Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1154 (RAJ)

Krishan Kant v. State of Rajasthan

2003-08-18

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2003
Honble SHARMA, J.–This criminal appeal under section 374 Cr. P.C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 7.7.99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2., Ajmer whereby, he found the accused appellant guilty of having committed offence under section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted him under Sec. 302 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. (2). On 20.5.91 at 5.20 PM, PW 5 Dilip Kumar submitted a written report, Ex.P.7 at Police Station Amar Gate, Ajmer alleging therein that one Smt. Meera W/o Ramesh Tekani has been residing in their house No. 67/32, Srinagar Road, Molla Bux Building, Ajmer in the capacity as tenant. She stopped paying rent from January, 1989. There-upon, his father gave notice to Smt. Meera, which she did not accept. On 18.5.91, Smt. Meera along with her children left for Udaipur and has handed over another key of the house to Krishan Kant, appellant. As per the written report, Krishan Kant and his friends used to sleep in the house and leave the place at 8.00 AM. On the day of incident, in the morning he saw the name plate of Kunwar Madan Singh, Editor, Laharon ki Barkha) affixed at his house. He removed the name plate and kept the same in his house. He further alleged that appellant Krishan Kant and his friends went on roaming on the scooter around his house for whole of the day. In the evening at 4.30 PM, his father went to have betel at the shop of Panju Pan-wala. He and his brother Vimal were busy in goasping with their friends on the road. At that time, appellant Krishan Kant and his friend came there and soon after reaching, they started inflicting knife blows after reaching, they started inflicting knife blows repeatedly to this father. When they rushed to save the victim, the accused persons an away from the scene. There was bleeding from the back and abdomen of his father. The complainant alleged that the Krishan Kant and his associated inflicted knife blows with an intention to kill his father. He then brought his father to the Police Station, in a jeep and that condition of his father was precarious. (3). There was bleeding from the back and abdomen of his father. The complainant alleged that the Krishan Kant and his associated inflicted knife blows with an intention to kill his father. He then brought his father to the Police Station, in a jeep and that condition of his father was precarious. (3). On the basis of above report, the police registered a case vide FIR, Ex.P8 for offence under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. (4). In the course of investigation, the police rushed to the place of incident and prepared site plan, Ex.P.1 and the inquest report, Ex. P.9. The police arrested the accused appellant vide memo Ex.P.5. Appellant furnished information, Ex.P.17 as regards recovery of weapon of offence. Pursuant to the information, the police recovered a knife at the instance of appellant and prepared recovery memo, Ex.P.2. The police also seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased vide memo Ex. P. 11. The victim was medically examined and PW 9 Dr. V.D. Kaviya, who examined the victim found as many as 7 injuries vide injury report Ex.P.14. On the same day, at about 9.15 PM, the victim died in the hospital at 9.15 PM. Accordingly, post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. P.K. Sarswat (PW 10) on 21.5.91 at 10.00 AM. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was shock due intraperitoneal injuries, leading to multiple perforations of intestinal loops. The post mortem report is Ex. P.15. (5). On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant and form others for offence under Sections 302, 323 and 324 IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ajmer. The learned Magistrate having found the case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions. (6). The case came to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it and after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties, framed charges against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. (7). In the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. (7). In the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court did not find the charges established against three accused and accordingly acquitted them of the charges. However, the learned trial court found the prosecution case as alleged proved against the appellant and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal by appellant Krishan Kant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (8). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence available on record. (9). At the out set it may be stated that five persons, namely, Mst. Meera, Madan Singh, Krishan Kant (appellant), Ranglal and Sunil Kumar were indicted for trial. Accused Madan Singh died during trial. (10). The prosecution case unfolded during trial appears to be that Meera and Gangadhar deceased had dispute over rented premises. Madan Singh accused who died in the course of trial, had illicit relations with Meera. Therefore, Mst. Meera, Madan Singh and appellant Krishna Kant along with others hatched conspiracy to murder Gangadhar and in order to execute the plan of murder, Madan Singh lodged himself in Jail on 17.5.1991 and a day after i.e. on 18.5.91 Meera along with her children left for Udaipur and thereafter appellant Krishan Kant, Ranglal and Sunil executed the plan. To put an end to their plan, Krishan Kant and Ranglal inflicted injuries by knife on the abdomen and back of Gangadhar and Sunil Kumar, who stationed himself near the place of incident with a scooter helped krishan kant and Ranglal in fleeing on the place of incident. (11). The learned trial court concluded that there is no evidence against accused Sunil Kumar and, therefore, he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. (12). It appears from the judgment under appeal that the learned trial court after appreciating the evidence of PW 12 Pamandas and PW13 Mukut Bihari and taking into consideration the letter (Ex. (11). The learned trial court concluded that there is no evidence against accused Sunil Kumar and, therefore, he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. (12). It appears from the judgment under appeal that the learned trial court after appreciating the evidence of PW 12 Pamandas and PW13 Mukut Bihari and taking into consideration the letter (Ex. P.16) of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer concluded that the prosecution could not establish the charge of conspiracy and consequently acquitted Meera, Ranglal, Sunil Kumar and Krishan Kant for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC. (13). The learned trial court also acquitted accused Ranglal of he offence under sections 302 and 302/34 IPC by extending the benefit of doubt as his name did not find place in the report Ex. P7 lodged by none other than Dilip Kumar, son of the deceased and that Dilip kumar knew Ranglal. (14). Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that same evidence on which accused Ranglal was acquitted as the evidence was not sufficient to connect Ranglal with the commission of crime. Therefore, here cannot be double standard to appreciate the same evidence differently. On this strength, learned counsel argued that appellant Krishan Kant also deserves to be acquitted of the offences charged with. (15). We have considered the above argument. Suffice it to say that accused Ranglal was extended the benefit of doubt as his name did not find place in the report, Ex. P7 and further that an eye witness of the incident namely Dilip Kumar who lodged the report personally knew accused Ranglal. On the contrary, appellant Krishan Kant was named as an assailant in the report, Ex. P7 which was lodged promptly at 5.20 PM i.e. just after 50 minute of the incident happened at 4.30 PM. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, in our considered view, is devoid of force and is rejected. (16). The next argument of the counsel for the appellant is confined to the weapon of offence used by the appellant. Learned counsel argued that the injuries were spindle shaped while the knife recovered has one cutting and another blunt edge. (16). The next argument of the counsel for the appellant is confined to the weapon of offence used by the appellant. Learned counsel argued that the injuries were spindle shaped while the knife recovered has one cutting and another blunt edge. Referring to the Dictionary meaning of spindle i.e. some-thing shaped like a round stick or pin with tapered ends and Medical Jurisprudence, learned counsel argued that if the instrument has two cutting edges than a stab wound caused by it shall have clear cut edges which and almost parallel but slightly curved to each other and have sharp angles at the two extremities, while an instrument having one cutting and one blunt edge will show & certain amount of braising and raggedness at same end of the wound. Referring to the statement of PW 9 Dr. V.D. Kaviya who examined the injured and the statement of PW 10 Dr. P.K. Sarswat who conducted autopsy, learned counsel argued that spindle shaped stab wounds could not have been caused by a knife having one cutting and one blunt edge. (17). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above argument and pondered over the evidence, oral as well as documentary available on record. PW 9 Dr. Kaviya has stated that all the injuries were caused by sharp weapon. It is evident that no suggestion was put forward whether injuries found on the person of injured could be caused only by a weapon having cutting edges both sides. No doubt, PW 10 Dr. Sarswat has admitted that spindle shaped injuries could be caused by a weapon having cutting edges both sides, but this witness has no where stated that spindle shaped injuries could not be caused by a weapon having one cutting and one blunt edges. (18). The appellant was arrested on 7.7.91 vide arrest memo Ex.P.5. He furnished information Ex.P.17 on 14.7.91 and on the same day knife was recovered vide memo Ex. P.2. It is thus clear that knife was recovered after about 55 days of the incident. It was recovered from the a place which was accessible to all and sundry. Further there is no evidence to show that knife recovered was found to be blood stained. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that is is the recovered knife which was used for committing crime. It was recovered from the a place which was accessible to all and sundry. Further there is no evidence to show that knife recovered was found to be blood stained. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that is is the recovered knife which was used for committing crime. That apart, the eye witnesses of the incident have not stated whether the knife used by appellant Krishan Kant had one cutting edge or it had cutting edges both sides. In this view of the matter, there is no evidence to prove that the knife used was having only cutting edge. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is discrepancy in the statements of eye witnesses and the medical evidence. (19). Reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana & others (1), wherein the Apex Court considered the situation where the ocular account of the incident narrated by the son of the deceased was to the effect that accused fired two shots from his double barralled gun and the doctor who conducted autopsy in his cross examination stated that injuries on the person of deceased were the result of one shot, and having formulated a question "whether there was one shot or two shots, can it not be termed to be immaterial in the matter of assessing the culpability of the accused" and observed as under : "It is the above evidence which has prompted the High Court to ask the learned advocate appearing for the prosecution "to caricature any position in which a man can strike such an injury with a. 12 bore gun..". Whether there was one shot or two shots, can it not be termed to be immaterial in the matter of assessing the culpability of the accused ? The son who saw his father had been shot at and thereafter the son and it is on this score that mere hair-splitting on the available evidence ought not to be undertaken and instead the totality of the situation ought to have been reviewed. The empty cartridges were found and the ballistic experts report that the cartridges match with the injury. The High Court ascribes this to be an immaterial piece of evidence. We, however, do not think so. The empty cartridges were found and the ballistic experts report that the cartridges match with the injury. The High Court ascribes this to be an immaterial piece of evidence. We, however, do not think so. The ballistic experts evidence cannot be brushed aside nice that i in the normal course of event, a valuable material vis-a-vis the use of the gun and the injury. The High Court went on to record the contradiction from the medical evidence but unfortunately the same does not find support from the evidence on record. Dr. A.S. Chaudhary having done the pot-mortem examination on the deceased Maman, has stated in his evidence that "Injuries 2,4 and 5 are the exit wound. Injuries 1 and 3 are the entry wounds". Dr. Chaudhary further said that "Injury 1 is an entry wound of point-blank range". The doctor has been subjected to cross examination and he at the end of it all said that : "It can be said that the injuries on the person of the deceased were the result of one shot". It is on this count, the High Court recorded that Dr. Chaudhary "had also to agree to this position". (emphasis supplied)Needless to say that the doctor probably has not been able to match the cross examining lawyer and there was thus an unequal duel between the medical man and a refined lawyer. Can it be said that by reason of the evidence of Dr. Chaudhary the contradictions are galore in nature, so far as the evidence of Leela Ram is concerned - the High Court upon consideration of the factum of such a contradiction answers the same on a positive note. This however is not acceptable to this Court: the discrepancy does not seem to be of such a nature so as to effect the creditworthiness or trustworthiness of the witness. As a matter of fact, it does not do so by reason of the fact that Maman fell a victim of gunshot injuries and died: it is immaterial as to whether one or two gunshots were fired-the contradiction at its highest cannot but be stated to be in regard to a minor incident and does not travel to the root of the nature of the offence. The other piece of evidence is that the Sarpanch and the members of the Village Panchayat saw the accused running away towards Village Aharwan just after firing with his gun". (20). In the case at hand, as already observed above Dr. Kaviya who examined the injuries has deposed that injuries found on the person of victim were caused by sharp weapon. No suggestion was put to him whether injuries of the injured could be the result of a weapon having cutting edges both the sides. PW 10 Dr. Sarswat who conducted autopsy on the dead body has admitted that spindle shaped injuries could be caused by a weapon having cutting edges both the sides. However, Dr. Sarswat has no where said that spindle shaped injuries could not be caused by a weapon having one cutting and one blunt edge. As a matter of fact, it does not do so by reason of the fact that Gangadhar fell a victim of knife injuries and died. It is immaterial whether the weapon used in commission of crime had one cutting edge or it had cutting edges both sides. The contradiction, in our view does not travel to the root of the nature of the offence. (21). The judgment under appeal is also assailed on the ground that prosecution has utterly failed to examine independent witnesses despite the fact that the place of incident was a thickly populated area and was surrounded by residential houses and shops. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court has also fallen into error in not taking an consideration this important and crucial lacunae on the part of the prosecution. (22). We have considered the above argument. No. doubt true that residential houses and shops are situated near the place of incident as admitted by the prosecution witnesses, but it has not come on record that any resident of the area or any shop-keeper came on the spot at the time of incident. No suggestion was put to the witnesses whether any such person was present at the time and place of incident. One Panjumal was present at his shop, who was examined on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that independent witness present at the time and place of incident has not been examined. No suggestion was put to the witnesses whether any such person was present at the time and place of incident. One Panjumal was present at his shop, who was examined on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that independent witness present at the time and place of incident has not been examined. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have time and again said that exerpience reminds that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence and they keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. Reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Appabhai vs. State of Gujrat (2), wherein their Lordships have observed as under : "Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. The court however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react uniformly. The horror-stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner". (23). Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that it is extremely difficult to accept the case of the prosecution on the basis of evidence available on record. He strenuously contended that the trial court has committed serious error in relying upon the testimony of PW 5 Dilip Kumar and PW 11 Vimal Kumar, both sons of the deceased. (23). Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that it is extremely difficult to accept the case of the prosecution on the basis of evidence available on record. He strenuously contended that the trial court has committed serious error in relying upon the testimony of PW 5 Dilip Kumar and PW 11 Vimal Kumar, both sons of the deceased. It is argued that apart from these witnesses being close relatives of the deceased, their conduct is indicative of the fact that they were not present at the time and place of incident and they cannot at all be considered as witnesses to the incident. According to the learned counsel, the attaining circumstances disclose that the witnesses were not present at the time of incident. It is submitted that blood was oozing out from the body of victim and as per the alleged eye witness Dilip Kumar, he brought his injured father to the police station in a jeep and then took him to the hospital. Surprisingly enough, no blood was found on his clothes and even the prosecution has failed to have an access to the jeep so as to prove that this witness brought the victim in the jeep. These facts are sufficient to prove that PW 5 Dilip Kumar was neither present at the scene of occurrence nor he brought his father to the hospital. Similarly, as regards the presence of PW 11 Vimal Kumar, another son of deceased and alleged eye witness of the incident, it is argued that PW 11 Vimal Kumar, as per his own statement, did not go to meet the police nor he talked to any police personnel. The witness also admitted that investigating agency did enquiry into the matter after his father passed away. Non presence of blood on the clothes of this witness is also suggestive of the fact that he was not present at the time of incident and had he been physically present at the spot, he would have certainly helped in lifting his seriously injured father and blood must have been found on his clothes. Learned counsel also referred the FIR and has pointed out some contradictions. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the interested testimony of PW 5 and 11, according to the learned counsel, cannot be safely relied upon, more so in view of the contradictions and the lacuna pointed out as aforesaid. (24). Learned counsel also referred the FIR and has pointed out some contradictions. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the interested testimony of PW 5 and 11, according to the learned counsel, cannot be safely relied upon, more so in view of the contradictions and the lacuna pointed out as aforesaid. (24). Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that both the witnesses of the incident are of sterling worth and the trial court has correctly placed reliance on their testimony. It is contended that evidence of PW 5 Dilip Kumar and PW 11 Vimal Kumar finds corroboration with the medical evidence. Further, the evidence of these two witnesses to the extent that appellant Krishan Kant and his friend inflicted knife blows indiscriminately to the person of deceased stands in corroboration with the evidence of PW 1 Panju Mal, the owner of betel shop, which is situated just near the place of incident. (25). We have considered the rival submissions. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions, we deem it appropriate to have an reappraisal of the evidence of PW 5 Dilip Kumar and PW 11 Vimal Kumar. (26). PW 5 Dilip Kumar has deposed in his examination in chief that on the day of incident at about 4.30 PM his father went to have betel to the shop of PW1 Panju Pan-wala, which is situated at Srinagar road. He and his brother Vimal Kumar were busy in talking their friends Ravi Kumar and Suresh Kumar. In the mean time, appellant Krishan Kant and Rang Lal came there from the side of Mridang talkies. Soon after reaching, they started inflicting knife blows on the person of his father. The knives struck at the back and stomach. His father raised an alarm. The witness stated that when they went to rescue, the accused ran away towards Raja Cycle Chauraha. He stated that the shop of Panju Pan-wala is situated at a distance of 50 steps from his house. He then took his father to Alwar Gate Police Station in a jeep and lodged the report, Ex.P7 and from there he took him to the hospital. The witness further stated that one Madan Singh had threatened him to kill. He stated that the shop of Panju Pan-wala is situated at a distance of 50 steps from his house. He then took his father to Alwar Gate Police Station in a jeep and lodged the report, Ex.P7 and from there he took him to the hospital. The witness further stated that one Madan Singh had threatened him to kill. Madan Singh had, according to this witness, illicit relations with co-accused Meera and that Meera and Madan Singh extended to grap his house and to achieve the target, accused Rang Lal and appellant Krishan Kant assaulted his father with knives. (27). In cross examination, PW 5 Dilip Kumar has stated that the distance between the place of incident and the place from where he saw the incident was 25 feet. The witness stated that he watched the incident and chased the accused. While chasing the accused, he did not raise any alarm. According to him, 4-5 persons collected within half an hour, at the place where his father was lying. The witness could not state whether blood appeared in the jeep or not. He spent half an hour at the police station and in the mena time other persons and his father remained in the jeep out side the police station. He admitted that he did not record the presence of his friends present with him at the time of incident in the first information report. He also admitted that the police visited the place of incident on the next day. (28). PW.11 Vimal Kumar has stated that on 20.5.91 at about 4.00 PM on the footpath out side the pole (gate) he, his elder brother Dilip Kumar and their friends Suresh Kumar and Ravi Kumar were talking. His father went to have betel at the shop and Panju Panwala. After a short while, he heard the sound of cries of his father. They saw that appellant krishan kant and Rang Lal were inflicting knife blows to his father indiscriminately and the accused were runnings towards Raja Cycle. He then stated that they went clear the victim and saw that blood was oozing out from the back and stomach of his father. He then stated that K.K. and his friend inflicted knife blows. A jeep came there and his brother Dilip took his father to the police station in that jeep. He then stated that they went clear the victim and saw that blood was oozing out from the back and stomach of his father. He then stated that K.K. and his friend inflicted knife blows. A jeep came there and his brother Dilip took his father to the police station in that jeep. He rushed to his house and informed about the incident and thereafter, left to Victoriya Hospital. The witness further stated that co-accused Meera had illicit relations with Madan Singh, who used to visit her often. Meera had stopped paying rent for last two years and for that his father had served a notice. Co-accused Meera had also threatened to kill his elder brother at the hands of Madan Singh. Lastly, the witness stated that appellant Krishan Kant and co-accused Ranglal used to sit with Madan Singh and Meera and Madan Singh hatched conspiracy to commit murder of his father at the hands of Krishan Kant and Rang Lal. (29). From the evidence discussed above, the presence of PW5 Dilip Kumar and PW 11 Vimal Kumar at the time and place of incident is fully established. Further, PW 1 Panju Mal who runs his betel shop near the place of incident has also certified their prudence at the time and place of incident. That apart, the fact that PW 5 Dilip Kumar lodged the first information report so promptly i.e. within an hour of the incident, in itself is sufficient to establish his presence at the time and place of incident. The witness, on hearing the cries of his father, rushed to save his father, but the accused having seen him ran away. The witness then chased the accused. Having failed to apprehend them, he came back, lifted his father and then took him to the police station and lodged the report of the incident. Likewise, the presence of PW 11 Vimal Kumar at the time and place of incident is also established. He first went to his house so as to inform the inmates of the house and then proceeded to hospital to attend his injured father. His conduct appears to be natural. When his elder brother Vimal Kumar took the injured to the police station to lodge the report, he had no option but to rush to the house and inform the inmates about the incident. His conduct appears to be natural. When his elder brother Vimal Kumar took the injured to the police station to lodge the report, he had no option but to rush to the house and inform the inmates about the incident. In this view of the matter, it can safely be said that both the witnesses were present at the time and place of incident. (30). No doubt true it is that both the eye witnesses are sons of the deceased and, therefore, recording to the learned counsel for the appellant, both the witnesses are interested witnesses and hence their testimony could not be relied upon. Mere relationship of the witnesses, in our considered view, by itself is not enough to discard their testimony. What is required is that evidence of such witnesses need to be examined with great care and caution. In accepting the testimony of PWs 5 and 11 the trial court was firmly of the view that their evidence finds corroboration with the FIR, the statement of PW1 Panjumal and the medical evidence. Having scaned the evidence of these two eye witnesses and taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding their presence at the time of occurrence, we do not see any ground, much less their relationship, to discard their testimony. The trial court was fully justified in relying upon the testimony of PWs 5 and 11. (31). The testimony of PW5 Dilip Kumar and PW 11 Vimal Kumar also stands in corroboration with the medical evidence. Dr. B.D. Kavita (PW 9) who examined injured Gangadhar on 20.5.91 at 5.45 PM found the following injuries on his body : 1. Stab wound 2-1/2 x 1-1/2cm x depth ? on Lt. inquanal region. 2. Stab wound 2 x 1-1/2 cm x depth ? on anterior abdominal wall. 3. Stab wound 2 x 1-1/2 cm x depth ? on anterior abdominal 4. Stab wound 2 x 1-1/2 cm x depth ? on anterior abdominal wall. 5. Stab wound 1-1/2 x 1/1-2 cm x depth ? on Lt. lateral side of waist. 6. Stab wound 3 x 2 cm ? depth on renal region on back 7. Incised wound 1-1/2 x 1 x 4 cm on Lt. brine of sacral region. (32). Dr. P.K. Sarswat (PW 10) who conducted astopsy on 21.5.91 at 10.00 PM found following antimortem injuries on the body of deceased: 1. on Lt. lateral side of waist. 6. Stab wound 3 x 2 cm ? depth on renal region on back 7. Incised wound 1-1/2 x 1 x 4 cm on Lt. brine of sacral region. (32). Dr. P.K. Sarswat (PW 10) who conducted astopsy on 21.5.91 at 10.00 PM found following antimortem injuries on the body of deceased: 1. Stiched wound 2.5 cm in size on inquanal region; placed obliquely 2. Stiched wound 2cm in size on anterior abdominal wall just lateral to mid line on Rt. side 6cm above intestines. 3. Stiched wound 2 cm in size on Lt. side of abdomen 5 cm lateral to mid line 10 cm above intestines. 4. Stiched wound 2 cm in size on Ltd. Side of above 4 cm lateral and above the injury No. 3. 5. Stiched wound 1.5 cm on lateral side of waist on left side. 6. Stitched wound 3 cm in size obliquely placed on Lt. side on back at renal area. 7. Stitched wound 1.5 cm on Lt. sacual side. (33). Dr. Sarswat found three repairs of peritoneum with catgut. He also found perforations of small intestines at three sites, mesenteric vessels severed, forth perforation of small intestine in illiac fossa region. He also observed that wound no. 2,3 and 4 cut through the abdominal wall, skin, muscles, rectus sheath and peritoneum. Dr. Sarswat opined that cause of death was shock due to intraperitoneal injuries leading to multiple perforations of intestinal loops. (34). From the overt acts attributed to the accused appellant by PW 5 Dilip Kumar and PW 11 Vimal Kumar, corroborated by medical evidence, in the scenario that appellant and his associate in search of their prey were roaming on the road and as soon as they found the prey before them, they took him in their clutches and attacked with knives, it is apparent that the appellant has caused murderous assault resulting in the death of deceased. (35). For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the trial court impugned in this appeal is upheld.