JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 12, 2001, passed by the Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 35/98, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Kamal Khandelwal under Section 302, IPC, to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324, Indian Penal Code two years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brevity, are that on March 7, 1998, Kumari Minaxi @ Rinku made a Parcha-Bayan in SMS Hospital, Jaipur to the effect that she is residing along with her mother in House No. 7/305, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur and is studying in Class XII in Maharani College, Jaipur. On the date of incident, she appeared for the paper of Home Science Examination. Her mother had accompanied her to the College. After taking examination, while she was returning to her home along with her mother, after getting down from the Vidyadhar Nagar City Bus Stand, at 3.15 p.m., when they (she and her mother) reached on the main road of Sector No. 7, then suddenly, Kamal Khandelwal, having a knife in his hand, came running towards them and he inflicted knife blows on her. She cried and her mother came to rescue her. When she tried to rescue her, Kamal Khandelwal inflicted a number of knife blows on her mother. On hearing hue and cry, Sunil Shekhawat and Makhan Lal Saini came to the spot and got them rescued from Kamal Khandelwal. They took them in a autorickshaw to S.M.S. Hospital. On reaching the S.M.S. Hospital, her mother Smt. Chandrakala @ Lali was declared dead and Kumari Minaxi was admitted to the hospital for treatment. She further stated that earlier engagement of Kamal Khandclwal had taken place with the daughter (Kum. Rckha) of her Bua (aunt), which was later on cancelled. Kamal Khandelwal had an impression in his mind that the engagement has been got cancelled by the parents of Kumari Minaxi. Therefore, he attacked on both of them. 3. This Parcha-Bayan was recorded in SMS Hospital, Jaipur by the Station House Officer (SHO) Narain Sahai, Police Station, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Rckha) of her Bua (aunt), which was later on cancelled. Kamal Khandelwal had an impression in his mind that the engagement has been got cancelled by the parents of Kumari Minaxi. Therefore, he attacked on both of them. 3. This Parcha-Bayan was recorded in SMS Hospital, Jaipur by the Station House Officer (SHO) Narain Sahai, Police Station, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. The said Parcha-Bayan was sent to the Police Station through Constable No. 4461 Richhpal, for recording FIR under Sections 302, 307 and 323, IPC. 4. On the basis of the said Parcha-Bayan, FIR No. 43/98 under Sections 302,307 and 323 IPC, was registered on March 7, 1998, at Police Station, Vidyadhar Nagar. The investigation was taken up by the SHO Narain Sahai himself. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, he prepared site plan (Ex. P2), seized the controlled and blood-stained soil vide Exs. P3 and P4 respectively, prepared insquest report vide Ex.P7, seized blood stained stroll (Chunny) `baniyan' and shirt vide Ex.P10, and he also seized blood-stained Saree, `petti-coat' and blouse of deceased Sint. Chandra Kala vide Ex.P11. 5. Injuries of Kum. Minaxi were examined on March 7,1998 by Dr. Sheetal Jain and injury report Ex.P15 was prepared. On March 8, 1998 Post-Mortem Examination of the dead body of Smt. Chandrakala was conducted by the Medical Board consisting of Dr. H. L. Bairwa and Dr. D. K. Verma and the Post-Mortem Report Ex.P16 was prepared. According to the report of the Post-Mortem, there were a number of cut wounds on the body of Smt. Chandrakala, which resulted into shock and subsequently death of the deceased. 6. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused Kamal Khandelwal on March 7, 1998 and prepared arrest memo Ex.P5 and he seized the blood-stained clothes of the accused vide Ex.P6. According to the prosecution, the accused Kama] Khandelwal gave an information to the Police on March 9, 1998 that the knife which was used by him for committing the murder, has been concealed in a `Nala' towards the east side of the bridge of Papad-ke-Hanumanji, which was recoded vide Ex.P17. The accused got recovered the alleged blood stained knife beneath a stone of the aforesaid `Nala', which was seized vide Ex.P12. The accused also gave information to the Investigating Officer for getting a Motor Cycle recovered, which was used in the commission of the crime. The said information was recorded vide Ex.P18. The accused got recovered the alleged blood stained knife beneath a stone of the aforesaid `Nala', which was seized vide Ex.P12. The accused also gave information to the Investigating Officer for getting a Motor Cycle recovered, which was used in the commission of the crime. The said information was recorded vide Ex.P18. and Motor Cycle, bearing No. RJ-14-19M-7425, was seized. The 10 sent the seized knife, clothes of the deceased Smt. Chandra Kala Lali, injured Kum. Minaxi @ Rinku as well as accused Kamal Khandelwal to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination, from where, after examination, the report was received and marked as Ex.P19. According to the report, human blood was found on the clothes of the deceased, injured, as well as on the alleged knife and clothes of accused Kamal Khandclwal. 7. After completing the necessary investigation, a challan under Sections 302 and 307, IPC, was filed against the accused-appellant Kamal Khandelwal. The charges were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution produced and examined as many as 17 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 17) and exhibited 19 documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P19). In defence, four witnesses (DW 1 to DW 4) were examined and 4 documents (Ex.D1 to Ex.4) were produced. The statement of the accused Kamal Khandelwal under section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded. He denied the correctness of the statements appearing against him. He pleaded to have been falsely implicated. 9. The trial court, after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents on record, convicted and sentenced the accuse-appellant Kamal Khandelwal under Section 302 and 324, IPC, vide aforesaid judgment dated April 12, 2001. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated April 12, 2001, the accused-appellant preferred the instant appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the trial court are against the facts and material on record. He further contended that the learned trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the proper appreciation of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW 1 Kumari Minaxi Khandelwal, PW 2 Sunil Shekhawat and PW 3 Makhan Lal Saini in its right perspective. He further contended that the learned trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the proper appreciation of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW 1 Kumari Minaxi Khandelwal, PW 2 Sunil Shekhawat and PW 3 Makhan Lal Saini in its right perspective. Apart from that, there is serious discrepancy on material point in the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses, which goes to the root of the case, therefore, in this situation, the conviction of the accused-appellant is bad and the same deserves to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 12. PW 1 Kum. Minaxi-the complainant has deposed that the accused was arrested on the spot and the knife was lying in the stomatch of her mother and after the police reached on the spot, the said knife was pulled out form the stomatch. 13. On the other hand, PW 17 Narain Sahai stated that the accused-appellant gave him information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and in pursuance to that information, the knife was got recovered by the accused Kamal Khandelwal, which he recovered at the instance of the accused vide recovery memo Ex.P13. According to the learned counsel, there is a serious contradiction in the version of PW 1 Kumari Minaxi with regard to recovery of knife, therefore, either the investigation about the recovery of knife is unreliable or the statement of Kum. Minaxi is false, which creates serious doubt on the part of the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to establish this fact beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Learned counsel also contended that as per the prosecution version of PW 1 Kum. Minaxi, the accused-appellant was arrested on the spot when he tried to run away after inflicting the injuries and leaving knife in the stomatch of the complainant's mother Smt. Chandrakala, whereas according to Ex.P5, the accused-appellant Kamal Khandelwal was arrested by the Investigating Officer from the forest near Papad-ka-Hanumanji on March 7, 1998. No place is mentioned in the arrest memo. The prosecution witnesses are not supporting the version of each other on the material point of issue. It may be stated that neither the knife has been shown to the Doctor for getting his opinion whether these injuries could be caused on the body of the deceased or on the body of the complainant by this weapon, nor there is any evidence to connect the accused with the crime. It may be stated that neither the knife has been shown to the Doctor for getting his opinion whether these injuries could be caused on the body of the deceased or on the body of the complainant by this weapon, nor there is any evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Apart form that, there is no corroborative evidence on record to corroborate that the statement of PW 1 Kumari Minaxi is reliable. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the recovered articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination after one and a half month from the date of recovery and there is no evidence to show that the scaled articles remained intact till the articles reached the Office of FSL. 16. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the blood group has not been ascertained. The incident took place while going from the Vidhyadhar Nagar Bus Stand, the merciless beating was given to the deceased and her daughter complainant Kum. Minaxi. In that situation, human blood was found on the clothes, but no blood group has been determined. 17. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the defence version in its rights perspective. The defence has to probabilise its case, but, on the other hand, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court and vehemently argued that it is a full (sic `fool'?) proof case, which led to establish the guiltof the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He supported the reasons and observations made by the trial court in toto. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and scanned the evidence on record. As per the version mentioned in the Parcha-Bayan, the accused-appellant Kamal Khandelwal inflicted serious injuries on the complainant as well as her mother Smt. Chandra Kala @ Lali, due to which Sint. Chandrakala @ Lali succumbed to her injuries. This fact is very much corroborated by the prosecution evidence on record. 20. PW 1 Kum. As per the version mentioned in the Parcha-Bayan, the accused-appellant Kamal Khandelwal inflicted serious injuries on the complainant as well as her mother Smt. Chandra Kala @ Lali, due to which Sint. Chandrakala @ Lali succumbed to her injuries. This fact is very much corroborated by the prosecution evidence on record. 20. PW 1 Kum. Minaxi @ Rinku who is an injured eye-witness, deposed that while she and her mother were returning to home from the Vidhyadhar Nagar City Bus Stand and when they were passing on foot from the main road of sector No. 7, accused Kamal Khandelwal, who was sitting on Thari, came running holding a knife in his hand and inflicted a number of knife blows to her. When her mother Smt. Chandrakala @ Lali intervened, he mercilessly inflicted knife blows on her person also, as a result of which she succumed to the injuries. No only this, she also deposed as to how and why the accused was having grudge towards them, which resulted into the death of her mother. She specifically stated that the engagement of accused Kamal Khandelwal had taken place with the daughter of her Bua (aunt), which was, later on, cancelled. The accused had wrong impression in his mind that this engagement has been cancelled, because of parents of the complainant, therefore, with an ulterior motive, in order to take revenge, the accused inflicted a number of serious knife blows, which resulted into the death of her mother. 21. PW 2 Sunil Shekhawat has stated in his statement that on March 7,1998, at 3-3.15 p.m. he along with Makhan Saini was going to his shop. At that time, accused Kamal Khandelwal was inflicting a number of knife blows on daughter Rinku and mother Sint. Chandrakala. On hearing hue and cry, they both went towards them and intervened. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence after committing crime. Smt. Chandrakala was smeared with blood. we took them both (mother and daughter) to the hospital, where Smt. Chandrakala was declared dead. He has specifically stated that it was accused Kamal Khandelwal, who had inflicted merciflessly knife blows on both the daughter and the mother. 22. PW 3 Makhan Lai Saini has almost deposed in the same lines as that of PW 2 Sunil Shekhawat. we took them both (mother and daughter) to the hospital, where Smt. Chandrakala was declared dead. He has specifically stated that it was accused Kamal Khandelwal, who had inflicted merciflessly knife blows on both the daughter and the mother. 22. PW 3 Makhan Lai Saini has almost deposed in the same lines as that of PW 2 Sunil Shekhawat. He stated that on hearing the hue and cry of the girl to the effect that "meri mammy ko bachao - 2", we ran towards them and saw that accused Kamal Khandelwal was inflicting a number of blows on both of them, i.e., daughter and mother with knife. As soon as we approached the scene of incident, the accused, having knife in his hand, ran away. We took them to the hospital, where Smt. Chandrakala succumbed to her injuries. 23. Similarly, PW 15 Dr. Sheetal Jain has stated in his statement that on March 7, 1998, he was working as Medical Jurist in the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. On the request of the police, he examined Kumari Minaxi D/o. Ram Manohar and, in all, he found eight injuries on her person. All the injuries were of cut wounds and these injuries were simple in nature and were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. 24. PW 16 Dr. H. L. Bairwa, who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of Sint. Chandrakala, has deposed that the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The duration of the injuries was 24 hours. 25. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimonies of PW I Kum. Minaxi, PW2, Sunil Shekhawat, PW 3 Makhan Lal, PW 15 Dr. Sheetal Jain and PW 16 Dr. H. L. Bairwa. Their statement find corroboration from Parch Bayan and the statements of 164 Cr.P.C. In our view, they are creditworthy witnesses. 26. It is established from the aforesaid versions that the accused Kamlesh Khandelwal with an ill intention, motive and knowledge has committed the offence of murder. No doubt, there are minor contradictions with regard to place of arrest of the accused-appellant as well as the recovery of the knife. Kum. 26. It is established from the aforesaid versions that the accused Kamlesh Khandelwal with an ill intention, motive and knowledge has committed the offence of murder. No doubt, there are minor contradictions with regard to place of arrest of the accused-appellant as well as the recovery of the knife. Kum. Minaxi (a, Rinku has stated that the accused was arrested from the place of incident and the knife was lying in the stomatch of her mother, which was later on pulled out by the Police, whereas, in fact, the accused was arrested by the I.O. from the forest of Papad-ke-Hanumanji and the knife was also recovered at the instance of the accused from the `Nala' near Papad-ke-Hanumanji, So. there are minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but that does not discard the prosecution story. Here, it may be mentioned that `a man may tell lie, but not the circumstances'. The same theory is applicable in the instant case. It is also proved that due to cancellation of engagement of the accused with the daughter of Bua of complainant-party, the accused was having enmity with them. Apart from that, it has come on record that the accused inflicted a number of fatal blows with knife, which he knew that the serious injuries, which he was causing, with an intention and ulterior motive, in order to take revenge from them, would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In addition to this, the conduct of the accused in preparing pre-plan by sitting on Thari,having knife in his hand, running towards the complainant and deceased and, thereafter, committing heinous crime, shows that he does not deserve any leniency. He has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Session Judge. 27. On reappreciation of evidence, we find the statements of PW 1 Kum. Minaxi, PW 2 Sunil Shekhawat and PW 3 Makhan Lal, who are the witnesses of the occurrence, creditworthy. The evidence of recovery of knife does not sound well. It deserves to be rejected. The contradictions pointed out are of minor nature. 28. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the opinion that the judgment dated April 12, 2001 of the learned trial court is lucid and proper and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court. It deserves to be rejected. The contradictions pointed out are of minor nature. 28. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the opinion that the judgment dated April 12, 2001 of the learned trial court is lucid and proper and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is maintained. 29. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******