JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 22.8.97 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW-3 Jan Mohd. lodged a First Information Report on 22.10.1991 at 1.40 AM at P.S. Sadar, Bikaner stating inter alia that in the evening of 21.10.1991, he went to the workshop of one Narainji to meet his friends PW-4 Brij Mohan and deceased Usman. They boarded the motor cycle which stopped in front of Namkin shop near Liquor shop in the BSF area at about 9.00 PM. At that time, appellant Ajit Singh, Dilip Singh and 3-4 persons arrived on the motor cycle. Appellant Ajit Singh was carrying knife and others bottles of beer. Ajit Singh showed knife to Usman and stated that he will see him. Thereafter he pulled his hand and inflicted injuries by knife on left hand and back. Dilip Singh caught hold of him and Ajit Singh inflicted injuries. Usman got released himself from the grip of accused persons and ran away. Ajit Singh chased and caught him. He again stabbed knife blow on his head. He and Brij Mohan tried to intervene, but Ajit Singh, Dilip Singh and their associates threatened them of dire consequences. On receiving injuries, Usman fell down. Thereafter he alongwith Brij Mohan took him to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. 3. On this information, police registered the case for the offence under Section 302, 148, 302/149 IPC. Sant Singh, ASI with Ram Singh, Head constable reached the hospital at 1.30 AM. After usual investigation, police laid the charge-sheet against the appellant Ajit Singh and three other accused persons i.e. Srichand, Jekariya and Dilip Singh for the aforesaid offence. All the accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Analysing the evidence, the trial court found no case against the accused Srichand; Jekariya and Dilip Singh and as such, they have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Analysing the evidence, the trial court found no case against the accused Srichand; Jekariya and Dilip Singh and as such, they have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. However, appellant Ajit singh has been convicted and sentenced as noticed above. 4. Assailing the conviction, is contended by Mr. Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined 4 eye-witnesses i e. PW-3 Jan Mohd., PW-4 Brij Mohan, PW-5 Sheru Khan and PW-6 Hasan Khan. The trial court has rejected the testimony of evidence of PW-5 Sheru Khan and PW-6 Hasan Khan on the ground that their statements were recorded after one week of the incident. It is also submitted that trial court has rejected the evidence of recovery of knife. Thus according to the learned counsel, entire case hinges only on the evidence of PW-3 Jan Mohd. and PW-4 Brij Mohan. The learned counsel has read before us the statement of both the witnesses alongwith FIR and the statement of other witnesses and pointed out infirmities in the statements of both the witnesses. It is also argued that witnesses have not spoken origin of the assault. In case of doubt as to the origin of the incident, the benefit must go to the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the State of Bihar v. Mohammad Khursheed, reported in 1971 (3) SCC, 423 . On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of trial court. 5. PW-3 Jan Mohd. has stated that he had gone to workshop of Narainji at about 9.30 PM. where he met with Brij Mohan and Usman. Brij Mohan and Usman were trying to ignition the scooter. However, when scooter did not start, they asked him to drop them at their residences. Both of them boarded his motor cycle. Thereafter all the three left the work-shop. He stopped motor cycle just infront of Namkin Shop. At that time, Ajit Singh, Dilip Singh and 3-4 persons arrived on motor cycle Ajit Singh was carrying knife in his hand. Others were carrying bottles of beer with them. Ajit Singh caught hold the hand of Usman, he showed him the knife. Thereafter all the three left the work-shop. He stopped motor cycle just infront of Namkin Shop. At that time, Ajit Singh, Dilip Singh and 3-4 persons arrived on motor cycle Ajit Singh was carrying knife in his hand. Others were carrying bottles of beer with them. Ajit Singh caught hold the hand of Usman, he showed him the knife. The tried to intervene, but Dilip Singh succeeded in pushing him towards the liquor shop. Inside the four walls of the liquor shop, Dilip Singh caught hold Usman and Ajit Singh stabbed knife on him. Usman got released himself from their grip and tried to escape, but Ajit Singh chased him and caught hold of him and caused an stabbed injury on the back. Usman again got release. but was caught hold by Ajit Singh. Ajit Singh again struck knife on his head. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away. Thereafter they brought Usman to be P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. He went to the police station for lodging the first information report. He also stated that when he returned from police station to the hospital, he found Usman dead. Learned counsel has tried to point out certain infirmities in the statements. It is also argued that statement of witnesses is contrary to entry in the police diary at Ex. D112. It is also argued that had the witnesses been in the hospital, he would have immediately informed the police. However, having read the entire statements, we do not find any infirmity of substantial nature which may affect the credibility of this witness. 6. PW-4 Brij Mohan has stated that he was friend of deceased Usman. He was driver on the truck of Rahim Khan. He went to meet his fried Usman at the workshop of Narainji. He also stated that from the workshop of Narainji, he along with Jan Mohd. and deceased Usman left on motor cycle. They stopped in front of liquor shop near BSF area. At that time, Ajit Singh and 3-4 persons arrived there. Ajit Singh caught hold of his hand and enquired for the reasons of quarrel with Dilip Singh. He also stated that unknown person pulled him inside the four watts of liquor shop. There Ajit Singh came running and caused injury by knife on the hand of Usman. Deceased Usman got released him from their grip and ran away. He was again caught by Ajit Singh. He also stated that unknown person pulled him inside the four watts of liquor shop. There Ajit Singh came running and caused injury by knife on the hand of Usman. Deceased Usman got released him from their grip and ran away. He was again caught by Ajit Singh. it is also stated that Alit Singh struck knife on his back. When they tried to intervene, accused persons threatened them of dire consequences on coming near. Usman moved about 20-25 steps after being released from their grip. He was again caught and knife was stabbed on his is head. On account of which, he fell down. Ajit Singh etc. ran away. He along with Jan Mohd. took Usman to the hospital. it is stated that Usman died in the hospital. In the cross-examination, nothing substantial has been brought out to discredit the testimony of this witness. The statements of both these witnesses PW-3 Jan Mohd. and PW-4 Brij Mohan are consistent that Brij Mohan and deceased were at the workshop of Narainji and Jan Mohd. arrived there. All the three left the workshop on motor cycle. The incident took place within four walls of the liquor shop near BSF area. The first stab wound was caused on the hand of Usman by Ajit Singh. Second wound was caused on the back and third on the head. The statement of both these witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence. 7. PW-11 Dr. The incident took place within four walls of the liquor shop near BSF area. The first stab wound was caused on the hand of Usman by Ajit Singh. Second wound was caused on the back and third on the head. The statement of both these witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence. 7. PW-11 Dr. P.N. Mathur, has stated that on 22.10.1991, he conducted the post-mortem of dead body of deceased Usman and found the following injuries : " 1- Vkads yxk gqvk 3 lh0,e0 yEck ?kko flj ds ck;sa iSjkbVy fgLls ij] e/; js[kk ls djhc 5-5 lh0,e0 nwj frjNk fLFkr FkkA 2- cgqr lh [kjkSaps psgjs ds nkfguh vksj o BksMh ij vkxs dh rjQ fofHkUu fn'kkvksa esa o 15 lh0,e0 x 6 lh0,e0 ds {ks=Qy esa] budk fd vkdkj 14 lh0,e0 x ydhjh ls 1 lh0,e0 x ydhjh FkkA 3- [kjkSaps 1 lh0,e0 x ydhjh nkfgus dku ds V~xjk ijA 4- rhu [kjkSaps 1-2- lh0,e0 x ydhjh nkfgus dku ds chp ds fgLls ds vkxs dh rjQA 5- [kjkSaps 0-5 lh0,e0 x 0-1 lh0,e0 ukd ij cka;h vkSj chp ds ,d frgkbZ fgLls ijA 6- [kjkSap 1-5 lh0,e0 x ydhjh ukd ds cka;s udwus ds dqN ckgj dh vksjA 7- [kjkSap 2-1 lh0,e0 x ydhjh psgjs ds cka;s eSfDlyks tkbxksesfVd mHkkj ijA 8- [kjkSap 3 lh0,e0 x 0-01 lh0,e0 pksV la[;k 7 ls 3 lh0,e0 uhps frjNhA 9- [kjkSap 3 lh0,e0 x ydhjh cka;s da/ks ij vkxs dh vksj frjNhA 10- Vkads yxk gqvk ?kko 7 lh0,e0 yEck & ck;ha ckg ds mij ds 1@3 fgLls ij vkxs o ckgkz Nksj&frjNkA 11- dVh gqbZ [kjkSap 2-5 lh0,e0 x 0-1 lh0,e0 cka;s gkFk dh gFksyh ij NksVh vaxqyh ds uhps ds mHkkj ijA 12- [kjkSap 3 lh0,e0 x ydhjh pksV la[;k 12 ls 3 lh0,e0 uhps frjNhA 13- uksV&uEcj 13 Nik gqvk ugha gS& la0 14- [kjkSap 3-8 lh0,e0 x ydhjh pksV la[;k 13 ds 1 lh0,e0 uhpsA 15- cgqr lh [kjkSaps 23 lh0,e0 x 10 lh0,e0 ds {ks=Qy esa lhus ij nkfguh vksj vkxs dh rjQ fofHkUu fn'kkvksa esa ftudk fd vkdkj 5 lh0,e0 x ydhjh ls 1 lh0,e0 x ydhjh FkkA ekStwnA 16- dVk gqvk ?kko 3-5 lh0,e0 x 2-5 lh0,e0 x gM~Mh rd xgjk nkfgus iSj ds vaxwBs ij mij dh o vUnj dh vksjA uk[kwu dk vUnj dk vk/kk fgLlk ekStwn ugha FkkA 17- dVh gqbZ [kjkSap 1-5 lh0,e0 x 0-5 lh0,e0 nkfgus iSj dh nwljh vaxqyh ij mij o vUnj dh vkSj blds vkf[kjh QsfyDl ijA 18- [kjkSap 1-5 lh0,e0 x 1-0 lh0,e0 cka;s ?kqVus ij vkxs dh vksjA 19- [kjkSap 3-0 lh0,e0 x 0-1 lh0,e0 cka;h Vkax ij chp ds ,d frgkbZ fgLls ij ihNs o vUnj dh vksjA 20- [kjkSap 1 lh0,e0 x ydhjh pksV la[;k 19 ds 2 lh0,e0 uhpsA 21- Vkads yxk gqvk ?kko 2-8 lh0,e0 yEck nkfgus LdSiqyj gM~Mh ds fgLls ij e/; js[kk ls djhcu 8 lh0,e0 nwjA " 8. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/14. In his opinion cause of death was coma due to head injury. Post-mortem report shows injuries on hand and back as well. In view of this, the trial court has rightly found the appellant Ajit Singh guilty of murder of Usman. 9. Consequently we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant Ajit Singh is in jail and he will serve out the remaining part of sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******