Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 148 (UTT)

Santri Lal v. State of U. P.

2004-08-11

B.C.KANDPAL, M.M.GHILDIYAL

body2004
Judgment This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Santri Lal, against the judgment and order dated 30-08-1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, convicting him u/s 302, 394/397 and 324 IPC and sentencing for life (u/s 302 IPC), 7 years' rigorous imprisonment (u/s 394/397 IPC) and 2 years' rigorous imprisonment (u/s 324 IPC). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Santri Lal on 04-04-1982 at about 8: 15 a.m. at Uttarkashi, Bhatwari Motor Road Gawana bend intentionally or knowingly committed murder of Smt. Ujela Devi W/o Ram Kishan. According to the prosecution, Sri Ram Kishan alongwith his wife deceased Ujela Devi were going from Uttarkashi to their Village Bayana, Patti Nalol Kathoor, district Uttarkashi on foot. As soon as they reached at Gawana motor road bend, a road to their village, the accused/appellant- Santri Lal (hereinafter called as appellant) appeared at the scene of the occurrence and tried to snatch the gold Timania (an ornament which is put on the neck) from Smt. Ujela Devi. On making resistance by Smt. Ujela Devi, the appellant took out his knife and gave knife blow on the wrist of Smt. Ujeia Devi. The complainant Ram Kishan (husband of Smt. Ujela Devi) resisted the attempt to robbing his wife. Then the appellant, in turn, gave knife blows to Ram Kishan causing injuries on his person. The appellant, thereafter gave more serious blows of knife at the breast and ribs of Smt. Ujela Devi causing her fatal injuries with the result SmL Ujela Dev; fell down on earth and died instantaneously. The appellant cut away the gold Timania from the neck of the deceased and made his escape good from the place of the occurrence. 3. On raising alarm by Ram Kishan and Ujela Devi, Kameshwar Prasad (PW5) reached on the place of occurrence and found that Smt. Ujela Devi was lying dead on the road. 4. Ram Kishan (PW7), husband of deceased Ujela Devi, dictated the report to one Prem Singh on 04-04-1982 (Ext.ka-1) and sent the same to the police station Uttarkashi through Kirti Singh (son-in-law of Ram Kishan) who lodged the same on the same day i.e. 04-04-1982 at 10:00 a.m. On the basis of the Chick report, a case was registered u/s 302, 394 IPC and immediately the Station Officer P.S. Uttarkashi- Sri K.R. Arya took up investigation and reached at the spot. The Investigating Officer found one Moonga alongwith small glass beads and the thread of the Timania on the spot. The I.O. prepared inquest report and collected bloodstained earth, and also took in his possession the thread of Timani a and Moonga and other glass beads of Timani a scattered at the spot. The I.O. prepared "Furd" (recovery memo) of all the articles and then sealed the dead body in order to send the same to the mortuary. 5. The injured Ram Kishan was medically examined by Dr. Sahdeo Kumar (PW4) at district hospital, Uttarkashi on 04-04-1982 at 2:20 p.m. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Ram Kishan :- 1. Incised would over scalp 3.5cm. x 2mm. Skull deep, 8.Scm. above the root of left ear and 6 cm. above the left eye brow. Blood oozing out. 2. Incised wound 1cm. x 0.1mm. on left side of face 2.Scm. from root of ear. Blood oozing out. 3. 1.Scm. abrasion joint below the left ear over the mandible. Colour reddish brown. 6. The doctor found all the injuries simple in nature and opined that injury no. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp cutting weapon while injury no. 3 was caused by blunt object. 7. Autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Smt. Ujela Devi on the same day i.e. 04-04-1982 at 3:15 p.m. and Dr. M.K. Ghildiyal (PW3) found the following antemortem injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound scalp.2cm. x 0.25cm. skin deep. 2. Stab wound incised in nature size 3cm. x 1cm. about 18cm. or more deep, clean edged. This injury was between 8th & 9th ribs on the right back side. He also found that shirt and coat of the deceased below this injury had been cut over the corresponding area. 3. Incised wound (stab wound) 3cm. x .75cm. more then 14cm. deep present over the front side of left chest 5cm. from left axilla's outside and 8cm. from left clavicle downwards. (This also corresponds with the cut mark in the shirt on left side front side). 4. Incised wound skin deep right forearm near joint. Skin deep size 6cm. x 2cm. x 2cm. 8. On internal examination, the doctor found that both the right and left side pleura were cut and full of blood. He also found that both right and left lungs were lacerated and cut corresponding injury no. 4. Incised wound skin deep right forearm near joint. Skin deep size 6cm. x 2cm. x 2cm. 8. On internal examination, the doctor found that both the right and left side pleura were cut and full of blood. He also found that both right and left lungs were lacerated and cut corresponding injury no. 2 and 3 respectively and both were full of blood. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to antemortem injuries and shock. The duration of the death was between 6 to 8 hrs. 9. The Investigating Officer K.R. Arya- (PW24) prepared site-plan and recorded the statements of eye-witnesses and other formal witnesses. The I.O. thereafter, arrested the appellant on 13-04-1982 and recovered the bloodstained knife on his pointing out. The looted Timania was also recovered on the pointing out of the appellant as well as one golden bead of Timania was also recovered from the shop of a jeweler at Rishikesh on the pointing out of the appellant, 10, The Investigating Officer, after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant u/s 302 and 412 IPC. 11. After the charge-sheet was submitted, the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions and he stood for his trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. 12. The learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi framed charges against the appellant u/s 302, 394/397 and 307 IPC. The appellant denied the charges leveled against him and claimed his trial. 13. The prosecution, in order to support its case, produced 24 witnesses and after the evidence of the prosecution was over, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant produced one witness, namely, DW1 B.S. Negi- Advocate in his defence. 14. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the charges leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge, accordingly, convicted the appellant u/s 302, 394/397 IPC as well as u/s 324 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment (u/s 302 IPC), 7 years' rigorous imprisonment (u/s 394/397 IPC) as well as 2 years' rigorous imprisonment (u/s 324 IPC), vide judgment and order dated 30-08-1983, 15. The learned Sessions Judge, accordingly, convicted the appellant u/s 302, 394/397 IPC as well as u/s 324 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment (u/s 302 IPC), 7 years' rigorous imprisonment (u/s 394/397 IPC) as well as 2 years' rigorous imprisonment (u/s 324 IPC), vide judgment and order dated 30-08-1983, 15. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant Santri Lal preferred the appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which has been received by transfer for disposal after creation of State of Uttaranchal. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 17. Perusal of the record shows that the incident had taken place on 44-1982 at 8:15 a.m. when the complainant Ram Kishan alongwith his wife was going from Uttarkashi to their village Bayana and while these two persons were at Gawana Motor Road Bend, on route to their village, accused/appellant (hereinafter called as appellant) came over there and tried to snatch away the gold Timania from the neck of Smt, Ujela Devi. Smt, Ujela Devi resisted the attempt made by the appellant and the appellant, in turn, took out his knife and gave a blow, which caused injuries at the wrist of Smt. Ujela Devi. Sri Ram Kishan gave Lathi blow in order to resist the attempt of robbery then the appellant also gave knife blow to Ram Kishan. The appellant, thereafter caused more severe knife blows on the chest and ribs of Smt. Ujela Devi, causing her death at the spot. The appellant thereafter cut the gold Timania from the neck of Smt. Ujela Devi and made his escape good from the place of occurrence towards the nearby jungle. 18. On raising the alarm by the complainant Ram Kishan, certain persons who were working on their fields reached at the spot and they also saw the appellant running from the place of occurrence after having committed loot. 19. The complainant, thereafter got the written report scribed by one Prem Singh (PW1) at the spot and called his son-in-law Kirti Singh who arrived at the spot. The complainant handed over the written report to his son-in-law who submitted the written report at police station, Uttarkashi on 4-4-1982 at 10:00 a.m. 20. 19. The complainant, thereafter got the written report scribed by one Prem Singh (PW1) at the spot and called his son-in-law Kirti Singh who arrived at the spot. The complainant handed over the written report to his son-in-law who submitted the written report at police station, Uttarkashi on 4-4-1982 at 10:00 a.m. 20. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 4-4-1982 at 8: 15 a.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is about 8 kms. 21. P.W.1 Prem Singh, who is the scribe of the first information report has stated in his deposition that on 4-4-1982 he was present at his tea-stall which is at a distance of about 1/2 k.m. from the place of occurrence and he heard from a taxi driver with regard to this incident, he then went to the spot and saw that Ram Kishan was present there in an injured state while his wife was lying dead on the road. This witness has stated that thereafter he scribed the First Information Report Ext.A-1 on the saying of Ram Kishan. 22. P.W.7 Ram Kishan who is the informant as well as the injured witness has stated in his deposition that immediately after the occurrence he saw the taxi driver and requested him to intimate the incident to his son-in-law and send him to me. This witness has stated that Prem Singh came on the spot and he got the written report scribed by Prem Singh. Thereafter he handed over that report to his son-in-law Kirti Singh who submitted this report at the police station and thereafter the case was registered against the appellant. 23. The statement of P.W. 15 Head Constable Sri Puroshottam Prasad is also relevant as he has stated that he was posted at police station Uttarkashi on 4-4-1982 as Head Constable and on that day at about 10:00 a.m. Kirti Singh came to the police station concerned alongwith the report Ext. A-1 and submitted the same at police station. 24. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it is quite clear that there is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. at police station Kotwali, Uttarkashi. In view of the prompt F.I.R., there can't be any possibility of false implication of the appellant in this case. A-1 and submitted the same at police station. 24. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it is quite clear that there is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. at police station Kotwali, Uttarkashi. In view of the prompt F.I.R., there can't be any possibility of false implication of the appellant in this case. Moreover, the possibility of any kind of manipulation or concoction by the complainant or by the police against the appellant is also ruled out. 25. The second important circumstance in the present case is that there is complete corroboration between the ocular and the medical version. We perused the statement of injured witness Ram Kishan who is the informant of this case, and it reveals that he is a person who was in the company of the deceased Ujela Devi. He has stated that the appellant tried to snatch the gold Timania from the neck of his wife Smt. Ujela Devi and when she resisted then the appellant caused knife blow at her wrist. This witness has further stated that when he assaulted Lathi the appellant then the appellant also assaulted the complainant Ram Kishan. Thereafter, the appellant caused several blows on the person of Smt. Ujela Devi and when she fell down on earth on account of those injuries, the appellant cut the gold Timania from the neck of Smt. Ujela Devi and ran away from the place of occurrence. 26. Injured Ram Kishan was medically examined in the hospital on 4-4-1982 at 2:20 p.m. and the doctor (PW4 Santosh Kumar) opined that all. the injuries on the person of Ram Kishan were fresh in nature. The doctor also opined that the injuries could be caused by the knife. The doctor found two incised wounds on the person of Ram Kishan and one abrasion. One incised wound was found over skull and depth of which was skull deep and another incised wound was found on the left side of face. 27. Therefore, from the perusal of the injuries on the person of Ram Kishan, it is quite clear that the testimony of Ram Kishan with regard to the manner of the incident as has been alleged before the court by him, cannot be doubted. 27. Therefore, from the perusal of the injuries on the person of Ram Kishan, it is quite clear that the testimony of Ram Kishan with regard to the manner of the incident as has been alleged before the court by him, cannot be doubted. Ram Kishan has specifically stated that the appellant gave a knife blow on his head and this part of the statement of Ram Kishan finds absolute corroboration with the medical evidence. 28. Moreover, the postmortem report, which was conducted by Dr. M.K. Ghildiyal on 4-4-1982 at 3: 15 p.m. on the body of the deceased Smt. Ujela Devi, shows that she sustained three incised wounds on her person and one lacerated wound on her scalp. One incised wound was found on the right forearm near joint and two incised wounds were found on the right backside between 8th and 9th ribs as well as left side of the chest respectively. 29. Dr. Ghildiyal has deposed in his statement that both the right and left side pleura were cut as well as both right and left lungs were also lacerate and cut. The doctor also opined that the death was caused on account of the incised wounds sustained by the deceased on the chest and the back. The doctor also opined that all these injuries would have been caused by knife. 30. Therefore, keeping in view the medical version adduced by the prosecution, it can safely be concluded that the ocular version finds complete corroboration. Ram Kishan has clearly stated that the appellant first of all attempted to snatch the gold Timania and Smt. Ujela Devi when resisted then he caused knife blow to her hand (wrist) and when Ram Kishan resisted to it then the appellant gave knife blow on his head and thereafter gave several knife blows on the person of Ujela Devi causing her death at the spot. 31. Therefore, the complainant has clearly stated the manner of incident in his deposition before the Court, which finds full support from the medical version, and we do not find any justification to discard the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard. 32. Apart of the aforesaid two circumstances, another important factor in this case is the recovery of the bloodstained knife on the pointing out of the appellant on 14-04-1982. The recovery memo pertaining to the bloodstained knife Is Ext. 32. Apart of the aforesaid two circumstances, another important factor in this case is the recovery of the bloodstained knife on the pointing out of the appellant on 14-04-1982. The recovery memo pertaining to the bloodstained knife Is Ext. A-11 and it shows that the knife was recovered from a secluded place and beneath a big stone at the bank of the Ganges. P.W.12 Bachan Singh is the witness of the recovery of knife at the pointing out of the appellant Santri Lal. This witness has stated that he was present at his shop on 14-041982 when the police personnel alongwith the appellant came to his shop and called him to accompany them as the appellant had to point out the knife, a weapon of the .murder, which had been thrown away by him near the place of occurrence. This witness accompanied the police and the appellant and at one place, the appellant Santri Lal asked the driver the stop the jeep at Gawana bend and told that It was the place where he committed murder of an old women and thereafter he pointed out the place where stone was lying and he told that from that place he had thrown the knife towards the river. Thereafter Santrl Lal started searching the knife and after sometime searched out the knife lying beneath the stone. 33. The recovery of the knife, which Is the weapon used in the murder of Ujela Devi on the pointing out of the appellant from a secluded place clearly and strongly connects the appellant with the commission of the crime. 34. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1998 SCC Crl. Page 890, 2004 SCC Crl., page 958 and 2004 SCC Crl., page 1052 and placed submission on the basis of the aforesaid decisions that the recovery of the knife from the place which Is easily accessible by other people and almost 9 days' after the incident, Is not the sufficient evidence in order to warrant the conviction of the appellant. 35. We have carefully gone through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the view that these decisions are not going to help the appellant in any manner. 35. We have carefully gone through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the view that these decisions are not going to help the appellant in any manner. The facts of the cited cases are that there was unwarranted delay in recording the statements of the witnesses as well as the recovery of the weapon was made from a place easily accessible by the other people, while in the instant case, the facts are absolutely different. The record clearly shows in the instant case that the place from where the bloodstained knife was recovered cannot be said to be easily accessible to the people. The statement of the recovery witness produced by the prosecution clearly Indicates that the appellant took a considerable time in searching the knife from the place which was near to the place of occurrence and the manner in which the knife was recovered from the place where it was thrown by the appellant immediately after the occurrence, cannot be said to be a place which is easily accessible to the public. We do not find any infirmity in the evidence pertaining to the recovery of the bloodstained knife on the pointing out of the appellant. 36. As far as the delay in the recovery of the bloodstained knife is concerned, the same has properly been explained by the cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution. The record shows that after the commission of the crime, the appellant made his escape good from the place of the occurrence and he concealed himself In a Kothar at village Bansari Patti Barkot. The appellant could be arrested by the police from the Kothar on 13-04-1982 and immediately after the arrest of the appellant, the gold Timania which was looted by the appellant from Ujela Devl- deceased could be recovered on his pointing out. P.W.10 S.I. Madan Singh has deposed in his statement before the Court that on 13-04-1982 he received information that the appellant had concealed himself in a Kothar at village Bansari and when he reached in that village, then P.W.6 Dabbu told him that Santri Lal was present inside the Kothar and when the police opened the room of the Kothar then found appellant Santri Lal inside. 37. 37. After the arrest of the appellant he was interrogated by the police on 13-04-1982 and during the interrogation, the appellant told the police that the looted gold Timania could be recovered on his pointing out hence, the police took an independent witness P.W.13 Rudri Dutt and thereafter proceeded to the place where the gold Timania was kept concealed by the appellant. The recovery memo of the gold Timania is Ext. A12 on the record and it shows that the gold Timania with two beads was found from a hollow of a Deodar Tree in a jungle. P.W.13 Rudri Dutt has also stated in his deposition that the two beads of gold Timania were recovered on the pointing out of the appellant from the hole of a Deodar Tree. It is worthy to mention here that this golden Timania was subsequently identified by the complainant Ram Kishan, husband of the deceased, during the identification parade. 38. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us 2003 SCC Crl., page 738 and has submitted that identification of the stolen ornaments of one pattern by the deceased's husband itself is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of crime. He has submitted that the gold Timania is not of a particular design but commonly available in the market and worn by the village ladies hence the identification of this type or ornament, in case if the proper precaution has not been made at the time of the identification parade, cannot connect the appellant with the commission of crime. 39. We have carefully read the judgment cited before us and we were of the opinion that this judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 40. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show an iota of evidence before us which may suggest that no precaution was taken by the Magistrate when the looted ornaments were put up for identification in the identification parade. We are of the considered view that the looted gold Timania has been correctly identified by the informant during the identification parade. Hence, the recovery of the gold Timania on the pointing out of the appellant and subsequently identification of this gold Timania by the complainant during identification parade leads to the prompt circumstance connecting the guilt of the appellant with the commission of the crime. 41. Hence, the recovery of the gold Timania on the pointing out of the appellant and subsequently identification of this gold Timania by the complainant during identification parade leads to the prompt circumstance connecting the guilt of the appellant with the commission of the crime. 41. Another important aspect of the matter is that one of the gold beads from the looted Timania was subsequently recovered from the shop of a jeweler at Rishikesh, (Dehradun) on 16-04-1982 on the pointing out of the appellant. The record shows that the appellant, during his interrogation, told the police that he had also sold one gold bead of Timania to a jeweller and from that money he purchased certain other ornaments like, silver toy horse and golden Laung which is put in the nose of the ladies. These ornaments were purchased by the accused from the shop of Gulati Jeweler, Rishikesh, after selling one gold bead of Timania. 42. P.W.20 Constable Ramesh Chandra is the witness, who accompanied the appellant alongwith one S.l. to the market of Rishikesh on 15-04-1982, but on that day the market was closed, therefore, he kept the appellant with him 'Baparda' and he came back alongwith the appellant to Uttarkashi on 16-04-1982. 43. Evidence of P.W .17 Rajeev Kumar Gulati is important as he has stated that the jewelry shop at Rishikesh belongs to his maternal and father. This witness was the student of M.Com. and used to sit often at the shop. He has further stated in his deposition that on 10-04-1982, he was sitting at the shop and the appellant came to the shop and demanded a silver horse. This witness pointed out the silver horse to be the same horse, which was sold to the appellant by him. The appellant, thereafter asked him to get one gold thread wire fixed with the ears of the horse toy. This witness further deposed that he inquired appellant Santri Lal as to why he was purchasing the silver toy horse, then he replied that on account of his wife's ailment, he required it for pooja. Thereafter the appellant demanded gold 'Laung' which is put on the nose of the ladies and he purchased it. This witness further deposed that he inquired appellant Santri Lal as to why he was purchasing the silver toy horse, then he replied that on account of his wife's ailment, he required it for pooja. Thereafter the appellant demanded gold 'Laung' which is put on the nose of the ladies and he purchased it. This witness further stated that when the money was demanded from the appellant then he told that he was a poor man and he had brought one gold bead of Timania, which belongs to his wife, and the price of gold 'Laung' as well as silver toy horse be adjusted from the cost of that gold bead of Timania. This witness has also stated that after deducting the price of silver toy horse and the 'Laung', he gave Rs. 342.50/- in cash to Santri Lal. This witness has further deposed that on 16th April, 1982, again Santri Lal alongwith police came to his shop and when face of Santri Lal was unveiled then he could recognize that he was the same person who purchased silver horse and 'Laung' from his shop and sold the gold bead of Timania. 44. This witness Rajeev Kumar took out that gold bead from his shop and handed over the same to the police. Therefore, recovery of one of the gold bead of the looted Timania from the shop of the jeweler on the pointing out of the appellant again strongly connects the appellant with the actual commission of crime of murder of Smt. Ujela Devi. 45. It is important to mention here that near the dead body of Ujela Devi one black thread and certain glass beads scattered at the place of the occurrence, were recovered by the police. Therefore this story adduced by the prosecution that the appellant after murdering Ujela Devi cut the thread of Timania in order to snatch the same from the neck of the Ujela Devi finds corroboration. 46. Another circumstance is that of identification of the appellant. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was put up for identification and he was correctly Identified by p.W.5 Kameshwar Prasad. This witness was present on his fields at the time of the occurrence. 46. Another circumstance is that of identification of the appellant. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was put up for identification and he was correctly Identified by p.W.5 Kameshwar Prasad. This witness was present on his fields at the time of the occurrence. This witness has stated in his deposition that he saw the appellant running away immediately after the occurrence by jumping over the barbed wire and running away in zigzag manner and he was putting on a white woolen coat and Dharidar Paijama. This witness has further stated that he heard shrieks and cries and the words of the persons assembled at the spot with regard to the person who ran after committing murder of the old woman at the Motor Road at Gawana bend which was hardly at a distance of 150 passage from his agricultural field where he was constructing a wall and from that place he saw that particular person running away towards jungle. This witness has further stated that the appellant passed through his field while going towards jungle. This witness has correctly identified the appellant in the identification parade held in the jail. Thus witness has clearly deposed in his statement that he did not see the appellant during the intervening period and did not know him from before. 47. Nothing has came out in the cross examination of the witness which may suggest that this witness either knew the appellant since before the occurrence or had any type of terms with him. Moreover, this witness does not have any grudge against the appellant in order to falsely implicate in this crime. 48. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us that in this case, the identification was held after about three months and five days, therefore, under these circumstances it would not be possible for P.W.5 to correctly identify the appellant in the identification parade. 49. In support of his submissions, he cited 1982 SCC Crt. Page 49 Soni vs. State of U.P. 50. We have thoroughly gone through the judgment cited before us and we are of the opinion that this judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 49. In support of his submissions, he cited 1982 SCC Crt. Page 49 Soni vs. State of U.P. 50. We have thoroughly gone through the judgment cited before us and we are of the opinion that this judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts in the judgment cited before us were that conviction in that case rested purely upon the identification of the accused persons which was held after a lapse of 42 days from the date of arrest of the accused and there was no other evidence which could sustain the conviction of the accused while in the instant case apart of the evidence of the identification, there are several other evidence available on record which corroborate the prosecution case. 51. Learned counsel for the appellant further cited 2002 (45) ACC page 4803 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court has observed that if there is delay in holding the identification parade and no explanation for that delay has been advanced by the prosecution then the case suffers from serious infirmities. 52. Again on a thorough scrutiny of the judgment cited before us, we come to the conclusion that the facts in the cited case were that the case also rested only on the identification evidence and there was no recovery in that case while in the instant case, the identification evidence is corroborated by other cogent and reliable evidence like, recovery of the looted articles, recovery of the bloodstained knife used in the commission of crime, corroboration of the medical evidence with the ocular version as well as part recovery of the looted article from the shop of the jeweler. Hence, these are the clinching and reliable circumstances, which strongly point out towards the guilt of the appellant and none else. 53. The evidence of the identification of the appellant cannot be said to be weak in this case on the ground that firstly, the appellant was correctly identified by P.W.5 who saw the appellant in a very precarious situation as well as immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, the feature and the figure of the appellant must have been imprinted in the mind of this identifying witness. The identification memo shows that none of the identifying witnesses had wrongly identified any of the person put up for identification. Therefore, the feature and the figure of the appellant must have been imprinted in the mind of this identifying witness. The identification memo shows that none of the identifying witnesses had wrongly identified any of the person put up for identification. In case, if the testimony of the informant Ram Kishan (P.W.7) is taken into consideration then it reveals that this person also did not identify any of the person put up for identification wrongly. This person started at the appellant during the course of the identification parade and in all the three rounds he stopped in front of the appellant and stared at him. Hence, under these circumstances, evidence of the identification adduced by the prosecution cannot be said to be weak. 54. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed vehemently to this aspect of the matter that the appellant was known to the identifying witness i.e. Kameshwar Prasad (P. W.5) prior to the occurrence. Our attention has been invited towards the suggestions made by the defence to PW5 pertaining to the fact that the appellant used to graze the goats in the jungle of the village where P.W.5 resides and once a goat entered in the field of P.W.5 with the result there was a struggle between Kameshwar Prasad (PW5) and the appellant. It is only for this reason that P.W.5 would identify the appellant during the identification parade. 55. We do not find any substance in this argument. The defence has not brought anything on the record, which may suggest that the appellant had ever been involved in the grazing of goats. There is also [10 iota of evidence, which may suggest that P.W.5 Kameshwar Prasad knew the appellant prior to the date of occurrence. 56. Another important circumstance in this case is that of extra judicial confession made by the appellant with regard to his guilt before the independent witness. PW.6 Dabbu is the witness before whom the appellant went on 12-041982. This witness has stated that when he went at the house of his neighbour Suga at 8:30 p.m. then he found Santri Lal sitting over there. This witness has stated that the appellant had been enquiring as to whether police had been visiting that place or not. PW.6 Dabbu is the witness before whom the appellant went on 12-041982. This witness has stated that when he went at the house of his neighbour Suga at 8:30 p.m. then he found Santri Lal sitting over there. This witness has stated that the appellant had been enquiring as to whether police had been visiting that place or not. When this witness asked the appellant as to why he was asking about the police then the appellant replied that the police is chasing him in connection with Gawana murder case. This witness has stated that the thereafter, provided shelter to the appellant in his Kothar and asked him to stay there. Thereafter in the next morning he went to the police station and the police arrested the appellant from that Kothar on 13-04-1982. 57. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the statement of P.W.6 now where shows that the appellant confessed his guilt before him. He has also invited our attention towards the statement of P.W.8 Suga who was produced by the prosecution as a witness of extra judicial confession made by the accused and witness has been declared hostile. 58. We do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defence as P.W.6 is the witness who asked the appellant to stay inside the Kothar in the night of 12-04-1982 and he is the person before whom the appellant disclosed that a murder had taken place at Gawana and the police is chasing him in that murder. Arrest of the appellant immediately in the next morning i.e. 13-04-1982 from that Kothar again corroborates this fact that it was the appellant who went to P.W.6 Dabbu in order to seek help from him and Dabbu provided shelter to him in the night of 12-04-1982. Admittedly, no specific words were uttered by the .appellant before this witness, with regard to the commission of crime but the words which were uttered by the appellant before this witress are sufficient to bring the version of the appellant within the ambit of the extra judicial concession of his guilt. 59. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us 1999 SCC Crl., page 1368 and 1999 ACC Vol. 59. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us 1999 SCC Crl., page 1368 and 1999 ACC Vol. I (SC), page 669 in order to submit that the extra judicial confession is very weak piece of evidence and the same has been made before the person wholly unconnected with the police is always a matter to great suspect. 60. We have gone through the decision cited before us. Again the facts in the decisions cited before us are absolutely different as those cases rest upon the circumstantial evidence and there was absence of direct evidence while in the instant case the direct evidence is available and the ocular version is fully supported by the medical version. Moreover, evidence of extra judicial confession is corroborated by the other cogent and reliable piece of evidence available on the record. 61. Apart of the aforesaid evidence available on the record, the testimony of the injured witness i.e. P. W. 7 Ram Kishan who is the husband of the deceased as well as sustained Injuries during the course of the occurrence cannot be disbelieved in any manner. This witness has clearly stated the manner of the occurrence and the same finds corroboration with the medical evidence. This witness was medically examined on the same day in the hospital and the injuries sustained by this witness cannot be said to be self-inflicted in any manner. The presence of this witness on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted in any case. 62. Moreover, this witness does not have any enmity with the appellant. The appellant has also not suggested anywhere up to the present case. It is settled principal of law that the person who is the victim of any incident will not falsely implicate the innocent person leaving aside the actual culprit, hence we do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured witness. 63. On the basis of the assessment of the evidence on record we come to the conclusion that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences u/s 302, 394/397 as well as 324 IPC. 64. We do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the Court below. 65. 63. On the basis of the assessment of the evidence on record we come to the conclusion that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences u/s 302, 394/397 as well as 324 IPC. 64. We do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the Court below. 65. The present appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30-08-1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashl, in Sessions Trial NO.8 of 1982 State vs. Santri Lal u/s 302,394/397 and 324 IPC deserves to be confirmed. 66. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is hereby confirmed. 67. The record of the court below shall be return immediately with the direction that the concerned C.J.M. shall take steps to take the appellant into custody in order to serve out the sentence imposed against him by the Trial Court.