JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - Chander Pal and four other persons were prosecuted. The trial Court has found that Chander Pal is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Rajinder has also been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The remaining three accused viz. Dharmabir, Dharam Singh and Kewal Ram have been acquitted. Both the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, they have been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the two accused have filed these two appeals. The complainant-Bhim Sen has filed the Criminal Revision with the prayer that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the two persons be enhanced to capital punishment. He also prays that the three persons who have been acquitted, be held guilty and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case lies within a narrow compass. The story was initially revealed by Bhim Sen who ultimately appeared as PW1. The complainant, the victim and the accused party live and work in Faridabad. Bhim Sen has a younger brother-Ravinder Kumar (the deceased, aged 26 years in the present case) and an elder brother-Krishan Lal. The three brothers are running a workshop at 3G/76 Faridabad. 4. On July 31, 1992, Ravinder Kumar was playing Ludo at the shop of Rajinder Kumar (one of the appellants) alongwith Rajinder Kumar, Chander Pal Singh and Dolly alias Sanjiv. There was an exchange of hot words and blows. Dolly had tried to separate them but Chander Pal Singh had continued to give beating. On this Ravinder Kumar had also given a slap to Chander Pal Singh. However, they were separated. On reaching home, Ravinder had narrated the incident. However, no report was lodged as it was considered to be a small matter. 5. On the next morning at about 10.30 a.m., Rajinder went to the house of Ravinder and took him along on the pretext of "some work". Bhim Sen claims that after about 10 minutes, he heard "the alarm of Mar diya Mar diya (killed killed) ....." He came out of the house and "saw that Chander Pal Singh, Rajinder, ........ Dharambir and Biru ...... were giving knife blows to ...... Ravinder. Bhim Sen claims that after about 10 minutes, he heard "the alarm of Mar diya Mar diya (killed killed) ....." He came out of the house and "saw that Chander Pal Singh, Rajinder, ........ Dharambir and Biru ...... were giving knife blows to ...... Ravinder. Rajinder, Dharmabir and Biru had caught hold of ....... Ravinder and Chander Pal Singh was giving blows ......" He reached the spot. Ashok s/o Ram Chand, teach stall holder and Mohan Lal s/o Tulsi Kukreja, had also reached the spot. He alleged that "within our sight Chander Pal Singh give one knife blow on the left side of the chest of my brother Ravinder and two knife blows on his right thigh as a result of which my brother fell down on the road." Ashok Kumar, the tea stall holder tried to catch hold of Chander Pal Singh but Dharambir gave an iron rod blow which he had in his hand hitting on the left hand of Ashok. Rajinder and Biru were also armed with iron rods. All the four ran away on motor cycle No. HYU-7492 and scooter No. HR 29A/3691. The injured was taken to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad where the succumbed to his injuries. The injured had reached the Medical Centre at 11.05 a.m. At 11.20 a.m., he was declared dead. 6. The above story was revealed by Bhim Sen in his statement at Ex.PA to Assistant Sub Inspector-Manmohan Singh (PW11) at 12.20 p.m. at the Escorts Medical Centre. On the basis of this statement, the FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded at 12.40 p.m. at Police Station NIT Faridabad. The special report had reached the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad at 6 p.m. through ASI Rajinder Singh. 7. The inquest report Ex.PN/1 was prepared by ASI Manmohan Singh. The body of the deceased was shown to have been identified by Bhim Sen and Dolly alias Sanjiv. It was also noticed that blood was oozing from the left side of the chest and the right thigh. The injuries had been caused with sharp-edged weapon. 8. The medical evidence consists of the statements of three doctors. First of these is Dr. A.K. Gupta, PW 3 who examined the injuries on the person of Ashok Kumar (PW2) and Dolly alias Sanjiv Ahuja (PW5). Dr. S. Raina (PW4) is the person who had examined Ravinder at the Escorts Medical Centre. Dr. 8. The medical evidence consists of the statements of three doctors. First of these is Dr. A.K. Gupta, PW 3 who examined the injuries on the person of Ashok Kumar (PW2) and Dolly alias Sanjiv Ahuja (PW5). Dr. S. Raina (PW4) is the person who had examined Ravinder at the Escorts Medical Centre. Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW9) is the Medical Officer at the BK Hospital Faridabad. He alongwith Doctor P.S. Yadav had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. On examination, the Board had recorded the following observations :- "An incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm situated 12 cm below sternal notch and just on left side of sternum at 8 oclock position from the left nipple 5 cm medial to it; on probing probs got stucked in between 5th & 6th costo chondral junction. On forceful probing probe went straight, deep and posteriorly. On removal of probe blood oozed. On dissecting the wound, the corresponding rib at junction with sternum was cut through and through piercing the underlying heart at right ventricle. Whole of pericardial cavity was full of blood; 2. 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm incised wound, semi-circular in shape over lateral aspect of right thigh, 25 cm below right greater trochanter, skin deep was present; 3. Another incised wound 3 cm above and 5 cm behind injury No. 2, measuring 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present. Wound was muscle deep. On probing, probe went upper, medially and anteriorly; 4. Small abrasion over right knee just above tebial teuberosoty was present. 5. A reddish mark of contusion was present 5 cm below and behind left angle of mandible. 9. In the opinion of the witness, the death had occurred due to injuries to vital organ i.e. heart leading to hemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to prove fatal in ordinary course of nature. 10. In cross examination, it was admitted that the dimension of all the incised wounds was almost the same. The abrasions could be result of a fall. 11. The eye witness account of the incident has been given by Bhim Sen (PW1) and Ashok Kumar (PW2). These witnesses have virtually repeated the story given in the First Information Report. 12. Dolly alias Sanjiv has deposed with regard to the incident of July 31, 1992. Lajpat Rai (PW6) is a retired police official. 11. The eye witness account of the incident has been given by Bhim Sen (PW1) and Ashok Kumar (PW2). These witnesses have virtually repeated the story given in the First Information Report. 12. Dolly alias Sanjiv has deposed with regard to the incident of July 31, 1992. Lajpat Rai (PW6) is a retired police official. He had been examined to prove the involvement of Kewal Ram in the conspiracy to kill Ravinder Kumar. Kewal Ram having been acquitted, it is not necessary to notice his statement. Sohan Lal (PW7) had prepared the site plan Ex.PG regarding the place of occurrence. Assistant Sub Inspector Rejender Singh appeared as PW8. He had partly investigated this case. James (PW10) is the Medical Record Officer from the Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad. He had made a statement with regard to the admission of Ravinder Kumar in the Centre. He also deposed with regard to the sending of the communication Ex.PE to the policy by the hospital authorities. Assistant Sub Inspector-Manmohan Singh had recorded the statement of Bhim Sen Ex.PA on the basis of which the First Information Report was recorded. He had also recovered the knife Ex.P1 at the instance of Chander Pal-the appellant. The prosecution also tendered certain documents etc. 13. In their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused had denied the allegations. Chander Pal asserted that he had been wrongly implicated. He had made complaints regarding the wrongful detention by the police. Similarly, Rajinder also complained of wrongful involvement. In their defence, the accused produced Mr. D.P. Garg, Senior Personnel Officer, M/s Kelvinator of India. He deposed about the employment of the two appellants in the factory and their presence on July 31, 1992. Diwan Singh (DW2) is the brother-in-law (sisters husband) of appellant-Chander Pal. He asserted having made complaints Exhibits D1 to D5 to different authorities regarding the wrongful detention of Chander Pal by the police. 14. This is the whole evidence. 15. Mr. T.P.S. Mann, learned counsel appearing for the appellants made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it was contended that the prosecution story was improbable. The appellants had no motive. They have been falsely implicated. Secondly, it was submitted that even if the allegations as made against the appellants are assumed to be correct, they had no intention to kill Ravinder Kumar. The cases of appellant-Chander Pal would be covered by Section 304. Firstly, it was contended that the prosecution story was improbable. The appellants had no motive. They have been falsely implicated. Secondly, it was submitted that even if the allegations as made against the appellants are assumed to be correct, they had no intention to kill Ravinder Kumar. The cases of appellant-Chander Pal would be covered by Section 304. As for Rajinder Kumar, it was submitted that he had given no injury. Thus, he deserved to be acquitted. 16. The sequence of events is clear. On July 31, 1992, there was an altercation. There was even an exchange of blows. On the intervention of others, the two viz. Chander Pal and the deceased Ravinder Kumar were separated. The next day, on August 1, 1992, Rajinder Kumar went to the house of the deceased at 10.30 a.m. and took him out. Chander Pal gave him one knife blow in the chest and two on the thigh. Thereafter, he alongwith Rajinder escaped from the place of occurrence. The injured was rushed to the Hospital. He had reached the Hospital at 11.05 a.m. Fifteen minutes later, he was pronounced dead at 11.20 a.m. Police was sent for. ASI Manmohan Singh (PW11) had recorded the statement of Bhim Sen (PW1)-the brother of the deceased at 12.20 p.m. On the basis of this statement, the First Information Report Ex.PA/1 was recorded at 12.40 p.m. The special report had reached the Magistrate at 6 p.m. 17. The sequence of events shows that things had moved at a fast pace. The whole incident and the ultimate death had taken place within minutes. The police was sent for by the Hospital authorities and within less than one hour, the statement of the complainant had been recorded by the police officer. The first version regarding the incident had come on the official file without any loss of time. It was prompt. It was spontaneous. There was no avoidable loss of time. The promptness eliminates chances of distortion of facts. 18. Mr. Mann contended that Bhim Sen (PW1) could not have seen the occurrence. His statement with regard to the incident cannot be believed. 19. We are unable to accept this contention. It was not disputed that deceased-Ravinder Kumar and Bhim Sen were working and staying together. They were running a workshop and living in the same house. 18. Mr. Mann contended that Bhim Sen (PW1) could not have seen the occurrence. His statement with regard to the incident cannot be believed. 19. We are unable to accept this contention. It was not disputed that deceased-Ravinder Kumar and Bhim Sen were working and staying together. They were running a workshop and living in the same house. There is nothing unnatural about the presence of Bhim Sen at his house on August 1, 1992 at 10.30 a.m. It is true that the place of occurrence is at a distance of about 50 yards from the house of the deceased. It is also true that the view is not direct. There is a turn in the street. Yet, it is not difficult to believe that there was noise. It was over-heard by Bhim Sen. He had rushed out and seen the occurrence. The details of the incident as given by him in his statement at Ex.PA are clear and vivid. These leave no doubt with regard to his having actually seen the occurrence. 20. A fact which deserves mention in this behalf is that in his statement at Ex.PA, the witness had categorically asserted that the accused had run away "on their motor-cycle No. HYU 7492 and scooter No. HR 29A/3691". He could not have done that if he had not been a witness to the incident. Despite being asked, Mr. Mann could not indicate even an iota of evidence on the file which may show that the appellants had ever disputed the ownership/possession of the concerned vehicle. This single fact belies the suggestion made on behalf of the appellants. 21. It may also be mentioned that the statement of Bhim Sen finds complete corroboration from the testimony of Ashok Kumar (PW2). Admittedly, he had a tea-stall near the place of occurrence. He had seen appellant-Rajinder with the deceased when Chander Pal had reached there on a scooter. According to the witness "Rajinder accused had caught hold of Ravinder and Chander Pal inflicted blows with knife to him. Chander Pal-accused had inflicted a knife blow to Ravinder on his chest and two other blows on his thigh." He tried to rescue Ravinder Kumar. Dharambir had given him a blow with an iron rod. According to the witness "Rajinder accused had caught hold of Ravinder and Chander Pal inflicted blows with knife to him. Chander Pal-accused had inflicted a knife blow to Ravinder on his chest and two other blows on his thigh." He tried to rescue Ravinder Kumar. Dharambir had given him a blow with an iron rod. He further states that on "hearing the cries for help raised by Ravinder, his brother Bhim Sen arrived there." According to this witness, the police had lifted blood-smeared earth from the place of occurrence. It was made into a sealed parcel. Memo Ex.PB was prepared by the police officer. He had attested it. 22. The presence of Ashok Kumar at the place of occurrence is natural. His testimony inspires confidence. Nothing was pointed out from his cross examination which may militate against the his credibility. The evidence supports the version of the prosecution. 23. Mr. Mann contended that Bhim Sen has a workshop nearby. He may be patronising Ashok Kumar. Thus, it cannot be said that the witness is independent. 24. The contention is wholly misconceived. The only suggestion made on behalf of the appellant to the witness was that he had named Chander Pal "at the instance of police." He had denied the suggestion. Even otherwise, there is no evidence to show that Bhim Sen was in any way patronising the witness. 25. Mr. Mann also contended that Ashok Kumar was examined by Dr. A.K. Gupta at 4 p.m. If he had been actually hit as alleged, he would have been examined alongwith the deceased at the Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad. 26. We are unable to accept this contention. Ravinder Kumar had sustained serious injuries. He had been rushed to the Escorts Medical Centre. After he had been pronounced dead, the police had to look into the matter and get the injured persons examined. Consequently, after taking stock of facts, the witness was got examined at the Government Hospital. Dr. A.K. Gupta had found the injury on the person of Ashok Kumar (PW2). The mere fact that he was examined at 4 in the evening, does not show that he has not present at the place of occurrence. Still further, it was not necessary for the prosecution to fabricate an injury in the case of Ashok Kumar. Dr. A.K. Gupta had found the injury on the person of Ashok Kumar (PW2). The mere fact that he was examined at 4 in the evening, does not show that he has not present at the place of occurrence. Still further, it was not necessary for the prosecution to fabricate an injury in the case of Ashok Kumar. In any event, even if it is assumed that he was not injured, there is nothing which may show that his testimony is not worthy of credence. We find no reason to disbelieve his statement. 27. In view of the above, the first contention as raised on behalf of the appellants is rejected. 28. Mr. Mann contended that Chander Pal had no intention to kill Ravinder Kumar. Thus, the case shall be covered by the provisions of Section 304 Indian Penal Code. Is it so ? 29. As noticed above, there was a dispute between the appellants and the deceased on July 31, 1992. They had exchanged blows and slaps. Thereafter, Rajinder Kumar had gone to the house of the deceased on the next morning to call him. They had hardly walked a few steps when the accused had reached on a scooter and attacked the deceased with the knife. He had given a blow in the chest followed by two blows on the thigh. The sequence of events clearly belies any suggestion of a sudden fight. On the contrary, it shows a pre-meditated plan to call and kill. It appears that Rajinder Kumar and Chander Pal had made out a plan. Rajinder Kumar had called the deceased. Chander Pal had given the fatal blow. The common object had been achieved. The blow was given in the chest. The heart was injured. The death had taken place within minutes. The facts are clear. These allow no rule of doubt with regard to the real intention of the appellants. 30. Counsel had also submitted that Ravinder Kumar had been got admitted to the Centre by Subhash Baweja and not Bhim Sen. This, according to the counsel, shows that Bhim Sen was not present. It was also submitted that the prosecution story had been disbelieved in respect of Dharambir and Dharam Singh etc. Thus, it should not be accepted even against the appellants. 31. We are unable to accept the plea. Apparently, Ravinder Kumar was rushed to the Hospital. He was gasping. This, according to the counsel, shows that Bhim Sen was not present. It was also submitted that the prosecution story had been disbelieved in respect of Dharambir and Dharam Singh etc. Thus, it should not be accepted even against the appellants. 31. We are unable to accept the plea. Apparently, Ravinder Kumar was rushed to the Hospital. He was gasping. It is not unlikely that Bhim Sen may have been busy looking for the doctor or in making some other arrangement while another person viz. Subhash Baweja may have mentioned to the doctor that he was the attendant with the patient. Still further, the fact that the trial court has scrutinised the evidence strictly and given the benefit of doubt to Dharambir and Dharam Singh cannot mean that the evidence of the eye witnesses can be disbelieved even with regard to the present appellants. 32. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellants. 33. Thus, Criminal Appeal Nos. 458 and 469-DB of 1995 are dismissed. 34. Mr. D.S. Bali, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the accused persons should have been awarded the penalty of death. 35. It is no doubt true that Chander Pal and Rajinder Kumar had brutally ended a young life. However, we do not find that it is the rarest of the rare cases so as to warrant the award of the extreme penalty of death. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.