H. H. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has, by filing this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "cr. P. C. ") challenged the correctness, legality and validity of the judgment, Ex. 64 dated 15. 01. 1998 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar (who will be referred to hereinafter as "the learned Judge of the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr. P. C. for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for shot the "i. P. C.) and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for an offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution as unfolded by the evidence of the prosecution, can be summarized in a nutshell as follows. 2. 1 the complainant P. W. 1 Nathabhai Ramjibhai, resident of Navagam (Bamanbor) (Taluka Chotila) (District Surendranagar) is the eldest amongst, they five brothers, second is Laxman alias Lakho, with whose wife the appellant had illicit relations since four years before the date of the complaint, third is Vinu, fourth is Mansukh (victim and who has been killed, as alleged by the prosecution) and youngest fifth is Ramesh. The appellant is eldest son of Premji, Sura who is an uncle of the complainant. 2. 2 from the evidence, it reveals that any time before 03. 09. 1995, the appellant and P. W. 10 Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji had gone to enjoy the fair of Tarnetar and Than. Laxman Ramji and his brother had seen the appellant with Lila w/o. of Laxman Ramji moving in the fair and, therefore, at about 21. 00 hours on 03. 09. 1995, a quarrel took place in between Laxman Ramji and Mansukh Ramji on one side and appellant on another side. Laxman Ramji and his brother had seen the appellant with Lila w/o. of Laxman Ramji moving in the fair and, therefore, at about 21. 00 hours on 03. 09. 1995, a quarrel took place in between Laxman Ramji and Mansukh Ramji on one side and appellant on another side. From the evidence it further appears that, as per the case of the appellant, Laxman Ramji husband of Lila inflicted iron pipe - blow on the head of appellant and Mansukh Ramji (since deceased) inflicted iron pipe - blow on the left shoulder of the appellant. As a result of said incident which took place in the "chowk" of village Navagam (Bamanbor), the appellant lodged his police complaint against Laxman Ramji and Mansukh Ramji, in Chotila Police Station at about 23. 00 hours on 03. 09. 1995 and that complaint came to be registered as C. R. No. I-111/95. As per the case of the prosecution, because of the aforesaid incident, the appellant was bearing malice against Mansukh (deceased ). 2. 3 in continuation of the aforesaid incident, at about 11. 00 P. M. (at night) on 01. 10. 1995, the appellant had inflicted more than one knife blows on the person of Mansukh (deceased), who was sleeping in the "chora" of temple known as "thakar Mandir". It is the case of the prosecution that at that time, P. W. 2 Virabhai Ukabhai and Rama Deva (not examined) were also sleeping in chora of the said temple near to the place where Mansukh (deceased) was sleeping. As per the case of the prosecution, P. W. 2 Virabhai actually saw the appellant inflicting knife blows on the body of Mansukh (deceased ). He raised cries, as a result of which, P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai Ramjibhai, P. W. 4 Premjibhai Sardulbhai, a Sarpanch of village Navagam (Bamanbor), and P. W. 6 Panchabhai Surabhai, who were present in the "chok" in front of temple rushed to the place from where that cries were raised by P. W. 2 Virabhai. He raised cries, as a result of which, P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai Ramjibhai, P. W. 4 Premjibhai Sardulbhai, a Sarpanch of village Navagam (Bamanbor), and P. W. 6 Panchabhai Surabhai, who were present in the "chok" in front of temple rushed to the place from where that cries were raised by P. W. 2 Virabhai. It is the case of the prosecution that P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai, P. W. 4 Premjibhai, and P. W. 6 Panchabhai, all the three had seen with their own eyes, the appellant armed with knife running away from the place of the scene of the offence and Mansukh (deceased) was found lying in injured and bleeding condition in the "chora" of temple (a part and parcel of premises of the temple ). It is also the case of the prosecution that on hearing the shouts of P. W. 2 Virabhai, Dhama Deva, P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai, P. W. 6 Panchabhai Surabhai had also rushed to the place of incident. Thereafter, P. W. 4 Premjibhai, Sarpanch applied bandage by tying a handkerchief at the injured part of Mansukh. Thereafter, Sama Sura (uncle of Mansukh) and brothers Natha and Vinu had also come there. They took away Mansukh (deceased) to their residence and thereafter, they shifted Mansukh (deceased) by taking him in the matador of Rabari Ratna, to Rajkot. 2. 4 as per the evidence on the record, injured Mansukh (deceased) was admitted in emergency ward of Civil Hospital at Rajkot at 00. 30 hours (mid night) on 02. 10. 1995. He was examined by P. W. 5 Dr. Rathod, who declared him as dead. Doctor, who was on duty in the Hospital informed the Police of Rajkot. The complainant P. W. 1 Nathabhai lodged his complaint in the Hospital at Rajkot and that complaint came to be registered as C. R. No. 0/95 in the Pra-Nagar Police Station at Rajkot at 02. 30 hours on 02. 10. 1995. From the evidence, it appears that Police of Pra-Nagar Police Station, Rajkot had informed the police of Chotila Police Station and, therefore, one senior police head constable of Chotila went to Civil Hospital, Rajkot and held an inquest of deceased by drawing a panchnama during the period between 03. 00 A. M. and 03. 45 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. 00 A. M. and 03. 45 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. Thereafter, that senior police head constable of Chotila, along with his Yadi, sent deadbody of Mansukh to P. W. 5 Dr. Rathod for the purpose of autopsy. P. W. 5 Dr. Rathod received that deadbody of Mansukh along with Yadi at about 5. 00 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. He performed postmortem of deadbody of Mansukh during the period from 7. 30 A. M. to 8. 45 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. 2. 5 p. W. 13 Kesubha Natvarsinh Zala, who was on duty as P. S. O. of Chotila Police Station received at 7. 15 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995, the complaint, which was registered as C. R. No. 0/95 in Pra-Nagar Police Station, Rajkot brought by police man of Rajkot. He, immediately, made an Entry No. 6 in Station Diary of Chotila Police Station and registered the said complaint in Chotila Police Station, as C. R. No. I-126/95 at 7. 15 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. 2. 6 p. W. 16 Dipakkumar Bhagvandas Shah, who was P. S. I. attached to Halvad Police Station received a vardhi at 3. 00 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhragandhra, who directed him to carry out the investigation of the case registered in Chotila Police Station. He immediately left Halvad and reached Chotila at about 6. 00 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. As complaint was registered in Chotila Police Station, he started to carry out the investigation. First, he went to the place of scene of offence where P. W. 4 Premjibhai had shown the place of incident to P. W. 16 P. S. I. Shah. P. W. 16 P. S. I. Shah drew a panchnama of the scene of offence during the period between 7. 45 A. M. and 8. 30 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. Thereafter, he recorded the police statements of witnesses, who were conversant with the facts of the case. Meanwhile, he had received an information that the accused had gone towards Rajkot side and, therefore, he sent two police officers to Rajkot. He also sent a wireless message to Civil Hospital, Rajkot. 2. 30 A. M. on 02. 10. 1995. Thereafter, he recorded the police statements of witnesses, who were conversant with the facts of the case. Meanwhile, he had received an information that the accused had gone towards Rajkot side and, therefore, he sent two police officers to Rajkot. He also sent a wireless message to Civil Hospital, Rajkot. 2. 7 it is the case of the prosecution that before committing an offence of murder the appellant had consumed poisonous drug and, therefore, the father of the appellant had taken him to P. W. 11 R. M. P. Dr. Dhanjibhai Vasharambhai at Bedala where some primary treatment was given to the appellant and, thereafter, Dr. Rathod advised the father of the appellant to take him to some big Hospital. Thereafter, the relatives of appellant took him (Mansukh) to P. W. 17 Dr. Jubeda Husenbhai Juneja and got him admitted in the Referral Hospital, Chotila. On the next day i. e. on 03. 10. 1995 in the morning at 9. 00 A. M. , the appellant was referred to Civil Hospital at Rajkot. As per the evidence on the record, the appellant was brought in the Civil Hospital at Rajkot at 2. 45 P. M. (Noon) on 03. 10. 1995. P. W. 14 Dr. Ashvinkumar Devrajbhai Tank gave medical treatment to the appellant. He discharged the appellant from the Hospital on 05. 10. 1995. 2. 8 p. W. 16 P. S. I. Shah, had received an information from Ratna Dhudha Rabari, Driver of Matador that the accused was there in the village Bedala and, therefore, he immediately, went to village Bedala and found that accused was lying in the dispensary of P. W. 11 Dr. Rathod. Thereafter, P. W. 16 P. S. I. Shah in company of accused and Doctor came to Chotila Hospital and got the accused admitted in the Chotila Hospital. He wrote a Yadi to the Executive Magistrate requesting him to record a dying declaration of the accused. P. W. 15 Dhirajlal Ratilal Dave, Executive Magistrate of Chotila received that Yadi and, therefore, he went to the Referral Hospital, Chotila and recorded a dying declaration of the accused during the period between 18. 40 hours and 18. 58 hours on 02. 10. 1995. 2. 9 on the next day i. e. on 03. 10. P. W. 15 Dhirajlal Ratilal Dave, Executive Magistrate of Chotila received that Yadi and, therefore, he went to the Referral Hospital, Chotila and recorded a dying declaration of the accused during the period between 18. 40 hours and 18. 58 hours on 02. 10. 1995. 2. 9 on the next day i. e. on 03. 10. 1995, regular P. S. I. of Chotila P. W. 18 Jesangbhai Jethabhai Dhranga resumed his duty, on expiry of his leave, and took over the further investigation from P. W. 16 P. S. I. Shah. He wrote a Yadi to Mamlatdar requesting him to prepare a Map of the place of the scene of offence. P. W. 18 Mr. Dhranga proceeded to Navagam for the investigation. As he was assaulted, he was admitted in the Hospital. Meanwhile he was transferred to Vadhavan Police Station and, therefore, he handed over the further investigation to P. W. 19 P. S. I. Surajibhai Thavraji Kharadi. 2. 10 as per the evidence of P. W. 19 P. S. I. Kharadi, when he was on duty as P. S. I. of Chotila Police Station on 04. 10. 1995, he received papers of the investigation from P. W. 16 P. S. I. Shah on 05. 10. 1995. He arrested accused under arrest panchnama at 11. 00 A. M. on 06. 10. 1995. When the accused was in police custody, he had shown his willingness to show the knife which was used in the crime. Thereafter, by following the due procedure and by drawing the panchnama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he attached and seized the muddamal knife. Thereafter, he sent incriminating articles and muddamal articles attached and seized by him under the panchnama to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junagadh (for short "f. S. L. " ). On receipt of Report from the F. S. L. , he filed a charge-sheet on 29. 12. 1995 against the accused in the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. , Chotila. That charge-sheet came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1790 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 12. 1995 against the accused in the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. , Chotila. That charge-sheet came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1790 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As an offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. is exclusively triable the Court of Sessions, the learned J. M. F. C. , by passing a committal order under Section 209 of Cr. P. C. on 01. 01. 1996, committed the said case to the Court of Sessions at Surendranagar. On receipt of the papers, that case came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996 in the Court of Sessions at Surendranagr. ( 3 ) ON the basis of material on record, the learned Judge of the trial Court framed a charge Ex. 5 on 22. 05. 1997. That charge was read over and explained to the accused. On recording his plea, he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) IN order to bring home the charge against the accused for which the charge Ex. 5 was framed, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :- P. W. 1 Nathabhai Ramjibhai, (complainant) Ex. 11 P. W. 2 Virabhai Ukabhai Ex. 13 P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai Ramjibhai Ex. 14 P. W. 4 Premjibhai Sardulbhai, (sarpanch) Ex. 15 P. W. 5 Dr. Mansukhlal Jivrajbhai Rathod, Ex. 16 (Medical Officer of Rajkot Civil Hospital) P. W. 6 Panchabhai Surabhai Ex. 19 P. W. 7 Rameshbhai Manubhai (panch witness Ex. 24 No. 1 for Mark 10/4) P. W. 8 Ramesh Somabhai (panch witness No. 1 Ex. 25 for Mark 10/5 & 10/6) P. W. 9 Dhirubhai Mohanbhai (panch witness Ex. 26 No. 2 for Mark 10/5 & 10/6) P. W. 10 Lilaben Laxmanbhai P. W. 11 Dr. Dhanjibhai Vasharambhai Ex. 27 (Medical Practitioner in Bedala) Ex. 30 P. W. 12 Bhavubha Shivubha (P. S. O. of Pra- Nagar Police Station, Rajkot) Ex. 32 P. W. 13 Kesubha Natvarsinh Zala (P. S. O. of Chotila Police Station) Ex. 34 P. W. 14 Dr. Ashvinkumar Devrajbhai Tank (Medical Officer of Rajkot Government Ex. 38 Hospital) P. W. 15 Dhirajlal Ratilal Dave (Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Chotila) Ex. 42 P. W. 16 Dipakkumar Bhagvandas Shah (P. S. I. of Hadavad Police Station) Ex. 32 P. W. 13 Kesubha Natvarsinh Zala (P. S. O. of Chotila Police Station) Ex. 34 P. W. 14 Dr. Ashvinkumar Devrajbhai Tank (Medical Officer of Rajkot Government Ex. 38 Hospital) P. W. 15 Dhirajlal Ratilal Dave (Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Chotila) Ex. 42 P. W. 16 Dipakkumar Bhagvandas Shah (P. S. I. of Hadavad Police Station) Ex. 47 P. W. 17 Dr. Jubeda Husenbhai Juneja (Medical Officer of Referral Hospital Ex. 50 at Chotila) P. W. 18 Jesangbhai Jethabhai Dhranga (P. S. I. of Chotila Police Station) Ex. 52 P. W. 19 Surajibhai Thavraji Kharadi (P. S. I. of Chotila Police Station) Ex. 54 ( 5 ) IN addition to the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution also produced and proved the following documents. 1. Complaint Ex. 12 2. P. M. Notes Ex. 18 3. Inquest panchnama Ex. 20 4. Panchnama of the scene of offence Ex. 21 5. Map of the scene of offence Ex. 22 6. F. I. R. lodged by accused on 03. 09. 95 Ex. 23 7. Panchnama of the clothes of the Ex. 33 Deceased 8. Medical certificate issued by Dr. Tank Ex. 39 9. Carbon copy of dying declaration Ex. 46 10. Bunch of case papers produced by Ex. 51 Dr. Juneja 11. Discovery panchnama of the knife Ex. 56 drawn u/s. 27 of Indian Evidence Act 12. Report of F. S. L. Ex. 59 13. Report of the Serologist Ex. 60 in support of their case against the accused. ( 6 ) AFTER recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were brought to the notice of and explained to the accused and whatever replies he gave to the questions put under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , were recorded below his plea. The accused has, practically, denied the case of the prosecution and his defence is of a general denial. Still however, he has admitted certain facts. In reply to question No. 5, he has replied that he had illicit relations with Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji and that he was beaten by Mansukh (deceased) for which a case was tried. The accused has, practically, denied the case of the prosecution and his defence is of a general denial. Still however, he has admitted certain facts. In reply to question No. 5, he has replied that he had illicit relations with Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji and that he was beaten by Mansukh (deceased) for which a case was tried. In reply to question No. 57, he has replied that Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji was not abandoning him and she was giving him threats that she would commit suicide, if she would not be taken away by him and, therefore, he consumed poisonous drug. He has also admitted that he had illicit relations with her since last four years. He has filed his written reply Ex. 62. It is the defence pleaded in written reply Ex. 62, that witness P. W. 1 Nathabhai is a relative of the deceased Mansukh and that he (accused) had illicit relations with Lila, who is a wife of elder brother of the deceased Mansukh. It is further the defence of the accused that he wanted to abandon Lila, but she was not willing to leave him, as a result of which the whole village was against him and was keeping an inimical relation with him. It is also the defence of the accused that on the basis of the doubt and in collusion with each other, the witnesses have falsely implicated him in the case and that he has not committed a murder of Mansukh. He has denied the evidence of witnesses, witness wise. In para-13 of his written reply, Ex. 62, the accused has stated that P. W. 15 Dhirajlal Ratilal Dave (Executive Magistrate) has not recorded his any dying declaration and that he was not conscious in Chotila Hospital and that he has not signed any dying declaration. Alleged original dying declaration is lost and, therefore, Dhirajlal (Executive Magistrate) has produced carbon copy which has been concocted subsequently. In last para of the written reply Ex. 62, the accused has advanced his case, that because of his illicit relations with Lila, the whole village was against him and was keeping inimical relation with him and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further stated that on the date of the incident, he was present in his own house. 62, the accused has advanced his case, that because of his illicit relations with Lila, the whole village was against him and was keeping inimical relation with him and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further stated that on the date of the incident, he was present in his own house. Lila was not leaving him and she wanted to keep the relations continued with him, forcibly and, therefore, he felt that it was not good for him to survive and, therefore, at 8. 00 P. M. he consumed a poisonous drug and, thereafter, he became complete unconscious. He has further stated that he became conscious on date 3rd or 4th and during that interregnum, he has been falsely implicated and roped in the case and further that he is an innocent. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, after hearing the arguments of the learned advocates for both the parties and after making an examination, scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Judge of the trial Court has come to the conclusions that the the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused committed a murder of Mansukh and that the accused has committed a breach of notification of the District Magistrate. On the basis of the said conclusions, he has given a clear finding that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. On the basis of this finding, the learned Judge of the trial Court, by rendering his detailed judgment Ex. 64 dated 15. 01. 1998 in aforesaid Sessions Case No. 4 of 1996, convicted the accused under Section 235 (2) of Cr. P. C. for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and inflicted different sentences as stated in para-1 hereinabove. ( 8 ) BEING aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has, by preferring this present Criminal Appeal, challenged the said judgment, Ex. 64. ( 9 ) WE have heard Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned senior advocate for the appellant - accused and Mr. P. R. Abichandani, learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat, in detail, at length. Mr. Vyas and Mr. 64. ( 9 ) WE have heard Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned senior advocate for the appellant - accused and Mr. P. R. Abichandani, learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat, in detail, at length. Mr. Vyas and Mr. Abichandani have taken us through the entire evidence on record, oral as well as documentary. Mr. Abichandani has also taken us through the impugned judgment. ( 10 ) MR. D. D. VYAS, learned senior advocate for the accused has assailed the impugned judgment on the following counts. [a] the learned Judge of the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly in its proper perspective. [b] the evidence of alleged eye witness P. W. 2 Virabhai is not trustworthy and reliable as there are so many infirmities and major contradictions in his evidence. His presence at the place of incident is very much doubtful and further his evidence is not probable because at the alleged time of the incident, there was no electricity light and, therefore, he had no opportunity to see the assailant in the darkness. His conduct is most unnatural and, therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court has grossly erred in placing reliance on the evidence of P. W. 2 Virabhai. He has argued that the evidence of P. W. 2 Virabhai should be discarded by this Court for coming to its own conclusion. [c] for three other witnesses, P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai P. W. 4 Premjibhai, and P. W. 6 Panchabhai, who had, as alleged by the prosecution, seen the accused armed with the knife running away from that place, he has argued that their evidence is full of major contradictions and in the absence of electricity light, they could not have seen anything and, therefore, their evidence being doubtful, should not be taken into consideration. [d] the aforesaid four witnesses as well as complainant are closely related to the deceased Mansukh and, therefore, they are highly interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence should be discarded at the time of appreciation of the evidence on record. [e] he has argued that as per the evidence of P. W. 2 Virabhai, before the incident took place, three persons were sleeping on the Chora of temple and amongst them one was Rama Deva, second was deceased Mansukh and third was he himself. Mr. [e] he has argued that as per the evidence of P. W. 2 Virabhai, before the incident took place, three persons were sleeping on the Chora of temple and amongst them one was Rama Deva, second was deceased Mansukh and third was he himself. Mr. Vyas has argued that the prosecution has purposely not examined Rama Deva whose house is shown towards the West leaving the road leading to Sarvaiya Fali, in the Map Ex. 22. He has further argued that Rama Deva was an eye witness to the incident, as per the case of the prosecution and, therefore, he was most material important witness of the prosecution and as he has been dropped, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution that had he deposed before the Court, perhaps quite contrary and different facts might have been deposed to by Rama Deva. [f] he has argued that the prosecution has put much stress on alleged dying declaration Ex. 46 recorded by P. W. 15 Dhirajlal (Executive Magistrate ). He has argued that fortunately the accused has survived, after consuming poisonous drug and, therefore, in no case Ex. 46 can be said to be a dying declaration relevant under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also argued that the said statement Ex. 46, cannot be said to be a statement under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. because right from the dispensary of P. W. 11 Dr. Dhanjibhai of Bedala to Chotila Hospital, the accused was under constant police surveillance and, therefore, the said statement Ex. 46 is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. [g] he has argued that it is the case of the prosecution that the said statement Ex. 46 as alleged by the prosecution was recorded during the period between 18. 40 hours and 18. 58 hours on 02. 10. 1995, when the accused was under medical treatment in Chotila Hospital, but as per the evidence of P. W. 17 Dr. Juneja, the accused was admitted in the Referral Hospital of Chotila at 20. 00 hours and, therefore, ex-facie said statement Ex. 46 appears to be false and concocted, because he was admitted in Chotila Hospital at 20. 00 hours. He has argued that in view of this evidence on record for Ex. Juneja, the accused was admitted in the Referral Hospital of Chotila at 20. 00 hours and, therefore, ex-facie said statement Ex. 46 appears to be false and concocted, because he was admitted in Chotila Hospital at 20. 00 hours. He has argued that in view of this evidence on record for Ex. 46, said statement is inadmissible in evidence because original primary evidence is missing and the prosecution wants to place reliance on carbon copy which is a secondary evidence. [h] mr. Vyas has argued that it is in evidence on record that before 03. 09. 1995, this accused had lodged one complaint being C. R. No. I-111/95 against Laxman Ramji and Mansukh Ramji in Chotila Police Station and that complaint is on record Ex. 23. This complaint Ex. 23 has been exhibited with the consent of defence lawyer. The learned defence lawyer put his consenting endorsement below list Ex. 10 for the documents Mark 10/1 and 10/15 and wrote that he has no objection if said two documents are exhibited and be read as evidence and, therefore, it can be said that this Ex. 23 is admitted document for the accused. Mr. Vyas has argued that as per this complaint Ex. 23 any time before 03. 09. 1995, the accused and Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji had gone to enjoy the fair of Tarnetar and Than and they both were seen by Laxman and his brother and, therefore, by bearing malice the accused was beaten in Chowk of village Navagam (Bamanbor) at about 21. 00 hours on 03. 09. 1995. As per this complaint Ex. 23, Laxman Ramji and Mansukh Ramji both had abused present accused and in the course of verbal altercation, both Laxman Ramji and Mansukh Ramji got excited and inflicted iron pipe blows on person of Mansukh and Laxman inflicted iron pipe blow on the head of the accused and Mansukh inflicted iron pipe blow on left shoulder of the accused and in that incident, the present accused was seriously injured for which he lodged the said complaint for offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 114 of I. P. C. and also Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. Mr. Vyas has argued that because of this complaint Ex. 23, which was lodged by the present accused, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Mr. Vyas has argued that because of this complaint Ex. 23, which was lodged by the present accused, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has argued that admittedly, there were inimical relations in between Laxman and Mansukh on one side and accused on the other side, because of illicit relations of accused with Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji. Mr. Vyas has argued that because of this inimical relation, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. He has argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has not considered this aspect of inimical relations of complainants side with accused. [i] the prosecution has placed reliance on the alleged discovery panchnama Ex. 56 drawn under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mr. Vyas has argued that panch witnesses have not supported the case for this panchnama Ex. 56 and P. W. 19 P. S. I. Kharadi has not deposed to prove the necessary ingredients of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, this panchnama Ex. 56 should not have been relied on by the learned Judge of the trial Court. [j] mr. Vyas has argued that till 06. 10. 1995, the accused was not arrested, though he was very much present before the police and, therefore, there is a reason to believe that till 06. 10. 1995, there was no evidence evidence against the accused and subsequently, he has been implicated falsely in the case. [k] lastly, Mr. Vyas has argued that considering the entire set of facts and circumstances, the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused and, therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court has grossly erred in holding the accused guilty for an offence of murder of Mansukh. He has argued that considering the submissions made by him, the accused - appellant be acquitted by allowing his appeal. ( 11 ) MR. P. R. ABICHANDANI, learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence, through out. He has argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He has argued that witnesses P. W. 2 Virabhai, P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai, P. W. 4 Premjibhai and P. W. 6 Panchabhai are natural and independent witnesses. He has argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He has argued that witnesses P. W. 2 Virabhai, P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai, P. W. 4 Premjibhai and P. W. 6 Panchabhai are natural and independent witnesses. They are real eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence, as held by the learned Judge of the trial Court, is reliable and trustworthy, and their evidence inspires confidence. He has further argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of these four important witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly. He has argued that the evidence of these four important witnesses stands corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the discovery panchnama Ex. 56. He has further argued that muddamal knife, which was discovered at the instance of the accused was sent to F. S. L. and as per the report of Serologist Ex. 16, Item No. 12, which was a blood sample of the deceased collected by P. W. 16 Dr. Rathod was human blood of "a" group and, therefore, blood found on the knife and blood of the deceased matched with each other. He has argued that the evidence of all the four important witnesses gets corroboration from the statement Ex. 46 recorded by P. W. 15 Dhirajlal (Executive Magistrate ). He has made it clear that Ex. 46 is neither a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act nor a statement under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. He has argued that this statement Ex. 46 is an extra judicial confession of the accused made to P. W. 15 Dhirajlal, who is an independent public officer. He is an independent witness having no interest, either in the case of the prosecution or to grind axe against the accused. He has argued that the said statement Ex. 46 is rightly admitted in the evidence and the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on this statement Ex. 46. He has argued that if, we read written reply Ex. 62 filed by the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. together with the said statement Ex. 46, we find that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 46. He has argued that if, we read written reply Ex. 62 filed by the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. together with the said statement Ex. 46, we find that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that the accused has admitted that he had illicit relations with Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji and it was not liked by the family members of Lila and the residents of village, but there is no material on record to indicate that he has been implicated falsely. A suggestion in the case, cannot take place of proof and, therefore, the contention taken by Mr. Vyas requires to be rejected. He has further argued that I. O. had good reasons not to arrest the accused till 06. 10. 1995, as the accused was under medical treatment till 05. 10. 1995. Merely because accused was arrested late after five days, it will not destroy the case of the prosecution. He has argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has carefully appreciated the evidence on record and by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, he has come to a conclusion that the accused is guilty for an offence of the murder of Mansukh. Lastly, he has argued that in view of his submissions, the appeal lacks merit and, therefore, it be dismissed, by confirming the judgment in question. ( 12 ) WE have dispassionately considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for both the parties. We have carefully and minutely examined the evidence on record. We have made thorough examination scrutiny and re-appreciation of the evidence on record to come to our own conclusions to decide this appeal. We have perused the impugned judgment, which is challenged in this appeal. We have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case, which have been called for from the trial Court. ( 13 ) DURING the course of arguments, Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant/accused has fairly conceded that there is no serious dispute with regard to factum that Mansukh died homicidal death. Mr. Vyas has argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has not separately decided a point with regard to nature of death of Mansukh. Mr. Vyas has also argued that in paras 18 and 19 of the judgment Ex. Mr. Vyas has argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has not separately decided a point with regard to nature of death of Mansukh. Mr. Vyas has also argued that in paras 18 and 19 of the judgment Ex. 64, the learned Judge of the trial Court has discussed the medical evidence, but he has not come to a specific conclusion that the Mansukh died homicidal death. 13. 1 in view of this, we have examined the evidence on record, the prosecution has produced the inquest panchnama. Defence lawyer has admitted the said inquest panchnama, as per his endorsement made below Ex. 10 and, therefore, Mark 10/10 has been admitted in the evidence and it has been exhibited as Ex. 20. There was one wound near umbilicus and another wound on the left side of the chest of Mansukh. The senior police head constable of Chotila Police Station, who had gone to Rajkot Civil Hospital, had drawn this inquest panchnama Ex. 20 and after drawing that inquest panchnama Ex. 20, he wrote a Yadi Ex. 17 and, thereafter, he sent, deadbody of Mansukh along with Yadi Ex. 17 a copy of inquest panchnama Ex. 20 and prescribed death form to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rajkot for autopsy. 13. 2 the prosecution has examined P. W. 5 Dr. Rathod (Ex. 16), who performed postmortem on deadbody of Mansukh which was sent along with a Yadi Ex. 17. He has deposed that on 02. 10. 1995, he was performing his duty as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Rajkot and at about 00. 30 hours (night), one Mansukh Ramjibhai Koli was brought in the emergency ward of the said Hospital. On examination, he found that it was a deadbody of Mansukh. Thereafter, doctor on duty informed the police. He has further deposed that in the morning at 5. 00 A. M. , he received that deadbody of Mansukh along with a Yadi Ex. 17 for postmortem. He started performing postmortem at 7. 00 A. M. and completed it at 8. 45 A. M. As per his evidence, he found the following external injuries, which he noted down in para-17 of P. M. Notes Ex. 18. [1] An incised stab wound in 8th intercostal space medial to left mid clavicula line 1" x 1/2" x cavity deep oblique. 00 A. M. and completed it at 8. 45 A. M. As per his evidence, he found the following external injuries, which he noted down in para-17 of P. M. Notes Ex. 18. [1] An incised stab wound in 8th intercostal space medial to left mid clavicula line 1" x 1/2" x cavity deep oblique. [2] An incised stab wound in 6th intercostal space in left mid axillary line 1" x 1/2" x cavity deep transeversus. [3] An incised stab wound on back on left side on lower 1/3" 3/4" x 1/4" x cavity deep oblique. [4] An incised would on right middle finger and palm 1 1/2" x 1/2" x skin deep. He has further deposed that he found following internal injuries. [1] pleura : An incised stab wound on left middle lob pleura 2" x 1/2". [2] left : an incised wound on left middle lung lob on anterior surface 2" x 1/2" x 2". [3] pericardium : on posterior surface an incised an incised wound 1/2" x 1/2". [4] heart : an incised wound on posterior wall of left ventricular 1/2" x 1/2" x cavity deep. He has further deposed that the aforesaid injuries were antemortem and the said injuries were sufficient to cause the death of Mansukh. He has given his opinion in para-23 of P. M. Notes, Ex. 18, as to the cause of death, as follows. "final cause of death is shock due to extensive haemorrhage and due to injury of vital organs. "this witness was shown muddamal article No. 11 a knife and on seeing that knife, he has opined that the aforesaid injuries could be possible by this knife. On giving cumulative effect to the evidence of an inquest panchnama Ex. 20 and the P. M. Notes Ex. 18 read with oral testimony of P. W. 5 Dr. Rathod, Ex. 16, it is crystal clear that Mansukh died homicidal death. ( 14 ) NOW this takes us to decide, as to who was the author of injuries sustained by Mansukh which were noticed by Dr. Rathod. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused inflicted blows of knife on the body of Mansukh, as a result of which Mansukh sustained aforesaid injuries and as a direct result of that injuries, Mansukh died. To prove this case, the prosecution has placed reliance on the following evidence. Rathod. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused inflicted blows of knife on the body of Mansukh, as a result of which Mansukh sustained aforesaid injuries and as a direct result of that injuries, Mansukh died. To prove this case, the prosecution has placed reliance on the following evidence. [1] On the point of motive :- the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P. W. 10 - Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji together with F. I. R. Ex. 23 lodged by the accused and his written reply Ex. 62 filed in his further statement under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. [2] Eye witness to the incident :- P. W. 2 Virabhai, P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai, P. W. 4 Premjibhai and P. W. 6 Panchabhai. [3] Discovery panchnama Ex. 56 :- Under which a muddamal article No. 11 a knife which was concealed by the accused and traced out by him in presence of panch witnesses. [4] Report of F. S. L. , Ex. 59. [5] Statement Ex. 46 recorded by P. W. 15 Mr. Dave, [executive Magistrate]. ( 15 ) FIRST we would like to consider the evidence with regard to the mens-rea of the accused. From the very beginning, it is the case of the prosecution that since four years before the date of the incident, the accused was having illicit relations with P. W. 10 Lila, who is wife of Laxman Ramji, elder brother of the deceased Mansukh. Certainly such relations are not socially acceptable by the near relatives of the husband of the lady with whom such affairs are going on and, therefore, because of this type of illicit relations of the accused with Lila before 03. 09. 1995, the quarrels in between accused on one side and brother of Laxman on otherside were being taken place. It is the case of the prosecution that before 03. 09. 1995, the accused and Lila, both had gone to enjoy fair of Tarnetar and Than and they both were seen by Laxman and Mansukh. The prosecution has produced one copy of F. I. R. being C. R. No. I-111/95 of Chotila Police Station, at Ex. 23. As it was admitted by the defence lawyer for being admitted in the evidence, it has been exhibited and, therefore, it can be said that there is no dispute with regard to contents of Ex. 23. The prosecution has produced one copy of F. I. R. being C. R. No. I-111/95 of Chotila Police Station, at Ex. 23. As it was admitted by the defence lawyer for being admitted in the evidence, it has been exhibited and, therefore, it can be said that there is no dispute with regard to contents of Ex. 23. As per this F. I. R. lodged by the present accused against Laxman (husband of Lila) and deceased Mansukh, at about 9. 00 P. M. on 03. 09. 1995, quarrel took place in between accused on one side and Laxman and deceased Mansukh on otherside in the chowk of village Navagam (Bamanbor) and in that quarrel, both the accused of that case i. e. Laxman and Mansukh, were armed with iron pipe. From F. I. R. Ex. 23, it also appears that Laxman (husband of Lila) had reprimanded the present accused saying, as to why he was not abandoning Lila and in that incident, verbal altercation took place in between both the parties and during the course of the said verbal altercation Laxman got excited and he inflicted an iron pipe blow on the head of the present accused and Mansukh (deceased) also inflicted iron pipe blow on the left shoulder of the present accused, as a result of which the present accused was seriously injured and, therefore, he lodged the complaint Ex. 23 against the said two brothers at 23. 00 hours on the same day in Chotila Police Station. Thus there is no dispute from the side of accused for illicit relations of the accused with Lila. Accused himself has admitted in para-1 of his written reply Ex. 62 that since long, he had illicit relations with Lila w/o. Laxman, the brother of deceased Mansukh. He has also stated in the last para of written reply Ex. 62 that because of his illicit relation with Lila, the whole village was against him. The prosecution has also relied on P. W. 10 Lilaben Laxmanbhai. She has admitted in para-1 of her evidence that this incident took place because of her illicit relation with Bhopa i. e. present accused. She has also admitted in her evidence that as she had illicit relation with Bhopa, she was driven out from the house of her in-laws. The prosecution has also relied on P. W. 10 Lilaben Laxmanbhai. She has admitted in para-1 of her evidence that this incident took place because of her illicit relation with Bhopa i. e. present accused. She has also admitted in her evidence that as she had illicit relation with Bhopa, she was driven out from the house of her in-laws. She has further admitted that such type of illicit relation is going on with her since one and half year. In view of the above reasons, the quarrel took place on 03. 09. 1995 and in that incident, the present accused was beaten and injured by the husband of Lila and deceased Mansukh, a younger brother of the husband of Lila. It is the case of the prosecution that because of this incident which took place on 03. 09. 1995, the present accused was bearing malice against the deceased Mansukh and, therefore, to take a revenge, the present accused attacked and assaulted on the deceased Mansukh by inflicting blows with a knife. So the prosecution has come with a specific case that, because of inimical relation and particularly, by keeping in mind the aforesaid incident which took place on 03. 09. 1995, the accused made an assault on Mansukh. ( 16 ) MR. VYAS has argued that the fact of inimical relations is a double edged weapon. It can be inferred that because of this inimical relation, the brother of deceased Mansukh has falsely implicated the present accused. He has further argued that when there are two views possible, one in favour of accused and another against the accused, then the view which is in favour of the accused, should be accepted and in that case, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. ( 17 ) WE have come across a case of ANIL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, reported in AIR 2001 S. C. 3173, wherein it has been held as follows :-"enmity is a double edged weapon which can be a motive for the crime as also the ground for false implication of the accused persons. In case of inimical witnesses, the Courts are required to scrutinize their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence to be acceptable notwithstanding the existence of enmity. In case of inimical witnesses, the Courts are required to scrutinize their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence to be acceptable notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Where enmity is proved to be the motive for the commission of the crime, the accused cannot urge that despite proof of the motive of the crime, the witnesses proved to be inimical should not be relied upon. Bitter animosity held to be a double edged weapon may be instrumental for false involvement or for the witnesses inferring and strongly believing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. Such possibility has to be kept in mind while evaluating the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. Testimony of eye witnesses, which is otherwise convincing and consistent, cannot be discarded simply on the ground that the deceased were related to the eye-witnesses or previously there were some disputes between the accused and the deceased or the witnesses. The existence of animosity between the accused and the witnesses may, in some cases, give rise to the possibility of the witnesses exaggerating the role of some of the accused of trying to rope in more persons as accused persons for the commission of the crime. Such a possibility is required to be ascertained on the facts of each case. However, the mere existence of enmity particularly when it is alleged as a motive for the commission of the crime cannot be made a basis to discard or reject the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the deposition of whom is otherwise consistent and convincing. " ( 18 ) APPLYING the aforesaid principles of law with regard to appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, who have animosity with the accused, to the facts of this case, we find that the prosecution has come with a specific case of motive and the facts stated for such motive are not in dispute from the side of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has ably proved their case with regard to motive in the case. ( 19 ) NOW this takes us to decide as to who was author of the injuries sustained by the deceased Mansukh. Here in this case, there is a direct evidence of P. W. 2 Virabhai Ukabhai, Ex. 13, who is an eye witness to the incident. ( 19 ) NOW this takes us to decide as to who was author of the injuries sustained by the deceased Mansukh. Here in this case, there is a direct evidence of P. W. 2 Virabhai Ukabhai, Ex. 13, who is an eye witness to the incident. He has deposed in his evidence that a program of of regional folk - dance (Garbi) during "navaratri" holidays was being held near the Thakar Temple and on the night of the fateful incident, he, Rama Deva and Mansukh Ramji were sleeping in the Thakar Temple. He has further deposed that when he was sleeping, Bhopa Premji came and inflicted knife blows to Mansukh and that foot of accused touched with a loose ladder, which was put in horizontal condition, as a result of which ladder fell down and he wake up and shouted "run run knife blow is being inflicted". He has further deposed that after waking up, he saw that the accused was inflicting knife blows and that Bhopa Premji had inflicted knife blows to Mansukh. He has further deposed that as Bhopa Premji is a boy resident of their village, he was knowing him. He identified the accused before the trial Court. He has further deposed that after he raised shouts, Sarpanch, Premji Sardul, Dhama Deva, Ghogha Rama, Pancha Sura immediately rushed to the place. He has further deposed that as he shouted, Bhopa Premji fled from the place. He has further deposed that after persons gathered there, Premji Sardul had tied a bandage to Mansukh and, thereafter, Sama Sura, who is uncle of Mansukh and his brothers Natho and Vinu came there. He has further deposed that thereafter, Mansukh was taken first to the residence and, thereafter, he was, by taking him in a matador of Rabari Ratna, shifted to Rajkot Hospital. He has further deposed that later on, he came to know that Mansukh expired. He has further deposed that he did not know as to why Mansukh was beaten and that he dictated the statement to the police. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not go with the persons, who took Mansukh to the residence. He has further deposed that later on, he came to know that Mansukh expired. He has further deposed that he did not know as to why Mansukh was beaten and that he dictated the statement to the police. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not go with the persons, who took Mansukh to the residence. He has further testified that he did not tell them to lodge a complaint to the effect that the accused had injured Mansukh and that he did not go to some factory for making a phone to police for lodging the complaint. He has further deposed that he only shouted "run run knife blow is being inflicted". He has further deposed that after Mansukh was taken to the Hospital, none of them had gone to Police Out Post for lodging the complaint. He has further deposed that he was not aware about the illicit relations of Bhopa with Lila w/o. Laxman Ramji. He was confronted with his police statement and he has stated that it was not true that he stated before the police to the effect that Bhopa Premji had illicit relation with Lila, who is a wife of brother of Mankush and, therefore, quarrels were being taken place and that recently one month before, Mansukh had beaten Bhopa in connection with this relation and for that a complaint had been lodged in Chotila Police Station. He has further deposed that since one year, he has difficulty of hard of hearing, but before that he was properly hearing. He has further deposed that by shouting, he awoke Rama Deva and at that time, Bhopa fled and that he had no talk with regard to incident with Rama Deva. He has further deposed that on hearing the noise of fall of loose ladder, he woke up and saw the occurrence of the incident. He has further deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the police. He has further deposed that Mansukh was sleeping at a distance of 15 to 20 feet from him. The loose ladder was put touching the eastern side wall and that ladder fell horizontally just adjacent to that wall. He has further deposed that it had not so happened that there was a scuffle in between Mansukh and accused and that he was injured, when he was sleeping. The loose ladder was put touching the eastern side wall and that ladder fell horizontally just adjacent to that wall. He has further deposed that it had not so happened that there was a scuffle in between Mansukh and accused and that he was injured, when he was sleeping. ( 20 ) P. W. 3 Ghoghabhai Ramjibhai, Ex. 14 has deposed that a program of regional folk dance (Garbi) during "navaratri" days was being held at Thakar Temple. He has further deposed that Mansukh died before last more than two years and on that day, it was the first day of the month and that they were the days of Navaratri. He has further deposed that he was present in the chowk of Mataji. With regard to the incident, he has further deposed that when they were present in the chowk, they heard the noise and, therefore, their attention was drawn to that side from where the noise came and they saw that Bhopa Premji, by taking with him a knife, getting down the steps of the temple and Bhopa might have gone towards the eastern side. He has further deposed that they went inside the temple, and saw that Mansukh was lying in bleeding condition and there was injury like wound on his abdomen. He has further deposed that Premji had tied a bandage on the wound. He has further deposed that he knows Bhopa, who was going away with the knife. He identified the accused before the trial Court. He has also deposed that he saw him (accused) getting down the steps of temple and, thereafter, the uncle of Mansukh and others took him to Rajkot where he died. He has further deposed that the police came to their village in the morning and police had interrogated him. He has further deposed that he stated before the police about the facts which had happened. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that after Mansukh was taken away from the place, he went to his house and they slept. On the next day, after 6. 00 A. M. , a peon of village panchayat came to call him. He has further deposed that he came to know that Mansukh expired, when his relatives brought his deadbody to the village at about 12. 00 noon. On the next day, after 6. 00 A. M. , a peon of village panchayat came to call him. He has further deposed that he came to know that Mansukh expired, when his relatives brought his deadbody to the village at about 12. 00 noon. He has further deposed that at that time, he was present in his field and when he returned to village at about 3. 00 P. M. to 4. 00 P. M. , he came to know that Mansukh had expired. He has further deposed that police had recorded his statement before he came to know about the death of Mansukh and that he had no knowledge about the death of Mansukh, when the police had recorded the statement. He has further deposed that the police had recorded his statement at 7. 30 A. M. in the morning. He has further deposed that the house of the accused is at a distance of 15 to 20 feet from the temple. He testified before the trial Court that on that day at about 8. 30 P. M. or 9. 00 P. M. , there was failure of electricity supply and, therefore, Premjibhai had gone to connect "dyio" (It seems that he wants to convey D. P. a place where fuse-wire of electricity is being connected and by connecting fuse-wire, electricity supply is restored ). He has further deposed that Premjibhai returned, after connecting fuse at D. P. at about 10. 30 P. M. to 10. 45 P. M. He has further deposed that on his return, they went to chowk and, thereafter, they heard a noise of shout. This witness has denied a suggestion that when there was a noise of shout, there was darkness at the place. He has further deposed that Limbabhai and he, chased the accused for about five to ten feet but they did not run behind him upto his house. He has further deposed that other persons were shouting to catch hold of him. Possibly a question was put to him, as to why they did not run behind assailant to catch hold of him and in reply to that question, he replied that who would go to catch hold of him. He has further deposed that on the next day in the after noon, his statement was recorded. Possibly a question was put to him, as to why they did not run behind assailant to catch hold of him and in reply to that question, he replied that who would go to catch hold of him. He has further deposed that on the next day in the after noon, his statement was recorded. He has further deposed that about 7-8 persons were present there at the place of regional folk dance (Garbi) and further that the program of regional folk dance (Garbi) was to commence after electricity supply was restored. He has further deposed that the program of regional folk dance (Garbi) did not commence as there was no electricity supply. A case has been suggested that he was giving evidence falsely and he has denied that suggestion. .