Judgment S.K. Sharma, J.-The appellants were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota bearing Sessions Case No. 85/2001. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated August 7, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Shiv Raj Singh @ Sethi and Bashir: Under Section 148, IPC: Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year and Six Months. Under Section 302, IPC: Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for one Month. Under Section 324, IPC: Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten days. Harish @ Banti @ Kalia: Under Section 148, IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year and Six Months. Under Section 302/149, IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for one Month. Under Section 324/149, IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten days. 2. Since, both these appeals arise out of the same incident and Judgment , we proceeded to decide them by a common Judgment . 3. It is the prosecution case that on receiving information that Udai Bhan Singh was admitted in MBS Hospital Kota in an injured condition, SHO Police Station Mandawa rushed to MBS Hospital and recorded Parcha Bayan of Udai Bhan Singh at 1.15 pm on October 18, 1995. Udai Bhan Singh stated that on that day around 11 am he alongwith his son Ashok Chaudhary (now dead), Laxmi Narain Mehra, Babu Lal Head Constable and Mahavir Prasad proceeded in Maruti van from his house for Ravatbhata. No sooner did their van reach near village Nayagaon, it got halted because of mechanical fault. They all got down of the vehicle. Suddenly Bashir, Sethi, Kalia @ Banti and Sumer Singh alongwith two other boys appeared and made murderous assault on Ashok Chaudhary with knives and daggors. When the informant (Udai Bhan Singh) intervened Bashir and Sethi inflicted injuries with knife and daggor on his left hip and finger of left arm. They all got down of the vehicle. Suddenly Bashir, Sethi, Kalia @ Banti and Sumer Singh alongwith two other boys appeared and made murderous assault on Ashok Chaudhary with knives and daggors. When the informant (Udai Bhan Singh) intervened Bashir and Sethi inflicted injuries with knife and daggor on his left hip and finger of left arm. Ashok Chaudhary after sustaining injuries fell down, thereafter Bashir, Banti and Sethi picked up stones and inflicted injuries on the head, face and chest of Ashok Chaudhary and treating him dead left the place of incident. Ashok Chaudhary was removed to the hospital in the van which came in order after some time. Ashok Chaudhary was declared dead in the hospital. On the basis of said Parcha Bayan case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307 and 302, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against eight accused persons. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota. Charges under Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148 and 341, IPC were framed against the accused persons, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 30 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313, CrPC, the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. Five co-accused were however acquitted. It is against this finding of conviction and sentence that the three appellants have preferred the instant appeals. 4. Before proceeding further we deem it necessary to refer to the injuries sustained by the deceased and the informant. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-3) the deceased sustained following ante mortem injuries:- “(1) IW 4” x 2” x 2” tran. On Lt. cheek mexilla bone cut .(2) IW 2” x ¼” x ¼” Lt. Molar region. .(3) IW 1” x ¼” x ¼” left lower lip tran. .(4) IW 2” x ¾” x ¼” tran. under chin. .(5) IW ¾” x ¼” x ½” vertical on Rt. temporal region. .(6) IW ¼” x ¼” x ¼” Rt. Nostril Lat. wall. .(7) IW 2” x ¼” x ¼” Tran. on Rt. side neck vessels cut. .(8) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¾” Tran. Post.Medial aspect Lt. Shoulder. .(9) SW ¾” x ¼” x 1” Ant. under chin. .(5) IW ¾” x ¼” x ½” vertical on Rt. temporal region. .(6) IW ¼” x ¼” x ¼” Rt. Nostril Lat. wall. .(7) IW 2” x ¼” x ¼” Tran. on Rt. side neck vessels cut. .(8) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¾” Tran. Post.Medial aspect Lt. Shoulder. .(9) SW ¾” x ¼” x 1” Ant. Aspect lt. Shoulder. .(10) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¼” lat. Aspect lt. Shoulder. .(11) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¼” Tran. on middle and lat. Aspect lt. Upper arm. .(12) IW 3” x ¾” x ½” tran. lower and lat. of lt. upper arm. .(13) IW 2” x ¾” x ¾” tran. on post lat. Aspect lt. Elbow. .(14) IW 2” x ¼” x ¼” trans. on dorsum of lt. hand bone cut. .(15) IW ½” x 1/8” x ¼” tran. on dorsum of lt. Little and ring finger .(16) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¾” vertical on upper and medial aspect Rt. Upper arm. .(17) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¼” vertical on middle and lat. aspect Rt. upper arm. .(18) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¼” vertical on upper and post. aspect Rt. lower arm. .(19) IW ¾” x ¼” x ¼” on upper 1/3rd and lat. Aspect fore arm. (Rt. Fore arm 4” below elbow flexing) .(20) SW ¾” x ¼” x C.D. going down wards and medially on lt. side of chest just below lat. end of lt. clavical cutting upper lat. of lt. lung viz. ½” x ¼” x 1” oozing blood cavity filled with blood clots. Injury Nos. 21 to 36 are on front of chest and abdomen size ½” x ¼” CD to ¼” x 1/8” x C.D. Injury Nos. 46 to 50 are on back of abdomen and lumber region varying in size ¾” x ¼” x CD to1/2” 1/8 x CD abdominal cavity filled with blood and clots.” The cause of death, according to Dr. Y.K. Sharma (PW. 3), who performed autopsy on the dead body was, shock as a result of injuries to head and left lung. 5. Dr. Ashok Mundra (PW. 5) examined the injuries of informant Udai Bhan Singh and drew injury report (Ex.P-9), according to which Udai Bhan Singh received following injuries:-“1. Stab wound direction upward 2 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm deep at lt. gluteal region, simple sharp 2. 5. Dr. Ashok Mundra (PW. 5) examined the injuries of informant Udai Bhan Singh and drew injury report (Ex.P-9), according to which Udai Bhan Singh received following injuries:-“1. Stab wound direction upward 2 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm deep at lt. gluteal region, simple sharp 2. Incised wound 3cm x ½ cm x ¼ cm at lt. side of lt.index finger on middle phalynx. Simple sharp. 3. Abrassion 1cm x ½ cm infront of Rt. knee jt. Simple blunt. 4. Abrassion ½ x ¼ cm at lat. malleolus of Rt. ankle simple blunt.” .6. We have heard the submissions and scanned the record. Broadly speaking there are three features in the case which require attention. .(i) trustworthiness of sole eye-witness Udai Bhan Singh; .(ii) contradiction between medical and oral evidence; .(iii) reliability of recoveries made in the case. 7. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that since Udai Bhan Singh, the sole eye witness of the incident died before completion of the cross-examination, his testimony ought to have been completely discarded. Reliance is placed on Mahendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1986 RLR 132. In order to appreciate the submission, we have closely scrutinized the testimony of Udai Bhan Singh. It appears from the record that after completion of examination-in-chief Udai Bhan Singh was cross examined on June 17 and June 18, 1998. Since cross-examination could not be completed, the case was again adjourned for June 19, 1998. Udai Bhan Singh was present on June 19, 1998, but accused Shiv Raj Singh and Harish got themselves absented and non-bailable warrants were issued against them. In such a situation no option was left with the trial Corut but to discharge Udai Bhan Singh. Thereafter, Udai Bhan Singh died on June 30, 2001 before completion of his cross-examination. A look at the paper book reveals that cross examination of Udai Bhan Singh runs in twenty one pages. Despite the lengthy cross examination which consumed two full days of the trial Court, learned Counsel for the accused still wanted to cross-examine Udai Bhan Singh and the case was adjouned to June 19, 1998 for further cross-examination. A look at the paper book reveals that cross examination of Udai Bhan Singh runs in twenty one pages. Despite the lengthy cross examination which consumed two full days of the trial Court, learned Counsel for the accused still wanted to cross-examine Udai Bhan Singh and the case was adjouned to June 19, 1998 for further cross-examination. Udai Bhan Singh was present on that day but since all the accused were not present, the trial Court discharged the witness in view of the mandate of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that the evidence shall be taken in the presence of accused. In Diwan Singh vs. Emperor, AIR 1933 Lahore 561, it was indicated that if the examination is substantially complete and the witness is prevented by death, sickness or other causes (mentioned in Section 33, Evidence Act) from finishing his testimony, it ought not to be rejected entirely. In Horril vs. Rajab, AIR 1936 Punjab 34, it was held that deposition of a witness where cross examination became impossible can be treated evidence and the Court should carefully see whether there are indications that by a completed cross-examination the testimony was likely to be seriously shaken or his good faith to be successfully impeached. 8. We have gone through all the twenty one pages of the cross-examination of Udai Bhan Singh. In the lengthy cross-examination all the facts, narrated by the witness, have been touched and tested and we find no indication that by a completed cross examination the testimony of the witness was likely to be seriously shaken. Ratio indicated in Mahendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1986 RLR 132, is not applicable to the facts of the instant matter. In that case the witness was not at all cross examined, therefore, his entire testimony was discarded. 9. It is next contended that Udai Bhan Singh, who is the sole eye-witness, is none other than the father of the deceased Ashok Chaudhary, therefore, his evidence needed a cautious approach. Reliance is placed on Jagdish vs. State of M.P., 2000 (9) SCC 155 and Maruti Rama Nayak vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (10) SCC 670 . 10. From the evidence of Udai Bhan Singh, it may be noticed that at the time of incident he was traveling with the deceased in a Maruti Van. Reliance is placed on Jagdish vs. State of M.P., 2000 (9) SCC 155 and Maruti Rama Nayak vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (10) SCC 670 . 10. From the evidence of Udai Bhan Singh, it may be noticed that at the time of incident he was traveling with the deceased in a Maruti Van. He had seen the assailants inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased, when he intervened he also sustained injuries. We find the presence of Udai Bhan Singh at the time of occurrence quite natural. In the Parcha Bayan he named Bashir, Sethi, Kalia @ Banti and Sumer Singh. Since, Sumer Singh died during trial, proceedings against him stood dropped. In his testimony at the trial Udai Bhan Singh deposed that he did not know accused Banti @ Kalia by the name Harish. Identifying Harish in the Court Udai Bhan Singh categorically stated that he knew him by the name of Banti @ Kalia when he had seen inflicting injuries on the person of his son. Udai Bhan Singh however could not identify accused Shiv Raj Singh in the trial Court. When he was asked to identify Shiv Raj Singh, he pointed towards Parvej @ Pinta and deposed that he was Shiv Raj Singh. Learned trial Judge ignored this material infirmity on the ground that after three years of the incident it was difficult to identify the accused in the Court. We are not impressed with this reasoning. It is well settled that substantitive evidence of the witness is his evidence in the Court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness then identification of the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of great importance because it furnishes an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in Court at the trial. In the case on hand no identification parade of Shiv Raj Singh was held because according to prosecution he was named in the Parcha Bayan as ‘Sethi’ and in the statement under Section 161, CrPC. Udai Bhain Singh named him as Shiv Raj Singh @ Sethi. Strangely Udai Bhan Singh who identified accused Bashir and Banti @ Kalia in the trial Court even after three years of the occurrence, failed to recognise Shiv Raj Singh. Udai Bhain Singh named him as Shiv Raj Singh @ Sethi. Strangely Udai Bhan Singh who identified accused Bashir and Banti @ Kalia in the trial Court even after three years of the occurrence, failed to recognise Shiv Raj Singh. Having thoroughly scrutinised the testimony of Udai Bhan Singh we find sufficient reasons to suspect his evidence qua the accused Shiv Raj Singh. We however find the evidence of Udai Bhan Singh against Bashir and Banti @ Kalia consistent and trustworthy. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P., 2002 (4) SCC 85 , indicated that where the testimony of witness was cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the said witness happened to be the relation of the deceased. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that version of Udai Bhan Singh has been completely falsified by the medical evidence. Since, no injury from the stone was found on the dead body. Therefore, recovery of three pieces of stones from the scene of occurrence was of no avail to the prosecution. It is also urged that alleged recovery of weapon of offences at the instance of the accused was farce and it cannot be read against the accused. Reliance is placed on Chandran vs. State of Madras, AIR 1978 SC 1574 , Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 911 , Dhanajaya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka (2001) 4 SCC 9 , State of U.P. vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, 2003 (2) SCC 202 ; Maruti Rama Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (10) SCC 670 , Kanan vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1127 and Swamygowda vs. State of Karnataka, 1997 CrLJ 423 . 12. It is no doubt true that the ocular evidence and the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case is at variance. But this variation does not affect the trustworthiness of injured eye-witness Udai Bhan Singh. In Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa, 2002 (8) SCC 381 , it was held that undue primacy should not be accorded to medical witness to exclude eye-witness’s account which has to be tested independently and not treated as ‘variable’ keeping the medical evidence as ‘constant’. But this variation does not affect the trustworthiness of injured eye-witness Udai Bhan Singh. In Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa, 2002 (8) SCC 381 , it was held that undue primacy should not be accorded to medical witness to exclude eye-witness’s account which has to be tested independently and not treated as ‘variable’ keeping the medical evidence as ‘constant’. In Sumesh Lal vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (3) SCC 27 it was indicated that when evidence of eye-witness was found competent and truthful, there was no need to look for any other evidence. So far as the argument related to recovery of weapons is concerned, it may be seen that information regarding concealing of the article of the crime does not lead to discovery of the article but it leads to discovery of the fact that the article was concealed at the indicated place to the knowledge of the accused. Sir John Beaumont in Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 observed highlighting the pith of the ratio thus:- “Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of a knife, it leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.” This legal position adumbrated in ‘Pulukuri Kottaya’ has been considered and tested by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court, time and again and the Supreme Court has only reiterated the said principle with approval (vide Pandurang Kalu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (2) SCC 490 . 13. The Apex Court in Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (6) SCC 81 propounded that if incriminating material is not recovered from the accused, it cannot alone be taken as a ground to exonerate the accused from the charges, more so when their participation in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses, whose evidence has been found to be unimpeachable. 14. Ratio indicated in the case law cited by the learned Counsel is of no help to the accused Bashir and Banti @ Kalia in view of the cogent testimony of Udai Bhan Singh. 14. Ratio indicated in the case law cited by the learned Counsel is of no help to the accused Bashir and Banti @ Kalia in view of the cogent testimony of Udai Bhan Singh. The infirmities shown in his evidence do not materially affect the prosecution case qua accused Bashir and Banti @ Kalia. 15. Consequently, we dispose of the instant appeals in the following terms:- .(i) Appeal of Shiv Raj Singh @ Sethi is allowed, his conviction and sentence awarded vide impugned Judgment stand set aside and he is acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302 and 324, IPC. Appellant Shiv Raj Singh @ Sethi, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. .(ii) Appeals of Bashir and Harish @ Banti @ Kalia are dismissed. (iii) Impugned Judgment stands modified as indicated above.