ORDER : The accused-appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code un-section 27 of Arms Act. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three years under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further RI for six months under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the relationship between the deceased Raj Kapoor and the appellant, Varinder Singh alias Garra was some what strained. On 25.5.1991, the deceased, Raj Kapoor accompanied by his father, Pratap Singh, PW-5 had gone to village Najafgarh. For the purpose of returning to their won village Galibpur they boarded a DTC bus from Najafgarh at about 9.00 p.m. In the bus the deceased, Raj Kapoor and surinder Singh, PW-1 were sitting side by side on one seat. Pratap Singh, PW-5 was seated on a seat behind. the accused appellant was sitting on a seat ahead of the deceased. The deceased and Surinder Singh, PW-1 were taking to each other loudly which was objected to by the accused-appellant. This led to heated verbal exchange between the accused and the deceased. Some passengers in the bus intervened. At about 9.25 p.m. bus reached village Gumanhera. the gear box of the bus developed some trouble which led to the bus being stopped. The driver left the bus in search of a telephone in a nearby village where from he could communicate the failure of bus to DTC office. The passengers commenced alighting off the bus. The deceased and the accused also got down. It appears that they again indulged into some heated exchangee. The notice attracted the attention of Pratap Singh who was still inside the bus. He heard the cries of his son shouting for help. He quickly got down from the bus and saw the accused-appellant inflicting knife blows on the person of his son Raj Kapoor. Raj Kapoor fell down bleeding profusely from his wounds. Pratap Singh, Surinder Singh and a few passengers tried to catch hole of the accused, but be succeeded in running away from the place of the incident along with the knife. 3. Raj Kapoor fell down bleeding profusely from his wounds. Pratap Singh, Surinder Singh and a few passengers tried to catch hole of the accused, but be succeeded in running away from the place of the incident along with the knife. 3. Partap Singh managed to stop a passer by, who was on a scooter and requested him to inform the nearby police station of the incident which had just taken place. The passer by obliged Pratap Singh by giving information to Nafe Singh, head constable, PW-8 who was on picket duty near village Gumanhear at 9.35 p.m. Nafe Singh in his turn passed on the information to police station, Jafar Pur Kalan. Head constable, Ashok Kumar, Mahinder Singh, ASI, PW-15 accompanied by ASI Khazan Singh and two constables reached the place of occurence. The injured Raj Kapoor was lying unconscious and Pratap Singh, PW-5 was present there. Mahinder Singh removed the injured to Deen Dayal Upadhyan Hospital, Delhi where he was declared as brought dead. Mahinder Singh recorded the statement of Pratap Singh, which was forwarded to the police station and was regarded as first information report of the incident. 4. Post-mortem on the dead body of Raj Kapoor was performed by Dr. L.K. Baruah, PW-20 on 26.5.1991 at about mid-day. The deceased was found to have sustained the following injuries : "1. One incised wound in epigastric region placed obliquely horizontal of size 2.5 cm x 1 cms ? 2. One incised wound just below the left interior axillary fold placed obliquely of size 1.5 cmx 0.5 cm ? 3. One incised wound on the left angle of the chest placed obliquely of size 3. cm x 1 cm ? 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 cm x ? 5. One incised wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm x ? was 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 to the injury No. 5 placed obliquely of size 2 cm x 1 cm x ? 7. was 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 to 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 ?" 5. On internal examination, it was found that injury No. 1 was about 7 cms. deep and had entered the abdominal cavity and had cut the lever. Injury No. 2 had entered into the chest cavity though the lung tissue was not cut. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 had entered the chest cavity between the 5th and 6th rib and had cut the left lung. Total depth of this injury was about 5 cms. Injuries 5 and 6 had entered the chest and abdominal cavity respectively through 6th and 8th intercostal space and had cut the lung and the liver. Injury No. 6 was about 7 cms. deep. Similarly, injury No. 7 had also entered the abdominal cavity and had cut the intestine in two places. All injuries were antemortem and were caused by sharp edged weapon. In the opinion of Dr. L.K. Baruah, to all injuries excepting injury No. 2 were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhage and shock resulting from the injuries. The knife which was recovered at the behest of the accused-appellant, as stated hereinafter, was shown to Dr. Baruah in the witness box and in his opinion the injuries to the victim could have been caused by such a knife. 6. The accused-appellant was arrested on 30th May, 1991. On being interrogated, he gave a statement and carried the police to point out the place where at a little distance from the place of the incident the knife was lying hidden in the bushes. The knife was seized and sealed. Later on the knife was sent to the forensic science laboratory, Delhi. It was found to be stained with human blood though grouping was not possible on account of blood having disintegrated. 7. At the trial, the prosecution examined, several witnesses including Pratap Singh, PW-5, the principal eyewitness and also Surinder Singh, PW-11. The knife was seized and sealed. Later on the knife was sent to the forensic science laboratory, Delhi. It was found to be stained with human blood though grouping was not possible on account of blood having disintegrated. 7. At the trial, the prosecution examined, several witnesses including Pratap Singh, PW-5, the principal eyewitness and also Surinder Singh, PW-11. Surinder Singh turned hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution with the leave of the court. Though he denied the presence of Pratap Singh, PW-5 in the bus and also denied having witnessed the assault by the accused- appellant on Raj Kapoor, however, he admitted the presence of the accused and the deceased in the bus and a verbal exchange having taken place between them. He also admitted that he and the deceased Raj Kapoor were talking loudly in the bus. The learned prosecutor confronted the witness with his statement given during investigation to the police wherein he had stated that Pratap Singh was present in the bus, that there was heated verbal exchange between the deceased and the accused, and that after alighting from the bus the accused-appellant had dealt knife blows on the deceased. These contradictions have been later on proved by the investigating officer who had recorded the statement of Surinder Singh. 8. Pratap Singh, PW-5 has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated how and for what reason he, accompanied by his son, had gone to village Najafgarh and that the two had boarded the bus for coming back to his village. He has given a vivid description of how the witness, the deceased and the accused were seated in the bus, how a verbal exchange ensued between the deceased and of the accused and of the assault with knife by the accused on Raj Kapoor which was seen by him on alighting from the bus upon hearing the cries of his son. By the time the police reached the place of occurrence, this passengers, conductor and driver had all left and there was none available excepting Pratap Singh himself. The witness has been cross-examined at length by the defence, but so far as the essential part of the prosecution story is concerned, he has remained unshaken. The learned trial judge, who recorded the statement of Pratap Singh has believed him as a witness of truth and worthy of credence. The witness has been cross-examined at length by the defence, but so far as the essential part of the prosecution story is concerned, he has remained unshaken. The learned trial judge, who recorded the statement of Pratap Singh has believed him as a witness of truth and worthy of credence. The division bench of the High Court has also upon an independent appreciation of evidence and having kept in view all the criticism levelled by the defence on the testimony of this witness found the witness reliable and the criticism not of any merit. We have also examined the statement of this witness in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and we find no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court and the High Court. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has been that Pratap Singh, PW-5 in all probability was not in the bus and he was called from his home to the place of the occurrence after the police had already arrived and that his conduct, as discernible from his statement, appears to be unnatural. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission so made. We do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of the witness. Equally, we do not find any reason to doubt the presence of Pratap Singh in the bus and his having witnessed the assault by the accused-appellant on his son. 9. It was submitted that Shiv Charan, PW-6,who is the witness to the recovery of knife at the instance of the accused- appellant, is related to Pratap Singh, PW-5, but Pratap Singh has tried to conceal the relationship. However, we find Shiv Charan having made no secret of the relationship. Merely because Pratap Singh attempted at hiding his relationship with Shiv Charan, the latter cannot be termed an untruthful witness. We do not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of Shiv Charan corroborating the testimony of the investigating officer and deposing to the recovery of knife at the instance of the accused-appellant on his pointing out the knife which was lying hidden behind the bushes as deposed to by him and by the investigating officer. 10. The statement of Pratap Singh, PW-5 finds corroboration from the promptly lodged FIR as also from the medical evidence. 10. The statement of Pratap Singh, PW-5 finds corroboration from the promptly lodged FIR as also from the medical evidence. The recovery of knife at the instance of the accused-appellant, which knife is found to be stained with human blood, also lends support to the prosecution case. 11. It was alternatively submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the assault by the accused-appellant on the deceased was on account of a just preceding heated verbal exchange and in the spur of moment, and therefore, the accused- appellant should not be attributed with the intention of causing the death of the victim while assaulting him. We do not agree. The manner of the assault resulting into multiple injuries on the body of Raj Kapoor, evaluated in the light of the medical evidence, according to which these injuries were of such a nature that even one of them would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the victim, the offence committed by the accused-appellant cannot be anything otherwise than the one punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The recovery of knife from the accused is undoubtedly proved. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no fault with the conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the trial court, and the sentence passed thereon, both affirmed by the High Court. The appeal is found without any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.