JUDGMENT 1. - This D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal has been filed by accused appellant Kishan Bahadur against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.2.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 128/2001 by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under. 302 I.P.C. Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- , in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month's simple imprisonment 307 I.P.C. 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment one month's simple imprisonment. 450 I.P.C. 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 7.10.1999 at about 9:15 a.m. P.W. I Rajesh Kumar submitted a written report Ex. P/ 1 in the Police Station Vijay Nagar stating inter-alia therein that he is owning a book-shop in Indira Market, Vijay Nagar in the name of Jyoti Pustak Bhandar. On 6.10.1999 at about 8 p.m. when he alongwith his younger brother Hemraj and one neighbour Satish Kumar were at the shop and were about to close the shop, at that time accused Kishan Kumar in a drunken state came there and demanded a sum of Rs. 20/- for purchase of liquor to which they did not agree. The accused on refusal of demand made by him got annoyed and threatened them to face dire consequences and left the shop. They closed the shop and went to their residence. On the other day i.e. 7.10.1999 in the morning at about 8 a.m. when he (informant) and his younger brother came to the shop, Satish Kumar came there as usual to read newspaper and started reading newspaper. His brother sat at the counter and he started cleaning the shop. At that time, at about 8:15 a.m. accused having a knife (Chhuri) in his had came there and inflicted knife blow on the right side of the stomach of Hemraj. His brother sat at the counter and he started cleaning the shop. At that time, at about 8:15 a.m. accused having a knife (Chhuri) in his had came there and inflicted knife blow on the right side of the stomach of Hemraj. The accused did not stop there but gave another knife blow at the left side of the chest and when Satish Kumar tried to save his brother, the accused inflicted knife blows on the left side of the chest of Satish Kumar and also inflicted blows on the back and other parts of the body. It has further been stated that Satish Kumar died then and there. His brother Hemraj was seriously injured. Accused, thereafter, ran away. It has further been stated that when accused was inflicting knife blows on the person of Hemraj and Satish Kumar, the neighbourers owning shop there namely Devendra Kumar. Rajednra Prasad and Titoo - the brother of the deceased, also came there. All of them have seen the incident. 3. On this report a Criminal Case No. 316/1999 under sections 302, 307, 450, I.P.C. was registered against accused appellant and a regular First Information Report i.e. Ex. P/2 was chalked out and investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, P.W. 10 Satpal Middha. S.H.O., Police Station, reached at the spot and prepared site-plan and inspection note, respectively Ex. P/3 and P/3-A in presence of P.W. 2 Devendra Kumar and P.W. 3 Lakhveer Kumar @ Lakhi on 7.10.1999. A pair of 'chappal, smeared with blood, was found at the spot which was seized and sealed through memo Ex. P/4 in presence of Devendra Kumar and Lakhveer. The clothes smeared with blood of injured Hemraj and the clothes of deceased Satish Kumar were seized and sealed by the police through memos Exs. P/6 and P/5 respectively Fard Surat Hall Lash (Ex. P/7) and Fard Panchayatnama (Ex. P/8) of the deceased were prepared in presence of Shyam Nagpal and Prem Kumar. The accused was arrested through memo Ex. P/29 on 7.10.1999 at 6:10 p.m. and in the custody he made a disclosure statement Ex. P/31 on 10.10.1999 at 8 a.m. voluntary to get recovered the knife, wrist watch and clothes smeared with blood worn by him at the time of incident from his room. In pursuance of disclosure statement Ex. P-3 1, he got recovered his clothes, wrist watch and knife through memos Exs. P/31 on 10.10.1999 at 8 a.m. voluntary to get recovered the knife, wrist watch and clothes smeared with blood worn by him at the time of incident from his room. In pursuance of disclosure statement Ex. P-3 1, he got recovered his clothes, wrist watch and knife through memos Exs. P-9 and P-10 on 10.10.1999 in the presence of P.W. 6 Premdas and Suresh Munjal. Site inspection note and site-plan of the place from where the articles were recovered were prepared by P.W. 10 S.P. Middha which are respectively Ex. P-1 1 and P/ 11-A in the presence of P.W. 6 Premdas and Suresh Munjal on 10.10.1999. Post-mortem of the dead body of Satish @ Kali was got conducted by P.W. 7 Dr. Devilal on 7.10.' 999 and the post-mortem report is Ex. P/ 12. Injured P.W. 5 Hemraj was also examined by P.W. 7 Dr. Devilal on the very same day and was referred to P.B.M. Hospital. Bikaner looking to his serious condition. His injury report is Ex. P/ 13. Photographs of the site were taken by P.W. 9 Jangir Singh. The Photographs are 12 in number, which are Exs. P/ 15 to P/26 and the negatives thereof is Ex. P/27. After post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Satish, the same was handed over to Shri Vijay Kumar, uncle of the deceased. Sealed articles smeared with blood were sent to F.S.L.. Jodhpur for examination. The F.S.L. report is Ex. P/32. The entries regarding the articles deposited in the Malkhana Register in sealed condition are Exs. P/33 to P/35. The articles remained in the sealed condition till the same were sent to F.S.L. for examination. The deposit receipt of the articles sent to F.S.L., Jodhpur is Ex. P/37. Hemraj was operated at Bikaner hospital and his operation note prepared by P.W. 15 Dr. Sunil is Ex. P/ 15. 5. After conducting usual investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vijay Nagar against the accused-appellant under sections 302, 307 and 450 of the I.P.C. on 7.12. i 999 and in due course of time after committal and transfer came for trial before Additional Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar, who framed the charge against accused-appellant, after hearing both sides, under sections 302, 307 and 450 of the I.P.C. on 26.4.2000. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. i 999 and in due course of time after committal and transfer came for trial before Additional Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar, who framed the charge against accused-appellant, after hearing both sides, under sections 302, 307 and 450 of the I.P.C. on 26.4.2000. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. After recording of 14 statements, the case was transferred to the newly created Fast Track Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast'Track), Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar on 23.11.2001 for trial. In the Fast Track Court, only statement of P.W. 15 Dr. Sunil was recorded and the prosecution closed the evidence. 6. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C., accused has stated that he was employed at the shop of P.W. 5 Hemraj and when he asked for his salary he was taken in the same and was beaten by Rajesh and Satish and at that time Hemraj was having a knife. During the course of scuffle, Satish sustained injury and he was also injured. He has further stated that the quarrel took place suddenly. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, D.W. 1 Dr. Subhas Sharma has been examined by the accused-appellant. The learned Trial Court after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. Hence, the present jail appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record carefully. It has been contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that in the present case the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused, therefore, the accused-appellant is liable to be acquitted. It has next been contended that some of the witnesses of the prosecution, particularly Titoo, the brother of the deceased, has not been examined by the prosecution, therefore, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution because he was infact the witness, who could have unfolded the prosecution version. In the absence of his evidence, the accused could not have been convicted and sentenced. In the last it has been contended that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the defence led by the accused -appellant. In the absence of his evidence, the accused could not have been convicted and sentenced. In the last it has been contended that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the defence led by the accused -appellant. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court upholding the accused-appellant guilty of the charges framed against him. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us and also carefully scrutinised the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the defence. The Trial Court while appreciating the entire matter and convicting and sentencing the accused appellant has held as under : (i) That the prosecution was able to prove that accused was responsible for committing murder of Satish @ Kali; (ii) That the injuries sustained by the accused has already been explained by the accused himself and even in the cross-examination of P.W. 10 S.P. Middha. the Investigating Officer, it has come that Rajesh, Hemraj and the deceased were there and accused came at the shop of P.W. 1 Rajesh and P.W. 5 Hemraj in the morning at about 8 a.m. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary natural course to cause death. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was dangerous injuries on vital part of body and due to shock. The post-mortem report is Ex. P/ 12. On the very same day he has medically examined P.W. 5 Hemraj and found the following injuries. (i) Stab wound incised 1" x 1/4" x deep cavity on left chest middle lateral-Dangerous. (ii) Stab wound incised 1" x 1/4" x deep cavity on epi-region-Dangerous. (iii) Stab wound incised 1" x 1/4" x 1" on right upper forearm lateral. (iv) Stab wound incised 1" x 1/4" x 1" on left knee joint-simple. (v) Stab wound incised 1" x 1/4" x deep to cavity on right armpit on chest laterally-Dangerous. Looking to the seriousness of the patient, the patient was referred to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. According to him the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and out of the five injuries, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were dangerous in nature. 9. (v) Stab wound incised 1" x 1/4" x deep to cavity on right armpit on chest laterally-Dangerous. Looking to the seriousness of the patient, the patient was referred to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. According to him the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and out of the five injuries, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were dangerous in nature. 9. A perusal of the above statement clearly indicates that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries and the death of the deceased was not a natural death but was homicidal. It is further established on the basis of the above statement that the injuries sustained by P.W. 5 Hemraj were of grievous nature and the condition of the patient was serious, as such he was referred to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, where he was operated by P.W. 15 Dr. Sunil Dharpiya. He also found the injuries on the person of P.W. 5 of serious nature. The operation note is Ex. P-36. 10. Having come to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries sustained by him, now it is to be seen as to whether the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the matter and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the present case. P.W. 1 Rajesh and P.W. 5 Hemraj have been examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. P.W. 2 Devendra, P.W. 3 Lakhveer @ Lakhi and P.W. 4 Rajendra have also been examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses as they also came at the spot after hearing hue and cry. P.W. 1 Rajesh Kumar, who is the brother of P.W. 5 Hemraj - the injured, has stated that on 6.10.1999 accused came at his shop at about 8 p.m. and demanded a sum of Rs. 20 for purchase of liquor to which he denied and his younger brother also denied for the same. The accused got annoyed with the denial made by P.W. 1 Rajesh Kumar and P.W. 5 Hemraj. He has further stated that the accused threatened them for severe consequences for the denial and on the next morning i.e. on 7.10.1999 accused having a knife in his hand came at the book shop of P.W. 1 at about 8 a.m. in the morning straightway inflicted knife blows on the person of Satish deceased and also inflicted knife blows on the person of P.W. 5 Hemraj. He has stated that knife blows were inflicted on the deceased on his chest. stomach, back and other parts of the body. He has stated that the knife blows were also inflicted on various parts of the person of P.W. 5 Hemraj on chest, stomach, back etc. He has further stated that the knife blows were inflicted on the person of Satish when he was trying to save P.W. 5 Hemraj. It is further stated that the neighbours Devendra (P.W. 2) Lakhveer (P.W. 3) and Rajendra (P.W. 4) also came there and tried to catch hold of the accused but he ran away from there. In the cross-examination, nothing material has come out to suggest that the statement given by this witness is not reliable. In the cross-examination, suggestions have been put on behalf of accused that he was falsely implicated in the case and he was employed at the shop of P.W. I Rajesh and he went there to demand his salary and infact the witnesses and other persons beat him. P.W. 5 Hemraj, the brother of P.W. 1 Rajesh has supported the version made by P.W. 1. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 & P.W. 4 have also supported the version of P.Ws. 1 and 5. P.W. 2 Devendra, P.W. 3 Lakhveer and P.W. 4 Rajendra have stated that after hearing hue and cry they came at the shop of P.W. 1 and saw that accused was inflicting knife blows on the person of Hemraj and when Satish (the deceased) tried to save Hemraj, the accused gave knife blows on the person of Satish and on account of knife blows inflicted on chest, back, stomach etc., Satish died then and there and P.W. 5 was taken to the hospital. P.W. 6 Dr. Devilal and P.W. 15 Dr. Sunil have been examined by the prosecution to prove the post-mortem report of deceased Satish and the injury report of P.W. 5 Hemraj and further P.W. 15 and operated P.W. 5 at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner when he was referred for treatment by P.W. 7 Dr. Devilal looking to his serious condition. In the statements of P.W. 7 Dr. Devilal and P.W. 15 Dr. Sunil, it has come that the injuries inflicted on the person of Hemraj were grievous in nature and the injuries No. 1, 2, and 5 were dangerous to life. P.W. 15 Dr. Devilal looking to his serious condition. In the statements of P.W. 7 Dr. Devilal and P.W. 15 Dr. Sunil, it has come that the injuries inflicted on the person of Hemraj were grievous in nature and the injuries No. 1, 2, and 5 were dangerous to life. P.W. 15 Dr. Sunil, who has operated P.W. 5 Hemraj has supported the version of P.W. 7 Dr. Devilal. Nothing material has been extracted from their cross-examination to disprove their testimony. 11. In view of the above statements of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, It is amply proved by the prosecution that it was the accused who was responsible for causing grievous injuries on the person of Satish. It is pertinent to mention here that in the statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted that infact the incident had taken place and the presence of P.W. 1 Rajesh and P.W. 5 injured Hemraj has been admitted by him. The defence of accused had been that infact Hemraj was having knife in his hand and he was responsible for the injury caused to Satish (the deceased) and to Hemraj as during the course of scuffle the injuries were received by P.W. 5 Hemraj and also by the deceased. This defence of the accused is not tenable in view of the statements of P.W. 1 Rajesh and P.W. 5 Hemraj. No material has been brought on record to suggest even remotely to believe that what the accused has stated in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is a correct version of the incident. In defence, in the statement D.W. I Dr. Subhash has stated that accused sustained some injuries on his person. A perusal of the injuries mentioned in the injury report Ex. D-5 indicates that the injuries sustained were simple in nature and were caused by blunt object. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the injuries sustained by the accused could be the result of accused having dashed against the wooden counter. 12. In view of the defence evidence i.e. the statement of D.W. 1 Dr. D-5 indicates that the injuries sustained were simple in nature and were caused by blunt object. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the injuries sustained by the accused could be the result of accused having dashed against the wooden counter. 12. In view of the defence evidence i.e. the statement of D.W. 1 Dr. Subhash Sharma, which clearly establishes the fact that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses are reliable as much as that P.W. 1 Rajesh and P.W. 5 Hemraj have stated that at the time of incident P.W. 5 Hemraj was sitting at the counter made of wood and the accused was having a knife in his hand and the accused inflicted knife blows on the person of P.W. 5 Hemraj and deceased Satish. The accused also admits, that the scuffle took place in the shop, then it is quite possible that he might have received injuries from the wooden counter. 13. In the other evidence, the prosecution has produced P.W. 6 Premdas and P.W. 8 Nakshtra Singh. P.W. 6 Premdas has proved memo Ex. P-7 Surat Hall Lash. Ex. P-8 Panchnama. Ex. P/9 Recovery of blood smeared clothes of accused and Ex. P/ 10 Recovery of knife smeared with blood. P.W. 7 Nakshtra Singh has proved that the clothes of injured Hemraj were taken in his presence and memo Ex. P/6 was prepared. The clothes were sealed. P.W. 9 produced by the prosecution is a Photographer who has taken the photographs of the site which are Exs. P-15 to 26 and Ex. P/27 is negatives thereof. 14. The sealed articles deposited in malkhana in sealed condition by P.W. 10 S.P. Middha. 1.0. of the case, were entered in the malkhana register and were sent to F.S.L. in sealed condition. F.S.L. report Ex. P-32 thereof was also received. P.W. 11 Tara Chand, Head Constable has stated that at the relevant time he was malkhana incharge and Investigating Officer S.H.O. Shri S.P. Middha deposited the sealed articles of Case No. 360/99 in packets with him. He made entries of the same in the malkhana register. The witnesses has proved entries at Serial Nos. 456, 463, 465 of Exs. P/33, Ex. P/34 and P-35 of the Malkhana Register. The witness has stated that he handed over the charge of malkhana subsequently to one Shri Atnilal. P.W. 10 Amilal is Head Constable. He made entries of the same in the malkhana register. The witnesses has proved entries at Serial Nos. 456, 463, 465 of Exs. P/33, Ex. P/34 and P-35 of the Malkhana Register. The witness has stated that he handed over the charge of malkhana subsequently to one Shri Atnilal. P.W. 10 Amilal is Head Constable. This witness has stated that he took the charge of malkhana from Tara Chand and subsequently he handed over those sealed packets to L.C. Karamchand to deposit the same in the F.S.L.. Jodhpur. He has stated that he has made endorsement of the same in the malkhana register. P.W. 12 is Karamchand, who has stated that the sealed articles were taken by him on 25.10.1999 for depositing the same in F.S.L., Jodhpur. He has stated that he got prepared forwarding letter from the S.P. Office. Sri Ganganagar an proved Ex. P/36 in this regard and deposited the sealed articles received by him in packets in the F.S.L., Jodhpur on 26.10.1999 and obtained receipt of deposit Ex. P/37. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer of the case Shri S.P. Middha, who has conducted the investigation. The witness has stated that P.W. I Rajesh submitted a written report before him on 7.10.1999 while he was S.H.O. Police Station. Vijay Nagar and on the basis of Ex. P/ 1 regular F.I.R. Ex. P/2 was chalked out. He reached at the spot and prepared site-plan. He on the very same day prepared inspection note of the site also. The witness has further stated that during the course of investigation the accused was arrested on the same day and in police custody accused made a disclosure statement Ex. P/31 and on the basis of disclosure statement recoveries were got effected vide recovery memos Ex. P-9 and 10. The sealed articles were sent to the F.S.L. and the posts-mortem of the dead body was got done. The witness was cross examined at length. Nothing material has come in his cross-examination to disprove his testimony. 15. In view of above evidence led by the prosecution, the contention raised on behalf of the accused appellant is not tenable that as the prosecution has failed to explain the injury sustained by the accused-appellant it is fatal to the prosecution. In fact, the accused himself has admitted the prosecution case in his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, the accused himself has admitted the prosecution case in his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The evidence led by the prosecution particularly in the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5, which has been supported by the other witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. clearly proves the prosecution case. Satish died at the spot on account of sustaining various grievous injuries, which have been proved by P.W. 7 Dr. Devilal, who has also proved the injuries sustained by P.W. 5 Hemraj to be grievous and dangerous to life. P. W. 15 Dr. Sunil has operated the injuries in view of severe nature of injuries. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. As regards the contention that Teetu, the brother of the deceased has not been examined is concerned, it is suffice to say that it is the prerogative of the prosecution to examine the witnesses considered necessary for proving its case. Non-production of Teetu by the prosecution in our considered view has not at all affected the prosecution case and further has not prejudiced the accused in any manner. The contention raised in this regard is not tenable. The learned Trial Court has discussed the matter in detail and there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court which may require interference by this Court. 16. In view of foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the jail appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the criminal jail appeal filed by the accused-appellant is dismissed after confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.2.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 128/2001.Appeal dismissed. *******