JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. - Appellant Teshi Tandup, hereinafter referred to as the "accused" having been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this appeal. 2. The conviction of the accused is based on the ocular evidence of Lal Chand (PW-1), Chander Pal (PW2), Hemant Kumar (PW3) and Raman Kumar (PW4). The facts which emerges from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may be noticed. 3. Chander Pai (PW2) is resident of Manali town. On July 4, 1999, he in the late evening at about 8.30 p.m. went to the Tibetan Market and visited the shop of the accused. He was selecting a trouser for himself in the process, he had exchange of hot words with the accused for the price of the trouser. At that time, he was accompanied by one Kauga Tibtean. He came out of the shop. Kunga went to his house. When he was coming out of the Tibetan Market, he met Lal Chand (PW1) and Nek Ram (deceased) near Chandan Hotel. He started narrating the incident to Lal Chand and Nek Ram when suddenly accused accompanied by his mother appeared. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused gave a stab blow on the stomach of Nek Ram. Nek Ram fell down. Chander Pal and Lal Chand tried to rescue and lift Nek Ram from the ground. Accused inflicted stab injuries on Chander Pal and Lal Chand also. Several people gathered on the spot. Chander Pal after sustaining injuries had problem in breathing. He went to the near by water tap where be fell down unconsous. Nek Ram, Chander Pal and Lal Chand were taken to the Mission Hospital by Raman Kumar (PW4), Hemant Kumar (PW3) and Sunil Kumar. Authorities of Mission Hospital refused to admit the injured. The injured were then taken to Civil Hospital, Manali. Nek Ram was in critical condition and died within 10 or 15 minutes of his arrival in the hospital. Chander Pal regained his consciousness in the hospital. This occurrence was also seen by Hemant Kumar, Raman Kumar and Sunil Kumar from the opposite side of the road. The Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Manali intimated Police Station about the injured having been brought to the hospital. Chander Pal regained his consciousness in the hospital. This occurrence was also seen by Hemant Kumar, Raman Kumar and Sunil Kumar from the opposite side of the road. The Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Manali intimated Police Station about the injured having been brought to the hospital. Assistant Sub-Inspector Parma Ram (PW15) came to the Civil Hospital and after taking permission of the Doctor concerned, recorded the statement of Lal Chand (Exhibit PW1/A) which forms the basis for the First Information Report. 5. Nek Ram did not regain consciousness. Dr. Usha Sharma in the Civil Hospital who medically examined Nek Ram found that Nek Ram was not responding to stimulation. His pupils were dilated but evoked no response to light. The stab injury entered peritoneum cavity. Nek Ram was declared dead by the Doctor at about 10.00 p.m. 6. Chander Pal on examination by the doctor was found to have sustained incised wound on back lateral to left scapula at the length of 9th and 10th ribs. There was profuse bleeding of the wound. Edges of the wound were clean and tapering at both ends. Another incised wound on back right side of the lateral aspect directing interiorly tapering at both ends was also found to have been sustained by Chander Pal. Injury was described to be grievous. 7. The X-ray of the lungs showed haemothorax. 8. Lal Chand on his examination was found to have sustained incised wound on the back (left side parallel to L-2/L-3 on lateral aspect and shape-tapering at both ends with a width of 2 cm. Length was 3 cm. Depth. There was profuse bleeding. Another incised wound was found on the left elbow. These two injuries sustained by Lal Chand were opined to be simple by Doctor Usha Sharma (PW10). 9. The occurrence is not denied or disputed by the accused. The plea of the accused is of private defence. According to the accused, Chander Pal, Lal Chand and Kunga, along with 2/3 other persons visited his shop during day time and mis-behaved with his mother. When he objected, there was an altercation. On hearing hue and cry, some people from the vicinity gathered. Then all of them left the shop threatening that they would teach him a lesson. According to the accused, Chander Pal, Lal Chand and Kunga, along with 2/3 other persons visited his shop during day time and mis-behaved with his mother. When he objected, there was an altercation. On hearing hue and cry, some people from the vicinity gathered. Then all of them left the shop threatening that they would teach him a lesson. In the evening at about 8.30 p.m., he and his mother were returning home after closing the shop, all these persons accosted him near Hotel Chandan. Nek Ram took out a knife and attacked him. He tried to save himself and his mother and snatched the knife from Nek Ram. In that scuffle, injuries were caused to Nek Ram. He also received injures. It is the case of the accused that Nek Ram, Lal Chand and Chander Pal were armed. According to him, Nek Ram was armed with knife, Chander Pal was armed with motorcycle chain, and Lal Chand was having an instrument with long handle. All of them attacked him (accused), he became scared and feared that they would kill him and his mother. According to the accused, immediately after the occurrence, he went to the Police Station while his mother took the injured to the hospital. He disclosed this story to the Police Officer present in the Police Station and also handed over the knife but Police Officer did not take his statement and told him that the Police would make enquiries about the entire incident and take appropriate action. According to the accused, a false case has been made out against him at the instance of the local people and to pacify the local public who were agitated that a local boy had died. 10. Mr. Vats learned Counsel for the appellant after having taken us through the evidence and the judgment, contended that the injuries caused to deceased Nek Ram and his companion Chander Pal and Lal Chand were accidental as these injuries came to be inflicted by the accused in exercise of his right of private defence. Had he not defended himself with the knife, which he had snatched from deceased Nek Ram, he and his mother would have been killed by Nek Ram and his companions. 11. Had he not defended himself with the knife, which he had snatched from deceased Nek Ram, he and his mother would have been killed by Nek Ram and his companions. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is inescapable in the face of the evidence on record. The defence version is not even remotely probablised from the evidence on record including the defence evidence. 12. The prosecution version, we find, is fully supported by the ocular evidence of Lal Chand (PW1), Chander Pal (PW2), Hemant Kumar (PW3) and Raman Kumar (PW4). It is also corroborated by medical evidence and the evidence of Anil Sharma who was examined in defence by the accused. The defence version from this evidence appears to be after thought and without any substance. In fact, - the reading of the evidence as a whole negatives the defence version. : .. 13. Proving the prosecution version, Lal Chand (PW1) states that on the fateful evening, he along with Nek Ram were coming to the main road from the side of Chandan Hotel at Manali. On their way, they met Chander Pal (PW2). Chander Pal told them that he had a quarrel with accused Teshi Tandup. They were engaged in conversation when accused with his mother came and without any provocation, inflicted a stab blow with a knife on Nek Ram. Nek Ram fell down. When he and Chander Pal tried to rescue and pick him up, accused inflicted injuries on their person too. Accused inserted the knife into the stomach of Nek Ram, whereas, he was inflicted injury on the waist and elbow. Chander Pal was injured with the same knife on his back. After stabbing three of them, accused fled away. It is the evidence of Lal Chand that Hemant Kumar (PW3), Raman Kumar (PW4) and Sunil Kumar were watching the incident from across the road on the spot and on seeing their condition came to them, took Chander Pal and Nek Ram to Mission Hospital in a Auto Rickshaw. He followed them on foot. Authorities in the Mission Hospital refused to admit the injured. They were then taken to Civil Hospital Manali for treatment. The police was informed. Nek Ram was in critical condition who died within 10 to 15 minutes of his arrival in the hospital. He followed them on foot. Authorities in the Mission Hospital refused to admit the injured. They were then taken to Civil Hospital Manali for treatment. The police was informed. Nek Ram was in critical condition who died within 10 to 15 minutes of his arrival in the hospital. Chander Pal regained consciousness in the hospital. His statement Exhibit PW1/A was recorded which forms the basis of formal First Information Report Exhibit PW13/A. 14. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of this witness. The defence in the cross-examination of all these eyewitnesses has contended only by suggesting that deceased Nek Ram, Chander Pal and Lal Chand had gone to the shop of the accused on the evening of the same day. They, mis-behaved with the mother of the accused, accused objected and all three of them manhandled the accused in his shop. All of them threatened the accused with dire consequences. In the evening, three of them way laid the accused at the place of occurrence. At that time, Nek Ram was armed with a knife. He gave a stab injury on the arms of the accused. Accused snatched the knife from Nek Ram and wielded the knife towards three of them and in this process Nek Ram and others sustained injuries. If the accused had not caused injury to Nek Ram, Lal "Chand and Chander Pal, then accused would have been killed. Lal Chand is fully supported in his evidence by Chander Pal who corroborates Lal Chand in all material particulars and categorically stated that on the fateful evening at about 8.30 p.m., he had gone to purchase trouser from Tibetan Market. One Kunga Tibetan was with him. When he was selecting trouser, hot words were exchanged regarding the price of the trouser. Thereafter they came out of the shop. Kunga went to his house and he came down the market where he met Lal Chand and Nek Ram at Gompa Road near Chandan Hotel. He started narrating the incident to Lal Chand and Nek Ram. Accused accompanied by his mother suddenly appeared from behind and gave stab blow on the stomach of Nek Ram. Nek Ram fell down. He and Lal Chand tried to pick up Nek Ram but accused stabbed them too. It is his evidence that several people gathered at the spot including Hemant Kumar, Raman Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Accused accompanied by his mother suddenly appeared from behind and gave stab blow on the stomach of Nek Ram. Nek Ram fell down. He and Lal Chand tried to pick up Nek Ram but accused stabbed them too. It is his evidence that several people gathered at the spot including Hemant Kumar, Raman Kumar and Sunil Kumar. After receiving injuries, he felt problem in breathing. He went to near by tap and became unconscious. He regained his consciousness in the civil hospital. 15. The evidence of these two eye-witnesses who were accompanying the deceased is not dented in the searching cross-examination. The evidence emerges stronger in the cross-examination. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the evidence of these witnesses. No doubt is created in the version of the prosecution from the cross-examination. These two witnesses are fully supported by Hemant Kumar (PW3) and Raman Kumar (PW4). Both of them stated that on the fateful evening, they along with Sunil Kumar were standing near Gompa Road on the other side of Chandan Hotel. They saw Nek Ram, Lal Chand and Chander Pal standing. Accused accompanied by his mother came there. On reaching the place accused inflicted injuries on the person of Nek Ram and thereafter on the person of Lal Chand and Chander Pal in quick succession. Accused fled away from the spot. His mother followed him. They immediately rushed to the spot. Condition of Nek Ram was critical. Raman Kumar along with Hemant Kumar rushed to bring an auto. Nek Ram and Chander Pal were put in the auto rickshaw and taken to the Mission Hospital, Manali. The injured were not admitted by that hospital and thereafter, they were taken to Civil Hospital, Manali. Later on, Raman Kumar came to know that Nek Ram expired in the hospital. In cross-examination, Raman Kumar categorically stated that he watched the occurrence from a distance of fifteen feet. He further stated that he had only seen Chander Pal prior to the occurrence but did not know him personally. Suggestion that Nek Ram was having a knife, which was snatched by the accused, is denied by both the witnesses. Similar is the evidence of Hemant Kumar. The prosecution version remains unscathed by the cross-examination. He further stated that he had only seen Chander Pal prior to the occurrence but did not know him personally. Suggestion that Nek Ram was having a knife, which was snatched by the accused, is denied by both the witnesses. Similar is the evidence of Hemant Kumar. The prosecution version remains unscathed by the cross-examination. He denied defence suggestion that when accused appeared along with his mother, all of them including Hemant Kumar and Raman Kumar pounced upon the accused and started beating him. He denied the suggestion that Nek Ram was wielding knife in his hand which accused snatched and it was to save his life that he inflicted injuries on Nek Ram and others. A suggestion that mother of the accused had accompanied the injured to the hospital is denied by the witness. 16. As noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution, version is fully supported by the medical evidence. The prosecution version, as given by the eye-witnesses including Lal Chand and Chander Pal is the accused first gave knife blow on the stomach of Nek Ram, he fell down and both of them tried to pick him up from the ground when the accused inflicted two knife blows to both of them. The medical evidence in respect of Chander Pal. Exhibit. PW10/B and Lal Chand Exhibit PW10/E clearly shows that Chander Pal suffered injuries on the back lateral to left scapula at a level of 9th and 10th ribs. He also suffered incised wound on the back of the right side. Similarly, Lal Chand suffered incised wound on the back left side and another incised wound on the left elbow. Now the location of these injuries on the respective persons clearly shows that the injuries must have been inflicted when they were trying to pick up Nek Ram who had fallen on the ground after receiving fatal injuries. These injuries correspond to the bending position of the body. 17. This apart, it is the case of the accused, as stated by him in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also given by his mother Pemba Lama (DW1) in defence evidence that at the time of occurrence. Nek Ram was armed with knife Lal Chand was armed with Tentha (a long handle instrument used by Halwis in making sweets) and Chander Pal was having a chain. Nek Ram was armed with knife Lal Chand was armed with Tentha (a long handle instrument used by Halwis in making sweets) and Chander Pal was having a chain. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is categorical that at about 8.30 p.m., when he accompanied by his mother was returning home after closing the shop, Nek Ram, Chander Pal, Lal Chand and Kunga along with 2/3 other persons met them near hotel Chandan and obstructed his path. Then all of them pounced upon him. In the meanwhile, Nek Ram took out a knife and attacked on him. I tried to save my mother and also snatched the knife from Nek Ram and during the scuffle suffered injuries on my person. During this time, Chander Pal was having a motorcycle chain in his hand and Lal Chand was having a Danda in his hand. When all these persons attacked on me I was under fear and apprehension that they will kill me and my mother. Under this fear and apprehension, when snatched knife from Nek Ram and I started moving my hands to save me and during this effort I stabbed Nek Ram and others". The version given by the accused, to say least, is incredible. If the deceased and his two companions Chander Pal and Lal Chand were armed as suggested by the accused, then there could not have been any scuffle and if all three of them pounced upon him, he would have received multiple injuries from the Chain and Tentha and there would have been no occasion for the accused to have snatched the knife from Nek Ram. It is true that accused had injury on his person as noticed by Dr. Usha Sharma (PW10) on July 5, 1999. But the injuries found on accused were simple. Doctor Sharma found following injuries on the person of accused. "1. A linear wound on lateral aspect of left forearm clotted blood was present. Length App. 4.5 cm. Margin could not be made out because there was clotted blood. 2. A linear wound on lateral aspect of left forearm just below the first wound, clotted blood present Length was app 2 cm. Margain could not; be made out because.-, clotted blood, was there. 18. All these injuries were simple and caused within 18 to 20 hours of the examination. 2. A linear wound on lateral aspect of left forearm just below the first wound, clotted blood present Length was app 2 cm. Margain could not; be made out because.-, clotted blood, was there. 18. All these injuries were simple and caused within 18 to 20 hours of the examination. A small superficial wound on left hand between thumb and index finger of the mother of the accused was also found. In the opinion of the Doctor, these injuries could be caused to a person who is dealing with jeans "having chain or ready made garments with chain while dealing in such garments. The injuries could be even self-inflicted." Apparent as it is, these injuries were not caused by a knife. A specific suggestion of the defence that these injuries could be caused with knife Exhibit P6, the weapon of offence, is ruled out by the Doctor. 19. The defence version that there was scuffle between the accused on the one hand and the deceased Chander Pal and Lal Chand on the other is far-fetched and untenable. No scuffle injury was found either on the deceased or his companions or accused. As noticed earlier, it was not possible for the accused to snatch knife from Nek Ram if his companions were carrying long armed weapon like tentha and chain. They could have used these two weapons to keep away the accused if he had tried to snatch the knife from Nek Ram. 20. This apart, the story of that Chander Pal was carrying a motorcycle chain in his hand and Lal Chand tentha with a long handle is an after thought. It is significant to note that this is not even suggested to any of the eye-witnesses "namely Lal Chand, Chander Pal, Hemant Kumar and Raman Kumar. The version as suggested to them in the cross-examination is that Nek Ram was carrying a knife in his hand. Accused received knife injuries on his arm. Thereafter, accused snatched the knife from Nek Ram and stabbed all three of them, i.e., Nek Ram, Lal Chand and Chander Pal with knife to save himself and his mother. Not a word • is whispered in suggestion that Chander Pal was carrying motorcycle chain and Lal Chand Tentha in their hands. 21. Accused received knife injuries on his arm. Thereafter, accused snatched the knife from Nek Ram and stabbed all three of them, i.e., Nek Ram, Lal Chand and Chander Pal with knife to save himself and his mother. Not a word • is whispered in suggestion that Chander Pal was carrying motorcycle chain and Lal Chand Tentha in their hands. 21. The medical evidence as discussed earlier, negatives the story of self-defence propounded by the accused inasmuch as no injury was found on the person of the accused, which might have been caused by a knife, the weapon of offence or chain or tentha. 22. The defence version is also ruled out from the evidence led by the accused. It is the evidence of defence witness Anil Sharma (DW2) that on the fateful evening, he having heard about the murder, wont to the Police Station, Manali. He remained there for 2/3 hours. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was associated with the investigation of the case by the Police and that on July 7, 1999, accused made a disclosure statement before the Police that he had kept the knife (weapon of offence) in his house and can get the same recovered. He proved the statement of accused Exhibit PW5/A, which bears his signatures. He also stated that accused led the Police Party to his house and took out the knife from his almirah and handed it over to the Police. The fact that the knife, the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused rules out the defence version that knife was carried by deceased Nek Ram and it was snatched by accused from Nek Ram and thereafter handed over to the Police at the Police Station. The other witness to the disclosure statement, made by the accused, is Panna Lal (PW5). It is the evidence of Panna Lal that on July 7, 1999, he was associated with the investigation by the Police and in his presence, accused made a disclosure statement saying that he had kept the knife concealed in the almirah of his house. The statement of the accused Exhibit PW5/A was recorded in his presence, which was signed by him and Anil Sharma (DW2) as witnesses. The statement of the accused Exhibit PW5/A was recorded in his presence, which was signed by him and Anil Sharma (DW2) as witnesses. The accused led the Police Party to his house and took a knife from the almirah and then it was taken into possession by the Police vide recovery memo Exhibit PW5/C. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness which may create doubt about the disclosure statement having been made by the accused. 23. The evidence on record, as discussed above, proves beyond shadow of doubt that accused inflicted the fatal injuries on the person of deceased Nek Ram. He also caused grievous injuries, as noticed earlier, on the person of Lal Chand, still not contended caused two injuries on the person of Chander Pal, one of which pierced the lungs. The injuries ~were indeed caused voluntarily without provocation. 24. The right of private defence to the accused, in the fats and circumstances of this case is not available. The defence version is riot probablised even by implication. The sequence of events show that accused caused injuries to deceased and his two companions in quick succession without any immediate provocation. At best for the reasons that one of them had no exchange of words with him in his shop. 25. It may be remembered that while assessing and evaluating the evidence of eye-witnesses, the Court has to keep in mind two propositions. (a) Whether in the circumstances of the case, it was possible for the witnesses to be present at the scene, (b) Is there anything improbable or unreliable in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 26. So far the question of presence of these witnesses is concerned, this is not disputed by the accused. We have already discussed the ocular evidence at length and we do hot find any thing improbable in their evidence, which may give an impression of the evidence being un-reliable. 27. Mr. Vats learned Counsel for the accused faced with the impeccable evidence, submitted that the accused had not intended to cause the death of Nek Ram and, therefore, the offence would not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We are not impressed. There is no scope of dispute that Nek Ram received the fatal injuries in the hands of the accused. The injuries inflicted on him were intentional and not accidental. We are not impressed. There is no scope of dispute that Nek Ram received the fatal injuries in the hands of the accused. The injuries inflicted on him were intentional and not accidental. The blows were given with great force on the vital part of his body, which pierced the liver. The seriousness of the injuries, the weapon used and the situs of the injuries lead us to no other conclusion but that the offence committed falls under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 28. No other point is urged before us. 29. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. -