went to a shop. In his own words he said:- "i went to some shop to convey information to the bus depot. "( 17 ) HIS going to a shop indicates that there were shops nearby the place of occurrence which were functional and had light that is why he went there to inform the bus depot about the bus being out of order. This part of the statement of Partap singh (Public Witness-3) lend support to the testimony of Insp. S. S. Malik (Public Witness-21) when he stated that there was light in the shop near the place of occurrence. Existence of shops near the place of occurrence has been admitted by all. Some shops were operational that is why the driver went to convey the message to the Depot. S. S. Malik (Public Witness-21) when he stated that there was light in the shop near the place of occurrence. Existence of shops near the place of occurrence has been admitted by all. Some shops were operational that is why the driver went to convey the message to the Depot. This shows that all shops were not lying vacant some were in actual use. From the evidence which has come on record it cann t be inferred that there was complete darkness or that there was no light near the place of occurrence. ( 18 ) THE crucial point raised by Mr. Sandeep Sethi was the presence of Partap singh (Public Witness-5) in the bus at the relevant time. According to him Public Witness-5 was called subsequently. Similarly, the accused was also not in the bus. He was at home through out the day. For the reasons to be discussed hereinafter, this argument of mr. Sandeep Sethi cannot be relied as it belies from the overwhelming evidence available on record. Ram Kumar (Public Witness-2) was conductor of the said bus. A suggestion was given to him that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) came to him the next day asking for a bus ticket. He denied this suggestion. The apparent reason for giving this suggestion was to show that Partap Singh was not present in the bus. But the reply given by the conductor suggests that Partap Singh was not trying to fabricate documents to show his presence in the bus. Even otherwise it is an admitted case on record that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was the author of the FIR. His statement basis of the FIR clearly depicts that the version given by Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) in Court and earlier statement had been consistent. He named the appellant to be the assailant in the FIR. He gave the same version which he gave in the Court except minor variation which are of no consequences and don t prejudice the case of the prosecution in anyway. Surinder Singh (Public Witness-1) though denied the presence of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) in the bus but at the same time admitted that he and deceased Raj Kapoor were sitting on the same seat. They were talking loudly in the bus. Surinder Singh (Public Witness-1) though denied the presence of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) in the bus but at the same time admitted that he and deceased Raj Kapoor were sitting on the same seat. They were talking loudly in the bus. Even though Public Witness-1 was declared hostile on other points, but so far as appellant is concerned he admitted appellant s presence in the bus as well as the presence of the deceased and of himself. He also admitted that he and the deceased were talking loudly. Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) could not have dreamt about these facts had he not been present in the bus. He would not have known that his son and Public Witness-1 were talking loudly or that the conductor of the bus declared the bus to be out of order. And that there were 30 to 40 passengers who got down from the bus at that time. Secondly if Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was not present in the bus he could not have been the author of the FIR. Surinder Singh (Public Witness-1) who belonged to the same village as that of deceased would have been the author of the FIR. To one of the questions put in cross examination Public Witness-1 said that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was called from the village on a two-wheeler scooter. But failed to tell who that scooterwala was? What was his name? Was he a passer by or a person from the village? Hence the version put-forward by Public Witness-1 is belied from the facts on record. After all Public Witness-1 and Public Witness-5 belonged to the same village. If someone on two-wheeler scooter brought Partap Singh from the village, that man s name must have been known to Surinder (Public Witness-1 ). Since he could not tell the same, this shows Partap singh (Public Witness-5) was not brought from village subsequently, rather he was present in the bus. This has been proved by the testimony of ASI Mahinder Singh (Public Witness-15), insp. S. S. Malik (Public Witness-21) beside Public Witness-5 s own testimony. ( 19 ) PRESENCE of Public Witness-5 at the place of occurrence also stood established from the fact that the incident took place between 9. 20 to 9. 25 P. M. Information of the same was received by the Police Post at 9. S. S. Malik (Public Witness-21) beside Public Witness-5 s own testimony. ( 19 ) PRESENCE of Public Witness-5 at the place of occurrence also stood established from the fact that the incident took place between 9. 20 to 9. 25 P. M. Information of the same was received by the Police Post at 9. 35 P. M. This is so stated by Head constable Nafe Singh (Public Witness-8 ). He conveyed this information to Police Station jafarpur. The DD No. 15/a was received at the Police Station at about 9. 42 P. M. as stated by ASI Mahinder Singh (Public Witness-15 ). ASI Mahinder Singh (Public Witness-15) reached the spot within 10-12 minutes after the receipt of DD No. 15a. If we calculate the time it would work out to be 9. 52 or 9. 54 P. M. When ASI Mahinder singh (Public Witness-15) reached the spot, he found Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) present at the spot along with his injured son. Public Witness-15 stayed at the spot for about 3-4 minutes. He took the deceased Raj Kapoor in his vehicle along with Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) for DDU hospital. He reached hospital within half an hour. Statement of Partap Singh (Public Witness- 5) was recorded in the hospital as per the Investigating Officer (Public Witness-21 ). After recording the statement, the Rukka, Ex. Public Witness-21/awas sentto the Police Station at about 12. 20 P. M. The times indicated above would show that Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. He could not have been brought from his village Galib Pur to the place of occurrence in such a short time. It has come on record through the testimony of Surinder (Public Witness-1) that the distance between village Galib Pur and the place of occurrence was about 6 Kms. By the time the message could reach Public Witness-5 at his village Galibpur and he arrived at the spot it would have taken him more than half an hour. Whereas according to ASI Mahinder singh (Public Witness-15) when he reached the spot at about 9. 52 to 9. 54 PM. Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was present with the deceased. Incident happened at about 9. 25 P. M. Public Witness-15 reached to spot in less than half an hour. In such a short time Partap Singh could not have covered 12 Kms. 52 to 9. 54 PM. Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) was present with the deceased. Incident happened at about 9. 25 P. M. Public Witness-15 reached to spot in less than half an hour. In such a short time Partap Singh could not have covered 12 Kms. , i. e. some one going 6 Kms. from spot to his village and then Public Witness-5 covering 6 Kms. to reach the place of occurrence. Moreover, not even a suggestion was given to Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) that he was brought from his village subsequently by a two wheeler scooter. Taking these factors in view it cannot be said that Public Witness-5 was not present at the place of occurrence or that incident did not take place in his presence. ( 20 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Sethi that since the name of the appellant was not given in the MLC, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Public Witness-5 to the effect that accused murdered Raj Kapoor. Mr. Sethi contended that since at the first available opportunity name of the accused was not given by Public Witness-5 hence no reliance should be placed on his subsequent statement. It creates doubt in the version of the prosecution. To support his arguments he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Devender Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1997 supreme Court page 454. Observations ofthe Apex Court in that case does not help the case of the appellant. In that case benefit of doubt was given for many reasons beside the fact that in the Medico Legal Report name of the appellant was not given. Secondly it was found that the FIR was not lodged on the same date. The special report was not sent to the Magistrate on the same date. That special report was forwarded to the Metropolitan Magistrate after the case was converted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. All these factors led to conclusion that since the FIR did not see the light of the day till the death of the deceased hence benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. But that is not the case in hand. In this case statement of public Witness-5 was recorded immediately in the hospital. Thereafter Rukka was sent to police Station at 12. 20 A. M. and the FIR was registered at 1. But that is not the case in hand. In this case statement of public Witness-5 was recorded immediately in the hospital. Thereafter Rukka was sent to police Station at 12. 20 A. M. and the FIR was registered at 1. 05 A. M. in the intervening night of 25th and 26/05/1991. Constable Dharambir (Public Witness-18) took the special report on 26/05/1991 at 4. 30 A. M. and delivered the same to the area Magistrate as well as to the higher authorities on the same date. From the testimony of Public Witness-18 it is fully established that the FIR was not anti-timed. In fact the same was despatched to the area Magistrate and to the higher authorities the same date without any delay. Therefore, the case in hand is distinguishable from the facts of the case in Devinder Vs. State of Haryana (Supra ). ( 21 ) SIMILARLY, judgment relied by Mr. Sethi in the case of Shyam Sunder and Raj kaumar Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in 1995 II AD (Delhi) 136 is distinguishable on facts. In that case the Court found a glaring fact which led to the presumption that in all probability FIR was anti-timed. Apex Court did not believe the version of an eye witness because it was found that he was not present at the time of occurrence and also found that the provisions of Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code and punjab Police Rules were not complied with. In that case, in the MLC name of one nanak Chand was recorded having brought the deceased to the Hospital. But the prosecution failed to prove that Nanakchand was eyewitness of the occurrence. The presence of Nanak Chandat the time of occurrence was found to be doubtful. Secondly the FIR was not recorded properly. In that case violation of Punjab Police rules. It was found that the substance of the FIR including the name of the accused and that of the eye witness was admittedly not recorded in the Daily Diary nor the special report was sent to the Metropolitan Magistrate immediately. There was unexplained delay in sending the report. Even the inquest proceedings were not carried out promptly. Those were held over till the next day. It was on account of these facts. that benefit of doubt was given to the accused. But that again is not the case in hand. There was unexplained delay in sending the report. Even the inquest proceedings were not carried out promptly. Those were held over till the next day. It was on account of these facts. that benefit of doubt was given to the accused. But that again is not the case in hand. As already pointed out above presence of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) cannot be doubted for the obvious reason that he was the one who narrated the root cause of the incident. He also narrated the reason which enraged the accused and which led to his inflicting knife blows to the deceased. It has not come on record that these facts were furnished to Public Witness-5 by someone, facts nobody told Public Witness-5. It was also not the case of Surinder (Public Witness-1) that he told Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) that he and deceased were talking loudly or that accused was also present in the said bus or that public Witness-1 and deceased sat on the same seat. In fact no one told these facts to Public Witness-5, therefore, it can be said that Public Witness-5 was the eye witness of the occurrence. Public Witness-5 knew the accused from before hence it was easy for him to recognise the accused/ assailant. ( 22 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Sethi that since Public Witness-5 did not try to save his son hence his presence was doubtful. We find no force in this contention because Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) testified that there were 30 to 40 passengers in the bus. They all started alighting. He, therefore, remained sitting in the bus in order to allow others to get down. There was nothing unusual in this conduct of Public Witness-5. Some people don t like to push others. They wait and give way to others. However, when he heard the cries of his son he did not waste a minute. He immediately got down and proceeded towards his son in order to save him. But by then the accused made good his escape from there, he along with 4 to 5 passengers tried to chase and catch hold of the accused. They did not succeed. It, therefore, cannot be said that Partap Singh did not try to save his son. ( 23 ) MR. But by then the accused made good his escape from there, he along with 4 to 5 passengers tried to chase and catch hold of the accused. They did not succeed. It, therefore, cannot be said that Partap Singh did not try to save his son. ( 23 ) MR. SANDEEP Sethi s contention that testimony of Public Witness-5 should not be relied because he is an interested witness being the father of the deceased. This argument in the facts of this case is without substance. Public Witness-5 was an eye witness. Since we find his testimony worthy of credence hence merely because he happens to be the father of the deceased is no reason to discard his testimony particularly when it inspires confidence. ( 24 ) MR. SETHI then contended that since no independent witness came forward to support the case of the prosecution, this shows appellant has been falsely implicated by Public Witness-5. We all know and conscious of the fact that people by and large do not want to get drag in police and criminal cases, unless of course, some one is a public spirited person. Generally people avoid becoming witness because of long drawn criminal trials and of unnecessary harassment caused to them during investigation and visiting Courts on several occasions. It is generally felt that in accident and/ or murder matters eye witnesses avoid being dragged before the police and in Court. At times needle of suspicion is pointed out towards them. It is for this reason people avoid becoming witnesses. There is nothing unusual when people or co-passengers walk away before the arrival of the police even though they had witnessed the occurrence. Surinder Singh (Public Witness-1) was in the bus and got down along with appellant and the deceased. He must have witnessed the occurrence yet has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was the one person who knew the deceased and the accused. Incident happened when he got down from the bus still he did not make any effort to save the deceased. It was not his case that he sent for Public Witness-5 or that he called for the police. Then the question arises who sent for Public Witness-5 and for the police. Answer is clear that Public Witness-5 was not brought from the village subsequently. It was not his case that he sent for Public Witness-5 or that he called for the police. Then the question arises who sent for Public Witness-5 and for the police. Answer is clear that Public Witness-5 was not brought from the village subsequently. He was in fact present in the bus and it was he who sent for the police. He requested a passerby to inform the police who in turn did inform at the Police Chowki. That is why the message was received at the Police chowki within 10 minutes i. e. at9. 35p. IVI. and police arrived within less than half an hour. ( 25 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Sethi that the name of the accused and that of the deceased was not given at the Police Chowki. This argument is without merits. In fact information was sent through a passerby. He informed that a person had been stabbed. Stranger gave the information of stabbing so that police could come to- the spot immediately. In the anxiety that police be informed immediately Partap singh (Public Witness-5) told the passerby to inform the Police Chowki about stabbing incident. Non furnishing of the name of assailant and of the injured by that stranger to police does not lead to the conclusion that Public Witness-5 was not present or that appellant did not stab the deceased. Stranger s first priority was to give information to the police. His first priority was to send information to the police. Assertion of Mr. Sethi that Public Witness-5 ought to have removed his son to hospital immediately for medical aid rather than waiting for the police. For this, to our mind, Public Witness-5 could not be blamed. It has come on record that from the time the stabbing incident took place and till the arrival of the police no vehicle passed that way. Therefore, Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) had no opportunity to remove his son prior to the arrival of the police. As per ASI mahinder Singh (Public Witness-15) police arrived at the spot at about 9. 52 or 9. 54 P. M. and without wasting time removed the deceased to the DDL) Hospital. Therefore, the abovesaid facts show the presence of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) at the spot at the time of occurrence. His testimony besides inspiring confidence is trust worthy. ( 26 ) POLICE tried to search for the accused. 52 or 9. 54 P. M. and without wasting time removed the deceased to the DDL) Hospital. Therefore, the abovesaid facts show the presence of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) at the spot at the time of occurrence. His testimony besides inspiring confidence is trust worthy. ( 26 ) POLICE tried to search for the accused. He was absconding. The appellant herein tried to buildup a defence by saying that he was present at his home through out the day. Police in fact took him away from his home in the morning of 2 6/05/1991 though formal arrest was shown on 30/05/1991. The defence of alibi as set up through the testimony of DW-7 does not inspire confidence. Balbir Singh (DW-7) uncle of the accused was Sarpanch of his village. If police had illegally taken away the accused in the morning of 26/05/1991 without showing his arrest, then dw-7 being a Sarpanch would not have sat silent. He would have lodged a police report in this regard or approached the higher authorities for the illegal detention of his nephew, the appellant herein. But nothing of that sort was done by DW-7. On the other hand Insp. S. S. Malik (Public Witness-21) stated that on 30/05/1991. he along with ASI mahinder Singh (Public Witness-15) and Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) beside Constable Sat Pal went in search of accused to Dhansa. On reaching Dhansa Rest House he received secret information at about 4. 30 P. M. that accused was going to his village on foot near Dhansa Regulator. He organised raiding party and associated an independent person namely Shiv Charan (Public Witness-6) from Dhansa Rest House. They went towards dhansa Regulator. On the pointing out of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) accused was apprehended and arrested. Accused made disclosure statement which was recorded as Ex. Public Witness-5/h. Thereafter accused led the raiding party to the place where he had hidden the knife Ex. P-4. Knife was recovered from the bushes. It was blood stained. The fact that accused absconded immediately after the incident is a strong factor to prove his guilt coupled with the fact that at his instance blood stained knife was recovered, and the incident was witnessed by public Witness-5. Had he not committed the crime why would he abscond? From the above facts it is established that it was the appellant who committed the murder of deceased Raj Kapoor. Had he not committed the crime why would he abscond? From the above facts it is established that it was the appellant who committed the murder of deceased Raj Kapoor. ( 27 ) DR. LK. BARUAH (Public Witness-20) who conducted the post-mortem found the following external injuries:- 1. One incised wound in epigastric region placed obliquely horizontal of size 2. 5 cm x 1 cm x ? 2. One incised wound just below the left anterior axillary fold placed obliquely of size 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x ? 3. One incised wound on the left angle of the chest placed obliquely of size 3. 5 cm x 1 cm x ? This injury was placed 9 cm below the left axillary pit. 4. One incised wound placed vertically just below the left inferior angle of the scapula of size 2 cm x 1 cmx ? 5. One incised wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm x ? were seen 1. 5 cm below the injury No. 4 mentioned above. This injury was placed vertically. 6. One incised wound on the left side of the back of chest 6 cm below and lateral-of the injury No. 5 placed obliquely of size 2 cm x 1 cm x ? 7. One incised wound on the back of abdomen in the left lumber region placed vertically of size 2. 3 cm x 1 cm x ? ( 28 ) HE opined that all the injuries were ante mortem caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury Nos. 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death in this case was due to haemorrhage shock resulting from injuries. He proved is report Ex. Public Witness-20/a. He was also shown the knife Ex. P-4 recovered at the instance of the accused. After seeing Ex. P-4 doctor opined that the injuries mentioned by him in his report Ex. Public Witness-20/a could be possible with the knife Ex. P-4. Ex. P-4, the knife recovered at the instance of accused was the weapon of offence and the injuries inflicted with the same were sufficient to cause death. Disclosure statement and recovery of knife had been witnessed by an independent witness i. e. Shivcharan (Public Witness-6 ). Mr. Public Witness-20/a could be possible with the knife Ex. P-4. Ex. P-4, the knife recovered at the instance of accused was the weapon of offence and the injuries inflicted with the same were sufficient to cause death. Disclosure statement and recovery of knife had been witnessed by an independent witness i. e. Shivcharan (Public Witness-6 ). Mr. Sethi did try to prove that Shiv Charan (Public Witness-6) was not an independent witness but was a relation of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5 ). Unfortunately for the appellant neither from the lengthy cross examination of Shiv Charan nor from the cross examination of Public Witness-5 itcould be established that Shiv Charan (Public Witness-6) was in any way related to Partap singh (Public Witness-5 ). Rather Shiv Charan stated that Partap Singh was not known to him from before. So much so even Balbir Singh (DW-7) had to admit that Shiv Charan (Public Witness-6) was not related to Partap Singh (Public Witness-5 ). Therefore, no doubt can be expressed on the recovery of the knife Ex. P-4 in the presence of an witness Shiv charan ( Public Witness-6 ). ( 29 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Sethi that knife was recovered from open place hence it was not a recovery in the eye of law. This argument in facts of this case deserve rejection for the reason that Shiv Charan (Public Witness -6) in no uncertain words stated that knife was found hidden under the bushes and bushes were away from the road. Therefore, it cannot be said that the knife was recovered from the open place. ( 30 ) MR. SETHI then contended that the blood on the knife though found human did not match with the blood group of the deceased. JEx. P-4, knife was sent to CFSL but no report of the blood group could be given. From this fact it cannot be inferred that since CFSL failed to express any opinion about the blood group hence the accused should be given the benefit of doubt. The knife was hidden on 2 5/05/1991 and was recovered after about 5 days i. e. on 30/05/1991. Though it was bloodstained but was not sufficient for analysis. Hence, reliance by Mr. Sethi on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in 67 (1997) DLT 40 (DB) is of no help to him. Though it was bloodstained but was not sufficient for analysis. Hence, reliance by Mr. Sethi on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in 67 (1997) DLT 40 (DB) is of no help to him. That was a case of circumstantial evidence. Whereas the case in hand is based on the testimony of an eyewitness namely Public Witness-5. Recovery of knife of Ex. P-4 on the disclosure of accused and of accused absconding after the incident are relevant and material factors supporting the case of the prosecution. Apex Court in the case of Ali mollah Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1996v AD SC 598 held that on the testimony of a solitary eye witness, particularly when his testimony is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the accused can be convicted. It is only when the testimony of solitary eye witness is partly reliable that it requires corroboration. In the present case testimony of the solitary eye witness namely Partap Singh s (Public Witness-5) not only inspires confidence but has been found to be straight forward and trust worthy. His testimony inspires confidence. It does not require any further corroboration. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of Partap Singh (Public Witness-5) coupled with circumstances discussed above we find that the convictionand sentence awarded by the Trial Court does not call for any interference. ( 31 ) FOR the reasons stated above we find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the judgment be sent to the appellant through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.