Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 165 (JK)

Karanjit Singh v. State Of J. &K.

2004-05-26

S.K.GUPTA, V.K.JHANJI

body2004
Per Gupta, J. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-02-1998 propounded by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby he has convicted and sentenced Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, son of Dalip Singh, resident of Simbal Camp, Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 RPC and one years imprisonment under sections 4/27 Arms Act. The sheet anchor of the prosecution case stemming out of the record having trait in narration is that on 06-07-1992, Police Post, Miran Saheb, received an information from a reliable source at 2.10 p.m. that during celebration of marriage of daughter of Sangat Singh in his house at Simbal Camp Tikri, Ward No. 1, Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, accused, actuated with criminal intention, committed a murderous assault on one Ajit Paul Singh son of Ujagar Singh with a kirch in his possession and caused four injuries, one after the other persistently, on the chest and the abdomen, as a result of which, the injured fell down in a pool of blood and had been removed to Hospital at Jammu. Hardeep Singh, Sub-Inspector, Incharge, Police Post, Miran Saheb, entered the information in Daily Register and dispatched its copy to the Police Station, R.S. Pura, for registration of the case under sections 307 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. ASI Jaswant Singh and Constable Baldev Raj were sent for recording statement of the injured in the Hospital. Hardeep Singh, Sub-Inspector, himself rushed to the spot. Soon after, the injured died in the Hospital and, consequently, the offence was converted from section 307 RPC to section 302 RPC. The dead body of the deceased was taken in custody by the Police and got its autopsy conducted from PW Dr. Anayat Ullah. A blood sample taken from the body of the deceased was handed over to Jaswant Singh, ASI, along with blood stained garments of the deceased, which were seized and sealed. The dead body was, thereafter, handed over to the father of the deceased to perform the last rites ceremonies. The accused came to be arrested by the Police and on his disclosure statement made during investigation on 9th July, 1992 while in Police custody, weapon of offence, `kirch, was recovered at his instance from a Pully underneath a bridge at the Jammu-R.S. Pura road, and seized and sealed it by the Police. The accused came to be arrested by the Police and on his disclosure statement made during investigation on 9th July, 1992 while in Police custody, weapon of offence, `kirch, was recovered at his instance from a Pully underneath a bridge at the Jammu-R.S. Pura road, and seized and sealed it by the Police. After recording the statement of the witnesses and on conclusion of the investigation, the accused was finally sent up for trial for the alleged offence under section 302 RPC. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence let in by the prosecution during the currency of the trial and after considering the rival contentions, found the accused guilty under sections 302 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. Mr. Ajay Kotwal, learned counsel, debated that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, which persuaded the appellant to cause the murder of the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh, by inflicting injuries with a kirch, in the house of Sangat Singh. Neither any scuffle had taken place nor there was any provocation prior to the alleged commission of the offence attributed to the accused and, thus, completely improbablize the prosecution version. The evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the Trial Court is neither trustworthy nor credible to warrant the conviction, particularly, when the accused was at Poonch at the time when alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place. Even the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses does not find support from the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances and, thus, entitles the accused to be acquitted of the offences with which he stands charged. Mr. B.S. Salathia, senior AAG, on the other hand, argued that the direct evidence of the eye witnesses relied upon by the prosecution stands corroborated in material particulars by medical evidence. The evidence is consistent only with the hypothesis that the accused alone had killed Ajit Paul Singh, by causing injuries with a kirch, in broad day light and committed a cold blooded murder in the house of Sangat Singh during the celebration of the marriage of his daughter. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record meticulously. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record meticulously. It may be pointed out at the first flush that the Trial Court in this case has relied upon (i) the testimony of the eye witnesses, namely, Ujagar Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Harnam Singh, who happened to be invited in the marriage of the daughter of Sangat Singh, and were present there at the time of occurrence; (ii) the evidence of Sangat Singh and Tarlok Singh, his son, with regard to the invitation to the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh, and the accused, Karanjit Singh, and their participation in the marriage; (iii) medical evidence provided by Dr. Anayat Ullah Sheikh, who conducted the post-mortem examination, and proved the injuries found on the person of the deceased during post-mortem examination, and his opinion with regard to the infliction of the injuries with the weapon shown to him, firstly, after seizure by the Police during investigation and, then, in the Court during his evidence and (iv) motive. As regards the first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused, PW Ujagar Singh, who happens to be father of the deceased, came in the witness box to depose that accused Karanjit Singh came to their house on 05-07-1992 and met the deceased in the latters room. After sometime, when the accused, in a fit of rage, left the house, he enquired from his son as to what had transpired between them, the deceased narrated that the accused wanted to keep him a Cleaner with the truck, which the deceased declined, as the accused had earlier committed the murder of a person belonging to their `Baradari and had been released from the jail recently. The deceased also told him that the accused got irritated on receiving the reply and extended a threat to his life. It was on 6th July, 1992, the witness along with his son, Ajit Paul Singh, went to the house of PW Sangat Singh to participate in the marriage ceremony of his daughter at 9.00/10.00 a.m. The accused was also seen there. The witness along with others became busy with the guests in serving meals to them. It was on 6th July, 1992, the witness along with his son, Ajit Paul Singh, went to the house of PW Sangat Singh to participate in the marriage ceremony of his daughter at 9.00/10.00 a.m. The accused was also seen there. The witness along with others became busy with the guests in serving meals to them. It was at about 1.45 p.m., accused Karanjit Singh, when saw his son standing near the handpump in the compound of PW Sangat Singh alone, raised a `Lalkara that to take revenge of his having been turned out by the deceased from his house yesterday disgracefully, pounced upon him with a kirch and inflicted four injuries on the chest, the abdomen and other parts of the body, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the ground bleeding profusely. The witness further stated to have seen the occurrence with his naked eyes along with Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh, Rajinder Singh and Narinder Paul Singh, besides others, present in the marriage on spot. After committing the murderous assault on the deceased, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. The deceased was removed to the Hospital in injured condition initially on a three-wheeler up to the main road and therefrom shifted on a truck, and admitted in the Emergency Ward. The deceased, however, could not withstand the injuries and succumbed to it soon after. The witness further stated that the Police arrived in the Hospital and took the dead body of the deceased in custody. After the post-mortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to them. He is also a witness to the seizure memos EXPWUS, EXPWUS-1 and EXPWUS-2, vide which the vial full of blood of the deceased was handed over by the doctor along with the blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased. The seized articles were sealed on spot and its seal kept on Superdnama of PW Rajinder Singh vide memo EXPWUS-3. The witness further stated to have marked and attested memos EXPWUS-5 and EXPWUS-6, vide which simple soil and blood stained soil were seized by the Police from the spot, during investigation. This witness further identified and proved the kirch (EXPWUS-1) shown to him in the Court to be the same, which was used by the accused while committing the murderous assault on the deceased on the fateful day. This witness further identified and proved the kirch (EXPWUS-1) shown to him in the Court to be the same, which was used by the accused while committing the murderous assault on the deceased on the fateful day. On cross-examination, the witness stated that he along with his son, deceased Ajit Paul Singh, went to the house of PW Sangat Singh, where the `Barat had already reached. He and his son did not accompany Sangat Singh to the Gurudwara, where marriage ceremony (Anand Karj) of the daughter of Sangat Singh was being performed. In fact, he was asked by Sangat Singh to remain at home and look after the invitees. The `Barat came back in the house of Sangat Singh at about 11.30 a.m. The meals had been started to be served to the invitees and the `Baratis at 11.30 a.m., in which both the accused and the deceased were also present. It was after the first group consisting of 300-400 people had already taken the meals and second group had yet to occupy their places, the occurrence took place. The witness was standing outside the `Pandal for supervision and at that time, Harnam Singh, Narinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Rajinder Singh were also standing with him. He along with Harnam Singh was entrusted the task of supervision and others were given duty to serve the meals to the invitees and to the `Baratis. The witness categorically stated that when the tables were being cleaned, the accused proceeded towards the deceased standing near a hand-pump under a tree at a distance of about 15 yards from the `Pandal and when raised a `Lalkara, he got attracted towards that site. It is also in the evidence of this witness that the accused shouted that he will not leave the deceased alive today, as the deceased had disgracefully turned out him from his house, and ran towards the deceased with a kirch in his hand and inflicted injuries on him. The witness further deposed that the intervening distance between the accused and the deceased was hardly 3/4 yards, when `Lalkara was raised by the accused. He proceeded towards the place of occurrence when the accused, Karanjit Singh, inflicted the first blow and before reaching there, the accused inflicted second and third blows by that time. The witness further deposed that the intervening distance between the accused and the deceased was hardly 3/4 yards, when `Lalkara was raised by the accused. He proceeded towards the place of occurrence when the accused, Karanjit Singh, inflicted the first blow and before reaching there, the accused inflicted second and third blows by that time. The other witnesses, namely, Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh, Narinder Singh and Rajinder Singh also rushed towards the deceased, but before they reached, the accused fled away from the spot. Harnam Singh also accompanied him in the three-wheeler, in which the deceased was initially taken up to the main road on way to Hospital, where the deceased was shifted in a truck, in which there were already 50 to 60 persons including PW Rajinder Singh. In the meanwhile, the Police from Police Post, Miran Saheb, reached the Hospital and on enquiry, he narrated that the deceased, his son, was killed by the accused with a kirch. The witness also stated that while the deceased was being taken to the Hospital on truck, when they reached the Police Post, Miran Saheb, Harnam Singh occupied the Constable standing outside the Police Post and told that the deceased has been murdered by the accused and they are shifting him to the Hospital. PW Rajinder Singh is another eye witness of the occurrence and stated to have participated in the marriage of the daughter of Sangat Singh on 6th July, 1992. He was assigned the duty of supervising the place where the meals had to be served to the invitees. The deceased and the accused also happened to be there. When the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh, was standing near the water tap, he saw the accused raising a `Lalkara and inflicting 3-4 injuries on the deceased with a kirch in his possession in the abdomen and other parts of the body and, thereafter, took to his heels from the place of occurrence. The witness stated to have chased the accused for about 200 yards and when he was quite close to him, the latter gave a blow with his blood stained kirch and he returned back, as the accused had earlier also committed murder and lest he may not kill him also. The deceased was removed to the Hospital in injured condition in an auto-rickshaw. The deceased was removed to the Hospital in injured condition in an auto-rickshaw. In the meanwhile, he started his truck standing outside the house of Sangat Singh and followed the auto-rickshaw and stopped it on the way and shifted the deceased in the truck and proceeded to the Hospital. The witness further stated that the occurrence had been seen by Harnam Singh, Ujagar Singh, Narinder Singh and also by him. He is also an attesting witness to the seizure memo, vide which the vial full of blood given by the doctor to the Police was seized and sealed in his presence. The accused was arrested on 09-07-1992 by the Police on the information provided by him pertaining to the concealment of the accused in village Maralyan. The accused also made a disclosure statement, EXPWRS, while in Police custody, with regard to the concealment of weapon of offence and the place where it was kept concealed, in his presence. In pursuance of this disclosure statement, the accused accompanied the Police and got recovered the kirch from a small bush and handed over to the Police. The kirch was seized vide memo EXPWRS-1 bearing his signature. The witness also identified the kirch shown to him to be the same, which was used by the accused in the commission of offence, viz., causing murderous assault, and seized by the Police at the instance of the accused. The witness further stated to have reached the house of Sangat Singh between 11.00 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. By that time, the meals had not yet been served. The deceased was son of his brother-in-law and related to him. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that Sangat Singh was not related to him. He was assigned the duty in the store/kitchen and was supervising the supply of meals. He had parked his truck in the link road at a distance of about 200-400 yards from the house of Sangat Singh. At the time of incident, he was standing near the place of occurrence, but, however, could not say as to whether the accused inflicted three or four blows with a kirch, on the deceased. The witness further stated that both the accused and the deceased were present and serving meals to the `Baratis in the `Pandal. At the time of incident, he was standing near the place of occurrence, but, however, could not say as to whether the accused inflicted three or four blows with a kirch, on the deceased. The witness further stated that both the accused and the deceased were present and serving meals to the `Baratis in the `Pandal. It was after the first group had taken the meals and left the place, the deceased was seen standing under the shadow of a `kikker tree near the water tap. He saw towards the accused when latter raised a `Lalkara and he was the first person to reach the place of occurrence. The other witnesses, namely, Ujagar Singh, Harnam Singh and Narinder Singh, were at a distance of 3 to 4 feet from the deceased at that time. When he followed the accused after committing the crime, PWs Narinder Singh, Kulbir Singh, Harnam Singh also ran after him. When the accused inflicted a blow upon him, which he escaped, they were at a distance of 15 to 20 feet from him. The Police had also recorded his statement during investigation. He had seen Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh and one or two more persons removing the deceased in injured condition to the Hospital in auto-rickshaw. He followed the auto-rickshaw in his truck and had overtaken before it could reach the Police Post, Miran Saheb. The deceased was shifted in the truck. There were many persons, including mother and sister of the deceased, sitting in the truck and weeping at that time. He stopped the truck near the Police Post at the instance of the family members of the deceased, and Harnam Singh told the Policeman standing outside that the deceased had received kirch injuries and was being taken to the Hospital, from the window of the truck. It is also in his evidence that the Police reached the Hospital soon after that. When the accused was arrested by the Police, Harnam Singh and Narinder Singh, besides him, were also present. The accused made a disclosure statement when arrested by the Police and accompanied the Police to a place where he had kept the weapon of offence concealed and got it recovered. The weapon was seized and sealed by the Police on spot and, thereafter, seal kept on his Superdnama. The accused made a disclosure statement when arrested by the Police and accompanied the Police to a place where he had kept the weapon of offence concealed and got it recovered. The weapon was seized and sealed by the Police on spot and, thereafter, seal kept on his Superdnama. In the like manner, PW Kulbir Singh also stated to have gone to the house of Sangat Singh on 06-07-1992 to attend the marriage ceremony of his daughter and saw both the accused and the deceased present there. It was about 1.30 p.m. or 2.00 p.m., when he saw the deceased standing near the hand-pump and the accused carrying a kirch in his hand and telling the deceased that he would not leave him alive, as the deceased had turned out him from his house disgracefully yesterday, and inflicted four injuries near the arm pit and the chest of the deceased. The deceased fell down unconscious after receiving injuries and started bleeding profusely. Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh and Ujagar Singh were also present on the spot. The accused, however, managed to flee away from the spot by scaling the wall. The deceased was put in an auto-rickshaw by Ujagar Singh, Harnam Singh and Rajinder Singh and removed to the Hosptal. He also followed them in the Hospital later on and, on reaching there, learnt that the deceased had expired and dead body was taken for autopsy. The Police had also arrived there by that time. He is also a witness to seizure memos EXPWRS-5 and EXPWRS-6, vide which blood stained and plain earth were seized and sealed by the Police. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Sangat Singh, however, is not his relation, but belongs to the same `Baradari. When he reached the house of Sangat Singh at 12.30 p.m., the `Barat had already arrived there. When the occurrence took place, the first group had already taken meals and the second group had yet to occupy the seats. When the occurrence took place, Rajinder Singh, Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh were also with him near the hand-pump and the deceased was about 5 to 7 yards away from them. The deceased was drinking water on the hand-pump at that time and was attracted when heard the `Lalkara raised by the accused and started inflicting injuries on the accused. When the occurrence took place, Rajinder Singh, Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh were also with him near the hand-pump and the deceased was about 5 to 7 yards away from them. The deceased was drinking water on the hand-pump at that time and was attracted when heard the `Lalkara raised by the accused and started inflicting injuries on the accused. His statement was recorded by the Police during investigation and he narrated the entire episode of what has happened in the occurrence and seen/witnessed by him. He also stated that Rajinder Singh is not related to him. His wife and PW Ujagar Singh are brother and sister. The witness further stated that the accused was known to him since the time he had earlier committed a murder, in which he was, subsequently, acquitted for want of evidence. It is also in his evidence that accused is a vagabond and extended frequent threats to the witness and nobody dares to give evidence against him out of fear. That Rajinder Singh, Harnam Singh, Narinder Singh and Ujagar Singh along with others were performing their duties assigned to them by Sangat Singh in the marriage. Another eye witness of the occurrence is PW Harnam Singh, who stated that he was in the marriage of the daughter of PW Sangat Singh on 6th July, 1992, which he attended. The accused and the deceased were seen present there. It was at about 1.45 p.m., when accused Karanjit Singh raised a `Lalkara from the compound of Sangat Singh, addressed to the deceased that he would not spare him for having disgracefully turned out the accused from the house on the previous day. He further stated to have got attracted towards `Lalkara and saw the accused causing injuries with a kirch on the ribs of the deceased one after the other. He rushed to the place of occurrence and by the time he reached there, the accused fled away. He chased the accused, but soon returned to the place where the deceased was lying unconscious bleeding profusely. He assisted the father of the deceased, Ujagar Singh, in lifting and removing the deceased in injured condition to the Hospital in auto-rickshaw. He rushed to the place of occurrence and by the time he reached there, the accused fled away. He chased the accused, but soon returned to the place where the deceased was lying unconscious bleeding profusely. He assisted the father of the deceased, Ujagar Singh, in lifting and removing the deceased in injured condition to the Hospital in auto-rickshaw. He stated that the auto-rickshaw covered about two kilometers, when Rajinder Singh came from behind with his truck, the deceased was shifted in the truck and when reached the Police Post, Miran Saheb, informed the Police Constable standing outside that the deceased has been murdered with a kirch and was being taken to the Hospital. The deceased succumbed to the injuries soon after in the Emergency Ward and his dead body was taken in custody by the Police, which also had arrived at that time. He is also a witness to Seizure memos EXPWUS-1 and EXPWUS-2, vide which the wearing apparels of the deceased and sample of blood taken by the doctor from the dead body of the deceased, were seized and sealed. After post-mortem examination, dead body of the deceased was handed over vide receipt EXPWUS-3 to perform the last rites ceremony. The witness further stated that while he was sitting in the house of Ujagar Singh, some body informed that the accused is hiding in the Muralian link road, upon which he along with Rajinder Singh and Narinder Singh proceeded to the Police Post and informed the Police where the accused was seen in Muralian. The Police rushed to Muralian, spotted the accused and arrested him on 09-07-1992. While in Police custody, the accused disclosed to the police about the weapon of the offence to have been kept concealed beneath the bridge of Mularlian Prem Nagar under a bush. After recording the disclosure statement EXPWRS by the Police, the accused took the Police to a place near Prem Nagar Bridge and took out a kirch from the bushes and handed over to the Police, which was seized and sealed in their presence vide EXPWRS-1. The witness further stated that on 23-06-1994, three boys came to his house at about 10.00 p.m. and inflicted injuries, as he had to appear as witness on the following day and threatened him to dissuade from appearing as a witness of the prosecution and tendering evidence in the case. The witness further stated that on 23-06-1994, three boys came to his house at about 10.00 p.m. and inflicted injuries, as he had to appear as witness on the following day and threatened him to dissuade from appearing as a witness of the prosecution and tendering evidence in the case. The police had also registered a case about this incident. In cross-examination, the witness reiterated to have told the Police that the accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased in his presence. When he went to the house of Sangat Singh, he saw PW Rajinder Singh was discharging the duty as supervisor in the kitchen and he met him near the `Pandal. The witness further stated that he was standing near PW Ujagar Singh when heard the `Lalkara of the accused and they were talking to each other. When the truck was brought by PW Rajinder Singh in front of the auto-rickshaw, 2-3 ladies were already sitting on the front seat in the cabin of the truck and PW Rajinder Singh came out of the truck, lifted the deceased to the front seat of the truck. He, however, could not recognize the ladies, as he himself was in the auto-rickshaw at that time and, thereafter, he also occupied the front seat in the cabin of the truck and saw the mother and the sister of the deceased amongst other ladies in the truck. The doctor declared the deceased dead on reaching the Hospital. The accused was also standing near a `kikker tree close to the water tap at the time he raised the `Lalkara. The accused was at a distance of 10 to 15 feet from him, when he raised the `Lalkara. People started running here and there, and there was an atmosphere of chaos and confusion in the house at that time. He also followed the accused along with Rajinder Singh and Ujagar Singh up to a distance of 10 to 12 feet, but then came back to the place of occurrence. The store-room and the `kikker tree near the hand-pump were adjacent to each other. The weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement in the evening but before Sun set. The kirch was a double-edged weapon and one feet in length, stained with blood. The store-room and the `kikker tree near the hand-pump were adjacent to each other. The weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement in the evening but before Sun set. The kirch was a double-edged weapon and one feet in length, stained with blood. After recovery, the kirch was seized and sealed, and marked as `M after having obtained from PW Rajinder Singh on whose Superdnama, it was kept earlier by the Police. He saw the accused carrying kirch in his right hand and caught hold of the deceased with left hand, before running towards that place. The doctor had examined the deceaseds dead body in the Hospital in his presence and saw four injuries on his person. The witness further stated to have met the deceased on the alleged day of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. and the latter told that the accused came to him with the request to keep him as a Conductor (Cleaner) of his truck, but the deceased refused, as the accused had already committed a murder. The deceased also told him that soon after his refusal of the proposal by the accused to become a Conductor with his truck, the accused extended threat to his life and this fact he had narrated to the Police, while recording the statement under section 161 Cr.PC. Whereas the statement of PW Sangat Singh is to the effect that he had invited both the accused and the deceased to attend his daughters marriage, besides other people of the `Baradari. Sangat Singh further stated to have gone to the Gurudwara for the performance of marriage ceremony at 10.30 a.m. and returned back at 11.15 a.m. The occurrence had taken place near the water tap, which was in his compound and he heard at 1.45 p.m. that some one had killed the boy. He rushed to the spot and saw the deceased in injured condition lying on the ground. The deceased was lifted and removed by Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh. In cross-examination, the witness stated that on reaching the spot, the deceased was found unconscious. The father, Ujagar Singh, and Harnam Singh were also present there. The deceased was removed to the Hospital by his father and Harnam Singh, and he also accompanied them only up to the main road and came back, as he had to give a send-off to the `Barat. The father, Ujagar Singh, and Harnam Singh were also present there. The deceased was removed to the Hospital by his father and Harnam Singh, and he also accompanied them only up to the main road and came back, as he had to give a send-off to the `Barat. The meals were being served at a place about 15 yards from the place of occurrence. PW Tarlok Singh is the son of Sangat Singh and stated that the deceased and the accused both attended the marriage of his sister, Manjit Kour, on 06-07-1992. He also stated to have been attracted on hearing the noise that the accused after killing the deceased had fled away from the place of occurrence. The witness went on spot and saw the deceased lying on ground near the hand-pump. He was removed to the Hospital. In cross-examination, the witness stated that 50-60 persons were taking meals when he heard the noise and all of them ran towards the place where the deceased was seen fallen on the ground. The father of the deceased and Harnam Singh, besides PW Kulbir Singh, were also present there. As regards the first contention raised by Mr. Ajay Kotwal that the evidence provided by the witnesses suffers from glaring discrepancies and is inconsistent and, thus, cannot be accepted unless corroborated by independent evidence, it is pertinent to point out that the discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, cannot be given undue importance; more so, when all the important probabilities-factor echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. The murder in this case has taken place in broad day light. The eye witnesses were subjected to gruelling cross-examination and the defence has not been able to spin out any infirmity or discrepancy, which may render their evidence unworthy of reliance. Unless there is any good ground to think that the discrepancies are due to deliberate attempt to depart from truth, it is unfair to discard their entire evidence. Some differences and discrepancies in detail are generally found in the case of honest witnesses and unless they are material, the witnesses need not necessarily be disbelieved. Minor discrepancies are possible even in the version of truthful witnesses and such minor discrepancies only add to the truthfulness of their evidence. Some differences and discrepancies in detail are generally found in the case of honest witnesses and unless they are material, the witnesses need not necessarily be disbelieved. Minor discrepancies are possible even in the version of truthful witnesses and such minor discrepancies only add to the truthfulness of their evidence. In this case, the prosecution rests on the evidence of four eye witnesses, namely, Ujagar Singh, Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh and Kulbir Singh. Their presence at the scene of occurrence has been proved in the testimony of Sangat Singh, who had unambiguously stated that these witnesses were invited to the marriage of his daughter and participated in the ceremony. It is also proved in the testimony of PW Tarlok Singh, son of Sangat Singh, that the accused and the deceased were also invited and participated in the marriage ceremony of his sister. All the four witnesses have stated in unequivocal terms about the manner in which the accused assaulted the deceased with the kirch in his hand and inflicted injuries on his chest and abdomen, after raising a `Lalkara -- `not to leave the deceased alive since the latter had disgracefully turned out him from his house yesterday. The presence of these eye witnesses on spot at the time of occurrence has also been established in their evidence, and having seen the accused causing murderous assault on the deceased and inflicting injuries on the deceased with the kirch in his possession has also been confirmed in their respective evidence. But PW Ujagar Singh, who happens to be the father of the deceased, has stated with unerring clarity that the accused raised the `Lalkara at 1.45 p.m. when his son, Ajit Paul Singh, was standing in the compound near the hand pump, after the first group of invitees and `Baratis had taken meals and second group was yet to occupy their seats. The accused raised the `Lalkara addressing the deceased that he will not leave him alive since he had turned him out disgracefully from his house a day before and proceeded towards him and inflicted four injuries on his chest and abdomen with a kirch. This statement of Ujagar Singh, an eye witness, further stands fully corroborated in material particulars in the evidence of Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh and Rajinder Singh present on spot and witnessed the occurrence with their naked eyes. This statement of Ujagar Singh, an eye witness, further stands fully corroborated in material particulars in the evidence of Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh and Rajinder Singh present on spot and witnessed the occurrence with their naked eyes. So is also affirmed in the testimony of the other eye witnesses. Nothing inherently improbable or unnatural has been trotted out from their pungent cross-examination to cause any speck of doubt on their veracity. The evidence provided by all the four witnesses, named above, is fair, straightforward, consistent, credible and trustworthy, and inspires confidence in the Court. Despite their streamline cross-examination, the defence failed to shake their credibility. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of the eye witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles, namely, (i) whether in the circumstances of the case, it was possible for the eye witnesses to be present at the scene and (ii) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. Credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence taken in other context of the case and not by entering into the realm of conjectures and speculations. On scrutinizing the evidence of PW Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kublir Singh and Ujagar Singh, we find that they are consistent with one another so far as the mode and manner, tone and tenor of the occurrence, assault and the place of occurrence, besides the weapon of assault used by the accused, the number of injuries inflicted and the place where they were inflicted, are concerned, and nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to impeach their testimony. Their evidence is further fully corroborated by the medical testimony. The evidence given by these eye witnesses regarding the manner of assault is cogent, consistent, and has impressed us as trustworthy. The evidence of these eye witnesses coupled with the recovery of kirch and the medical evidence given by Dr. Anayat Ullah unmistakably connects the accused/appellant with the commission of the crime, i.e., the assault on the deceased, which had resulted in his death. The evidence of these eye witnesses coupled with the recovery of kirch and the medical evidence given by Dr. Anayat Ullah unmistakably connects the accused/appellant with the commission of the crime, i.e., the assault on the deceased, which had resulted in his death. Simply on the score that the distance given by the eye witnesses between the accused and the deceased is different, their testimonies do not deserve to be discarded because the evidence of these eye witnesses is otherwise convincing and the same stood also corroborated by other facts established by the prosecution. The evidence of the eye witness, if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction, though in appropriate cases, the Court may, as a measure of caution, seek some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness always is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons, etc. at the instance of the accused by the Police. This view stands supported by the Apex Court in Shrishail Nageshi Pare v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 866. Apart from that, discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony as is held by the Apex Court in Narotom v. State, AIR 1978 SC 1542. Discrepancies in the testimony of eye witnesses on material or broad points have to be carefully weighed in arriving at the truth. But trifling discrepancies, as has been pointed out by Mr. Kotwal during arguments referring to some variance with regard to the distance between the accused and the deceased, the distance amongst the eye witnesses between each other, eye witnesses and the place where the deceased was standing at the relevant time, should be ignored, as they are often a test of truth. Several persons giving their versions of an occurrence witnessed by them are naturally liable to disagree on material points. Their powers of observation, expression or memory are not the same, and honest differences are easily possible. In weighing evidence, it must be remembered that there are discrepancies of truth as well as falsehood, and that a too minute attention to immaterial discrepancies may lead to serious failure of justice. It was also vainly argued by Mr. Their powers of observation, expression or memory are not the same, and honest differences are easily possible. In weighing evidence, it must be remembered that there are discrepancies of truth as well as falsehood, and that a too minute attention to immaterial discrepancies may lead to serious failure of justice. It was also vainly argued by Mr. Kotwal that though there were other independent witnesses present, but none including the eye witnesses intervened to save the accused and, thus, caused a serious dent in the prosecution case as to its credibility and trustworthiness. We do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. Kotwal for reasons forthcoming from the record itself that the people were scared of reaching the accused to apprehend him out of fear or to intervene the deceased to save him, as the accused earlier also had committed a murder and he had recently been acquitted for want of evidence. This fact further stands strengthened in the evidence of Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Harnam Singh, when they stated to have chased the accused, but while reaching to apprehend him, the accused gave a blow with the kirch in his hand to these witnesses. But he managed to escape and, thereafter, they did not gather courage to follow him and returned. In such circumstances, the evidence of eye witnesses could not be rejected merely on the ground that they did not intervene to save the deceased, and other independent witnesses have not been examined. The reason is obvious. The scare of the accused, who had earlier also committed a murder, and if the witnesses come forward to give an evidence, may have met the same fate, made them not to depose against the accused. Even PW Harnam Singh, an eye witness to the occurrence, in his evidence has unambiguously stated that on 23-6-1994 at about 10.00 p.m., three boys came to his house and inflicted injuries on him as the witness had to appear in the Court on the next day. It is also in his evidence that those three boys threatened him to refrain from appearing as a witness and in respect of which he got a case registered with the Police. Nothing was asked to the witness by the defence in cross-examination and, therefore, the fact assumes affirmation. It is also in his evidence that those three boys threatened him to refrain from appearing as a witness and in respect of which he got a case registered with the Police. Nothing was asked to the witness by the defence in cross-examination and, therefore, the fact assumes affirmation. It was PW Harnam Singh, who also stated to have informed the Policeman standing outside the Police Post, Miran Saheb, from the truck, in which they were removing the deceased to the Hospital, that the deceased had been murdered with a kirch and which entry was made in the Roznamcha and, subsequently, dispatched to the Police Station, R.S. Pura, and where the case was registered. This fact also finds corroboration in the testimony of PW Rajinder Singh. This clearly shows that the FIR had been based on the information of a person, who had full knowledge of the occurrence. Further, the veracity of a witness is adjudged not only from his individual statement, but also from his testimony taken in conjunction with all other facts brought out in the testimony of the other witnesses. The eye witnesses, therefore, in our view, have come out with unvarnished truth and narrated sequence of events as to how and in what manner the occurrence has taken place, viz., accused caused the murderous assault on the deceased with the kirch in his hand on the fateful day and corroborated each other on all vital points. The question of examining independent witnesses arises only when the Court has some genuine doubt regarding the evidence and reliability of the witnesses, much less the eye witnesses, already adduced and examined in the case. The conclusion of guilt in this case is, therefore, established conclusively on the material placed by the prosecution, consisting of the unimpeachable and clinching evidence of the eye witnesses about the occurrence, and the defence has miserably failed to exact anything from their evidence to render their testimony incredible, inconvincing and unreliable. It was next contended by Mr. Kotwal, appellants counsel, that all the four witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to each other, their evidence is interested and tainted and, thus, without independent corroboration, cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. Undoubtedly, the eye witnesses are related to the deceased. It was next contended by Mr. Kotwal, appellants counsel, that all the four witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to each other, their evidence is interested and tainted and, thus, without independent corroboration, cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. Undoubtedly, the eye witnesses are related to the deceased. Their presence on spot at the time of occurrence has been proved in the testimony of Sangat Singh, when he stated to have invited these witnesses and they participated in the marriage ceremony of his daughter. Their presence on spot at the time of occurrence cannot, therefore, be ruled out. The evidence of these witnesses was recorded immediately after the occurrence by the Investigating Officer. The information with regard to the commission of the offence, first in point of time, was made by Harnam Singh, an eye witness of the occurrence, and which formed the basis for the registration of a case after the report was sent by the Police Post, Miran Saheb to the Police Station, R.S. Pura against the accused. The witnesses are known to each other and also knew the appellant and the victim. In view of the consistency in the evidence of these witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded and whittled down merely because they are related and interested witnesses, as is also held by the Apex Court in Ram Anup Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SC 686. Where the evidence of the eye witnesses is otherwise credible, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that their evidence is interested or partisan. Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. Normally, close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of their relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such criticism. The witnesses may be related but that does not mean and imply total rejection of the evidence: interested may be but to implicate the real culprit and not falsely implicate the innocent person. Nothing has been shown by the defence either from its evidence or from the evidence of others that those witnesses have any bias against the accused. These are the most natural witnesses to speak about what had happened before their eyes. Nothing has been shown by the defence either from its evidence or from the evidence of others that those witnesses have any bias against the accused. These are the most natural witnesses to speak about what had happened before their eyes. Positional importance of these witnesses as witnesses of the occurrence was significant. Relationship, therefore, in our view, is not a factor to affect the credibility of the witnesses and itself is discernible from the record that even if other witnesses were present, but have not been contacted and their evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer, the evidence of the related witnesses cannot be discarded, when link after link is forged so firmly in their credible testimony only leads to manacle the accused inescapably in the commission of the crime, unless a motive is proved to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person. The mere circumstance that the eye witnesses and the deceased are closely related would be of no avail to the defence, rather add to the value of their evidence, because their main concern would be in getting the real culprit, rather than innocent person, punished. It is further apt to point out that the evidence of eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased, cannot be rejected when their presence at the scene of occurrence is admitted by other eye witnesses. The presence of the relatives at the spot is only natural and corroborates their evidence. But straightforward and trustworthy evidence of the relations of the deceased needs no corroboration to sustain conviction. Such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of interestedness in the prosecution case. The term `interested postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or other convicted for some animus or some other reason. A witness may be called `interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; and when in seeing an accused person punished. A witness, who is a natural one and his presence proved by other eye witnesses at the time of occurrence, cannot be dubbed as only interested, notwithstanding his relationship with the deceased, which exhibits his concern to see that the real culprit is punished. The only thing that puts the Court on guard in case of related witnesses is that their evidence be subjected to close scrutiny and viewed with caution and circumspection. The only thing that puts the Court on guard in case of related witnesses is that their evidence be subjected to close scrutiny and viewed with caution and circumspection. In taking all appropriate cautions while appraising the evidence of the eye witnesses, who happen to be relatives of the deceased, and examining its probative value with reference to the entire mosaic of facts appearing from the record, we are clearly of the view that it is not open for us to reject the evidence without anything more on the mere ground of relationship or favour or possible prejudice. The contention of Mr. Kotwal on this count, in our opinion, is also devoid of any substance/force to merit acceptance. Another limb of argument put across by Mr. Kotwal, appellants counsel, is that medical evidence is in direct conflict with the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses. It is further stated that the doctor in his evidence though stated that the total length of the weapon of offence tallies with the sketch drawn by him EXPWAU-1, but the breadth of the blade and/or length of the blade does not tally with the weapon shown to him in the Court. According to Mr. Kotwal, the doctor further stated that the injuries found on the person of the deceased appear to have been caused by one weapon with the blade having 1/2" width. While it is true that the post-mortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the post-mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis--vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefor and it would then be the prosecutors duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on the record from the other prosecution witnesses. According to PW Dr. Anayat Ullah, the deceased was brought by ASI Jaswant Singh of Police Station R. S. Pura in the injured condition being a stabbing case, who died in the Emergency Ward. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: "1. Incised punctured wound in the left mid axillary line in the fifth intercostals space, 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, 5.6" deep into the left lung substance measuring + cm at the tip in breadth into the left ventricle. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: "1. Incised punctured wound in the left mid axillary line in the fifth intercostals space, 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, 5.6" deep into the left lung substance measuring + cm at the tip in breadth into the left ventricle. 400 ml of blood was present in the pericardium; 2. incised punctured wound on the left posterior axillary fold in the ninth intercostals space. 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm deep into the lung and left diaphragmatic domb down into the supero posterior wall of fundus of stomach 7.5 cm x + cm; 3. Incised punctured wound in front of the body of the stornum in the mid part + cm x + cm; 4. Incised punctured wound in the eigth intercostals space on the right costal margin in midculavicular region 1.5 cm x + cm internally." It is also in the certificate of the doctor that lungs substance pericardium, stomach and right kidney were ruptured and, in his opinion, the death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock. In the certificate, EXPWAU, the doctor further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries mentioned in the certificate could be possible by the weapon shown in the Court. Mr. Kotwal, appellants counsel, however, submitted that since the breadth of the blade or length of the blade of the weapon shown to the doctor in the Court did not tally with the sketch drawn by him as EXPWAU-1, it does not support the prosecution case and there being a material contradiction between the eye witnesses, on the one hand, and the medical evidence, on the other, the prosecution case crumbles down like a pack of cards. It is significant to point out that the doctor has nowhere given the dimension of the weapon, viz., kirch in the sketch drawn at EXPWAU-1, so it is highly hypothetical for the doctor to state that it did not tally with the breadth or length of the blade of the weapon shown in sketch drawn in EXPWAU-1. It is significant to point out that the doctor has nowhere given the dimension of the weapon, viz., kirch in the sketch drawn at EXPWAU-1, so it is highly hypothetical for the doctor to state that it did not tally with the breadth or length of the blade of the weapon shown in sketch drawn in EXPWAU-1. On the one hand, the dimension of the weapon seized by the Police has been clearly indicated in the sketch drawn by them in EXPWHS-2 where the breadth of the weapon, kirch, from the middle is 1" and gets reduced while proceeding towards tip, as is visible from the graph in the EXPWHS-2. So, much significance or weight cannot be given to this aspect of the statement of the doctor in the facts and circumstances of the case enumerated from the record, particularly when the sketch of the weapon drawn by the Police manifestly seems to be true replica of the sketch drawn by the doctor EXPWAU-1. The number of injuries, the place of infliction and the possibility of these injuries having been caused by the weapon shown to the doctor in the Court, stand fully corroborated in the testimony of the eye witnesses, who also happen to be the attesting witnesses of the seizure memo, by which the weapon was seized by the Investigating Officer. So, it cannot be said, in our view, with certitude that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses, so as to render the prosecution case redolent with doubt and suspicion. In Krishan and Another v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2003 (5) Supreme 173, the Apex Court, while dealing with the probative value of the medical evidence, held as under: "It is trite that where the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointint to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the `credit of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation." It is well settled that the positive evidence in a case is that of the eye witnesses and the evidence of a medical expert is merely an opinion corroborating the same. The value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It is proved that the injuries could have been caused in the manner and nothing more. Merely a statement of the doctor that the breadth of the weapon shown to him in the Court does not tally with the weapon shown in the sketch, itself is otherwise hypothetical statement, as no breadth or length was given by the doctor in the sketch prepared by him in EXPWAU-1. It cannot be said that the medical evidence runs counter to the evidence of the eye-witnesses, particularly when there is a consistency between the two about the nature of the weapon and the injuries inflicted in the occurrence which took place. Even in extreme situations, when the eye witnesses count is credible and trustworthy, as in the instant case pointed out, medical opinion in the alternative is not acceptable as conclusive. This contention of the learned appellants counsel also does not bear any substance to merit consideration. The other incriminating circumstance to corroborate the prosecution case is the recovery of the weapon of offence, viz., kirch, at the instance of the accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement made, while in Police custody, to the Investigating Officer in presence of the witnesses. The evidence with regard to the disclosure statement and the recovery of weapon of offence, used by the accused in the commission of the crime, remained unassailed, unchallenged and unquestioned. The evidence with regard to the disclosure statement and the recovery of weapon of offence, used by the accused in the commission of the crime, remained unassailed, unchallenged and unquestioned. It is in the evidence of PW Harnam Singh that on getting the information that the accused is hiding himself in Muralian, he accompanied by Rajinder Singh and Narinder Singh, proceeded to the Police Post, Miran Saheb, and informed about it. It is also in the evidence of Harnam Singh that the Police immediately rushed to Muralian accompanied by them and arrested the accused. He further stated that while in Police custody, the accused made a disclosure statement with regard to the weapon of offence to have been kept concealed underneath a bridge near Prem Nagar in the bushes. The accused accompanied the Police to the place of the concealment under the bridge and brought out a kirch from bushes, which was seized and sealed by the Police in his presence. He has admitted the contents of the disclosure statement and the recovery memos EXPWRS-1 and EXPWRS-2 respectively bearing his signatures. So is also affirmed in the testimony of PW Rajinder Singh. The weapon of offence has been identified by the witnesses to be the same. The investigating Officer, PW Hardeep Singh, is a scribe of the disclosure statement and seizure memo vide which the weapon of offence has been seized after having been recovered by the Police at the instance of the accused in pursuance of disclosure statement made by him while in Police custody. The sketch of the weapon marked as EXPWHS-2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and he also recorded the statement of the eye witnesses and on the completion of the investigation, he found the accused guilty of the offences under sections 302 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. Nothing specific has been asked from the Investigating Officer with regard to the non-examination of the independent witnesses, who stated to have been present on spot at the time of occurrence. The case of the prosecution, thus, stands fully supported in the testimony of the Investigating Officer. He has collected the evidence and other materials during investigation and found the offence of murder established against the accused and nothing is found in his cross-examination to render his investigation biased. Mr. The case of the prosecution, thus, stands fully supported in the testimony of the Investigating Officer. He has collected the evidence and other materials during investigation and found the offence of murder established against the accused and nothing is found in his cross-examination to render his investigation biased. Mr. Kotwal further submitted that the date on the Court copy of the FIR has been tampered in order to prove its receipt to the Magistrate on 7-7-1992, whereas, in fact, it has been dispatched to the Court on 8-7-1992 and unexplained delay of two days is fatal to the prosecution case. The plea taken by the defence manifestly appears to be without any substance on a bare perusal of the copy of the FIR. The date stands corrected as 7-7-1992 and bears the signature and seal of the Magistrate. The plea further stands belied by the date 7-7-1992 recorded in column No. 8 of the Prosecuting Officer while submitting the FIR in the Court. That apart, the mere delay in dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate is not fatal, when position explained by the Investigating Agency. But in this case, no conclusion can be drawn on such ground that the FIR was not lodged on the same date after the incident or it was ante-dated. This plea is also, therefore, devoid of any legal force and cannot be accepted. So for as motive, with which the accused is stated to have been actuated to commit the murder of the deceased, is concerned, it is pertinent to point out that the motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention to do a particular act. There is unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence that the accused, a day before, went to the house of the deceased and asked him to work as a Cleaner with him on his truck, but the latter declined in stating that he had already murdered a member of their `Baradari, which irritated the accused and he threatened the deceased, and the accused left in a fit of rage and revenge. It is also proved from the consistent and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that the accused raised a `Lalkara before inflicting a murderous assault on the deceased that since the accused had been turned out from the house disgracefully a day before, he will not leave the deceased alive. It is also proved from the consistent and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that the accused raised a `Lalkara before inflicting a murderous assault on the deceased that since the accused had been turned out from the house disgracefully a day before, he will not leave the deceased alive. Apart from that, where the prosecution rests on the testimony of the eye witnesses, motive loses both relevance and significance and even if not proved, is not fatal to the prosecution case. Another argument put forth by the appellants counsel is with regard to the plea of alibi taken by the appellant/accused in defence. It is stated that the accused was, in fact, arrested by the Police from Poonch and not from the village Muralian. The plea of alibi flows from section 11 of the Evidence Act. The word `alibi is of Latin origin and means "elsewhere". It is a convenient term used for the defence taken by an accused that when the occurrence took place, he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it was highly improbable that he would have participated in the crime. Alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Ranbir Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized under section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. The burden of proving commission of offence by the accused so as to fasten the liability of guilt on him remains on the prosecution. The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only when the burden, which lies on the prosecution is discharged satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, then it is incumbent upon the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with certainty, so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time of occurrence. In view of the overwhelming evidence collected during investigation and adduced during trial, including that of Sangat Singh and Tarlok Singh, in whose house the marriage ceremony was performed in stating that the accused and the deceased were invited and participated in the marriage, and the occurrence has been established beyond hilt in the evidence of the eye witnesses, the accused has not succeeded in discharging this burden, which is, undoubtedly, heavy. However, while weighing the prosecution case and defence case, pitted against each other, the balance tilts in favour of the prosecution, as no evidence has been adduced by the accused in proof of plea of alibi. After taking conspectus of the facts and circumstances discussed above in its cumulative, we are clearly of the view, that the consistent and credible evidence of the eye witnesses fully supported in the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances unerringly prove the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt and are inconsistent with his innocence. The Trial Court has appreciated, estimated and weighed the evidence in its proper perspective fairly, decided the character of the witnesses correctly and reached the result rightly. We are, therefore, in agreement with the findings of the Trial Court and confirm the findings returned of the sentence awarded. This appeal, therefore, possessing no merit is dismissed and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court confirmed. Both the appeal as well as the reference made by the Trial Court, is disposed of accordingly.