JUDGMENT Debiprasad Sengupta, J.: The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No.1 (4)/90 thereby convicting the accused appellant under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short is that on 4.9.89 at about 13.45 hours having received an information from the O. C, Control-room, Lal Bazar that a person with stab injuries was lying in front of a country liquor shop at 6/1, A. J. C. Bose Road, the officers of the Park Street P. S. rushed to the spot. When they reached the spot they found one person lying in. pool of blood on his back. They also came to know from the nearby place that on that date at about 13.20 hours two unknown persons from the side of A. J. C. Bose Road chased the deceased who took a turn and tried to flee away towards the said road and those two persons assaulted him with "bhojalies" in front of 217, A. J. C. Bose Road and fled away from the said place. The victim first fell on a stationary car and then he ran and crossed the said road and wanted water from the country liquor shop and fell down in front of that shop. Meanwhile one Jaya Dutta came there and identified the victim as his son Pinku Dutta, who was a fish seller in the Park Circus Market. The victim was removed to Chittaranjan Medical College Hospital where the victim was declared as "brought dead". 3. On the aforesaid information a case was registered with Beniapukur Police Station and on completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted by the police under sections 302/34 I. P. C. against the present appellant and another accused Russel Mines, who was shown as absconder in the charge-sheet. Since the other charge sheeted accused Russel Mines absconded, the case against him was filed at that time. 4. Initially the case was registered against two unknown persons and at a subsequent stage during investigation the I. O. (P.W.19) recorded the statements of some witnesses and on the basis of such statements he searched for the present accused-appellant and the other accused person Russel Mines (absconder). 5. P.Ws.13 and 14 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 4. Initially the case was registered against two unknown persons and at a subsequent stage during investigation the I. O. (P.W.19) recorded the statements of some witnesses and on the basis of such statements he searched for the present accused-appellant and the other accused person Russel Mines (absconder). 5. P.Ws.13 and 14 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.13 (Abul Hasan) has stated that he was on duty as a security guard of the Ganesh Busines Centre at 216, A. J. C. Bose road and on the said date at about 1.15 P.M. when he was performing such duty he saw two persons chasing a man and they assaulted the said man with a 'bhojali like' weapon. He further deposed that after receiving such injury the victim dashed against a stationary van and thereafter he started running towards the A. J. C. Bose Road and fell down in front of a liquor shop. The miscreants then fled away towards Beck Bagan. This witness further deposed that at first he saw that victim running along the A. J. C. Bose Road and thereafter he took a turn towards the West Range Extension and again he turned after getting a dash against the stationary car and ran towards A. J. C. Bose Road. 6. P.W.14 (Abdul Jabbar) is another witness who claimed to have seen the occurrence. He stated that on the relevant date and time of incident on the opposite side foot path of the Lower Circular Road, where he was working in some repairing of the said footpath under the Corporation Contractor Chowdhury Babu, he saw two persons chasing a man who raised alarm. He further stated that as the said man took a turn at a place from the crossing of the road, both the miscreants struck him there with a 'bhojali like" weapon and that after getting such injury the victim again started running and getting a dash against a stationary car on the foot path, he came upon the Lower Circular Road. He deposed that while chasing, both the accused persons assaulted him in the middle of Lower Circular Road and thereafter they escaped towards Beck Bagan. 7. It appears from record that both the witnesses, P.Ws.13 and 14 identified the present accused-appellant in the T. I. Parade held on 8.11.89 inside the Presidency Jail, Alipore. He deposed that while chasing, both the accused persons assaulted him in the middle of Lower Circular Road and thereafter they escaped towards Beck Bagan. 7. It appears from record that both the witnesses, P.Ws.13 and 14 identified the present accused-appellant in the T. I. Parade held on 8.11.89 inside the Presidency Jail, Alipore. P.W.16 is the T. I. Parade Magistrate, who stated in his report that those two witnesses identified the suspect by pointing out at the accused and also by touching his person. It further appears that the T. I. Parade Magistrate (P.W.16) deposed that the said two witnesses (P.Ws.13 & 14) sated before him in detail the circumstances in which they saw the suspect and another striking a person in front of 217, A. J. C. Bose Road by a "bhojali like" weapon. 8. It has been argued by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, challenging the evidence of two eye-witnesses (P.Ws.13 and 14) that not a single document could be produced by the prosecution to prove that those two witnesses were actually on duty at the places mentioned at relevant date and time of occurrence. It is argued that in absence of any such document the evidence of those two witnesses cannot be relied upon. The learned Advocate pointed out that the prosecution failed to produce the attendance register of P.W.13 as well as the Hazira Khata of P.W.14 to prove the presence of the said two witnesses at the places mentioned by them. It is further argued that if the incident of chasing and assaulting by the accused were actually seen by the said witnesses, they could have raised an alarm or could have chased to apprehend the accused persons, which is the natural human conduct and is always expected from any normal human being. But we are not able to accept such contentions of the learned Advocate of the appellant. In our considered view the said two witnesses cannot be disbelieved only because the attendance register or Hazira Khata could not be produced to prove the presence of the said two witnesses at the relevant places. Apart from this there is no suggestion from the defence side that the said witnesses had cooked up a cock and bull story due to any previous grudge or personal malice towards the accused persons. Apart from this there is no suggestion from the defence side that the said witnesses had cooked up a cock and bull story due to any previous grudge or personal malice towards the accused persons. We do not find any earthly reason for the said two witnesses to falsely implicate the accused-appellant in this case. In this connection the evidence of P.W.10 is very important, who is a contractor under Calcutta Municipal Corporation. In his evidence P.W.10 stated that on 4. 9.89 his labours were working at the West Range Extn. upto the crossing of A. J. C. Bose Road for repairing the footpath of the said road and that Abdul Jabbar (P.W.14) and Siddique Ali were amongst them. This witness also deposed that on the following day two of the labours reported to him that there was a murder near the crossing of A. J. C. Bose Road and West Range Extn. Regarding the attendance of such labours he deposed that as they were not his direct employees, he did not use to keep their attendance, which was maintained by the labour contractor Jumroti Mistri. Considering the nature of the offence as also the circumstances in which such incident took place, we are of the view that non-raising of alarm and non-chasing the accused persons, do not go beyond the normal human conduct, which indicates keeping silent out of fear. That apart it is very difficult to say how a human being will behave in a particular circumstance. It differs from man to man. So, only because of this reason the evidence of these two eye-witnesses cannot be discarded. 9. Now coming to the point of recovery of weapon used in the commission of the offence, we find in the evidence on record that on 2.10.89, when the accused-appellant was in police custody, on the basis of a statement made by him (Ext. 17) one knife measuring about 11-1/2 inches including but in a black sheath was seized from inside a cemented Reservoir on the southern side wall of 2, Auckland Place in presence of witnesses. Exhibit-5 shows that the seizure of the knife was made in presence of witnesses, of whom two were examined in this case. 10. 17) one knife measuring about 11-1/2 inches including but in a black sheath was seized from inside a cemented Reservoir on the southern side wall of 2, Auckland Place in presence of witnesses. Exhibit-5 shows that the seizure of the knife was made in presence of witnesses, of whom two were examined in this case. 10. P.W.7 is one of the witnesses to the seizure of knife, who deposed that one person being accompanied by the police showed the existence of the said weapon inside the Reservoir of 2, Auckland Place and accordingly police seized the said weapon and this witness signed the seizure list. This witness also identified the accused in court by saying that he was the person at whose instance the weapon was recovered from the reservoir. He also denied the suggestion-that there were garbages inside the reservoir. He denied the suggestion that he signed the seizure list at Lalbazar or that the identified the accused in court at the instance of the police. He also stated that P.W.6 Jagat Misra also signed the seizure list in his presence. 11. P.W.6 is the other witness to the seizure, who stated that he signed the seizure list without knowing its contents. So, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. In cross-examination by the prosecution he admitted that he put his signature on the label attached to the seized weapon of offence. Again in his cross-examination by the defence he denied the signature to be his own. In any event, after going through the evidence on record and relying upon the exhibit. 5 and Exhibit-17 we do not find any reason to disbelieve the recovery and seizure of the offending weapon (Ext. 1) by P.W.20 (second I. O.) being led by the accused-appellant while he was in police custody. 12. The offending weapon was also identified by P.Ws.13 and 14 as the weapon which was found to have been used by the accused to assault the victim while he was being chased by them. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.15 (the P. M. Doctor) that as many as three incised and penetrating wounds were found by P.W.15 on different parts of the body. This witness (P.W.15) also deposed that the injuries noted in the P. M. report could have been caused with the instrument like Exhibit-1. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.15 (the P. M. Doctor) that as many as three incised and penetrating wounds were found by P.W.15 on different parts of the body. This witness (P.W.15) also deposed that the injuries noted in the P. M. report could have been caused with the instrument like Exhibit-1. If was his further evidence that such injuries were sufficient to cause the death of the victim. In the present case we find that the evidence of eye-witnesses fully corroborates the medical evidence. 13. It is also argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that although the incident took place in broad day light on the open road, the other shop owners and other persons of the locality were not cited as witnesses. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate of the appellant that from the evidence of the I. O. it becomes clear that other persons were examined and their statements were recorded by the police. But such witnesses were not examined in this case and they were deliberately withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. But we are unable to accept such contention. Simply because some of the witnesses examined by the police during investigation could not be produced and examined by the prosecution during trial, the evidence of the other witnesses who have been examined as witnesses in this case, cannot be disbelieved or discarded. 14. Regarding the identification of the accused in the T. I. Parade it is argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that such T. I. Parade was held about one and half month after the date of arrest of the accused-appellants. So, there was every chance of the accused persons being shown to the identifying witnesses, while they were in police custody, for identification in the T. I. Parade. It may be mentioned here that regarding apprehension of the accused it has been deposed by P.W.20 (second I.O.) attached to the Homicide Squad, Detective Department, Lal Bazar that on the basis of source information that the accused Srikanth show was in custody in connection with another case, he applied on 26.9.89 before the learned Magistrate for showing him as arrested in connection with this case. Thereafter on 2.10.89 when the accused was in police custody, the offending weapon was recovered pursuant to the statement made by the accused. Thereafter on 2.10.89 when the accused was in police custody, the offending weapon was recovered pursuant to the statement made by the accused. The accused was taken into custody, in this case on 2.10.89. T. I. Parade was held on 8.11.89. There is no doubt, and it is also settled law, that T. I. Parades are to be held at the earliest opportunity. But at the same time it appears from the evidence of P.W.16 (the Magistrate who held T. I. Parade) that on being asked the said suspect did not disclose any objection to such parade regarding its arrangement made or about the persons who stood in the T. I. Parade queue. At no point of time objection was raised by the accused-appellant that they were shown to the identifying witnesses or that their photographs were taken while they were in police custody for showing it to the identifying witnesses prior to holding such T. I. Parade. Even if it is found that the report of the Magistrate holding T. I. Parade is not satisfactory touching all the points which are mandatory for her to write in her report, if such parade was done precluding the possibility of any collusion the identification should not be brushed aside when it acts as a corroborative piece of evidence to other evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring home the charge. 15. P.W.4, the mother of the victim in her evidence deposed that Pinku (victim) was her eldest son and was dealing in fish at Park Circus Market and that on the date of incident she heard a hue and cry in her locality and also heard that Pinku met an accident near the sweet meat shop named 'Mouchak'. She immediately rushed to the place and found Pinku lying on the ground with bleeding injuries all over his body. 16. P.W.9 P. S. I Ujjal Roy corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 and deposed that one lady named Jaya Dutta came to the place where the dead body of the victim was lying in a pool of blood and she identified him to be her son Pinku. P.W.9 took the said victim to Chittaranjan Medical College and Hospital, where she was declared "brought dead" by P.W.18 Dr. Uday Sankar Saha. 17. P.W.15 Dr. P.W.9 took the said victim to Chittaranjan Medical College and Hospital, where she was declared "brought dead" by P.W.18 Dr. Uday Sankar Saha. 17. P.W.15 Dr. T. K. Bose is the autopsy surgeon who held P. M. examination of the dead body of victim and he has given a detailed description of the injuries found by him on the dead body of the victim. It is also important to note that from the nature of injuries it becomes clear that the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular version of P.Ws.13 and 14, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 18. Mr. Safiullah, learned Public Prosecutor submits that from the entire evidence on record it becomes clear that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellant along with other absconding accused Russel Mines in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of victim Pinku Dutta. Both P.Ws.13 and 14 witnessed the incident of assault upon the victim Pinku and both the witnesses gave a detailed and vivid description of the incident of assault in their deposition. After the appellant was taken into police custody, pursuant to the statement made by the accused-appellant, which was recorded by the police, the offending weapon of assault was recovered from a reservoir on being pointed out by the appellant. It is further submitted by Mr. Safiullah that there is no reason to disbelieve the said two eye-witnesses (P.Ws.13 and 14) and only because the attendance register or hajira khata could not be produced, the presence of such witnesses at the place of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. From the nature of injury also it becomes clear that the medical evidence fully corroborates the said two witnesses. Mr. Safiullah submits that these two witnesses (P.Ws.13 and 14) also identified the accused-appellant in the T. I. Parade. Finally it is submitted by Mr. Safiullah that even if it is taken to be true that there are defects in the investigation, it cannot be a ground for discarding the entire prosecution case. 19. We have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have also gone through the entire evidence on record. Considering the evidence in its totality and in view of the discussions made above we do not find any cogent or justifying reason to differ from the findings of the learned trial Judge. 19. We have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have also gone through the entire evidence on record. Considering the evidence in its totality and in view of the discussions made above we do not find any cogent or justifying reason to differ from the findings of the learned trial Judge. Although there are minor discrepancies in the evidence, those, in our view, do not disprove the charge against the appellant or make the conviction and sentence unsustainable in law. 20. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge is hereby affirmed. Malay Kumar Basu, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.