Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. Santokh Singh and Satnam Singh, who are alleged to have committed the murder of their father Rattan Singh, have brought this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-2-1997 whereby they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution case as described and established by the witnesses at the trial, is like this : Rattan Singh (60 years) (since deceased) had three sons and two daughters from his first wife, namely, Niranjan Kaur, whereas, from his second wife, namely, Vir Kaur (PW-2), a complainant in this case, had two daughters and one son. Before the occurrence of this case, Rattan Singh (deceased) had given the due share of his house and land to the appellants who were born to his first wife Niranjan Kaur. But, still they were not satisfied. The appellants along with their brother and sisters and mother Niranjan Kaur were residing separately in the Village Ammo Nangal, whereas Rattan Singh (deceased) alone with his second wife Vir Kaur and two daughters, namely, Manjit Kaur and Daljit Kaur and son Gurmet Singh were residing in their dera situated in the fields. 3. On 24-4-1993, at about 5.00 p.m., Rattan Singh, his second wife Vir Kaur and daughter Manjit Kaur were coming back to their house after making purchases from Adda of the aforesaid Village Ammo Nangal. When they reached 2-2-¥1. furlongs ahead of Canal bridge, Ammo Nangal through pucca road, there both the appellants were seen standing on the road side with kirpans in their hands. First of all, appellant-Satnam Singh stopped Rattan Singh saying "Pappa you are not transferring the land in our names, so, we will teach you a lesson for the same". In the meantime, appellant-Santokh Singh inflicted a kirpan blow on the backside of the head of Rattan Singh. He then gave another kirpan, blow on the head of Rattan Singh as a result of which, he fell down. After that, appellant-Satnam Singh inflicted a kirpan blow hitting on the left side of the neck and ear. Satnam Singh again inflicted a kirpan blow on the shoulder of Rattan Singh. He then gave another kirpan, blow on the head of Rattan Singh as a result of which, he fell down. After that, appellant-Satnam Singh inflicted a kirpan blow hitting on the left side of the neck and ear. Satnam Singh again inflicted a kirpan blow on the shoulder of Rattan Singh. Then, both the appellants kept on Inflicting kirpan blows as a result of which, he died instantaneously, at the spot. Thereupon, Vir Kaur (PW-2) and Manjit Kaur (PW-S) raised an alarm "Mar Ditta Mar Ditta" whereupon Ajit Singh (PW-5) and Surta Singh (PW-6) who are brothers of deceased were attracted to the spot. The appellants then fled away with their respective weapons. 4. After that, Vir Kaur leaving behind her daughter Manjit Kaur and Ajit Singh to guard the dead-body of Rattan Singh (deceased) left, in the company of Surta Singh (PW-6), for the police station to lodge a report. When they reached near minor Canal bridge of Village Nutt, SI Piara Singh (PW-9) met them, who recorded the statement (Ex. PE) of Vir Kaur in the above narration of facts. On her said statement, he made his endorsement Ex. PE/2 and sent the same to the Police Station Ranger Nangal, where formal FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded by ASI Dhian Singh at about 6.50 p.m. 5. SI Piara Singh (PW-9), who is an Investigating Officer in this case, along with other police officials rushed to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report Ex. PC. He sent the dead body through Constable Rajbir Singh and Dalbir Singh for post-mortem examination. He also lifted blood-stained earth from the spot and converted the same into parcel which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PG. He also prepared rough site plan Ex. PO of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes in his hand. At the spot, he also recorded the statements of recovery witnesses. On return to the police station, he deposited the case property in the Malkhana. On the next day, i.e. on 25-4-1993, SI Piara Singh searched for the accused and ultimately, on 29-4-1993 they were produced before the police by Faqir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Ammo Nangal. After their arrest, first Santokh Singh was interrogated, upon which he made his disclosure statement Ex. PH, in pursuance of which, he got recovered kirpan Ex. On the next day, i.e. on 25-4-1993, SI Piara Singh searched for the accused and ultimately, on 29-4-1993 they were produced before the police by Faqir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Ammo Nangal. After their arrest, first Santokh Singh was interrogated, upon which he made his disclosure statement Ex. PH, in pursuance of which, he got recovered kirpan Ex. P2, which was taken into possession from his house vide recovery memo Ex. PJ. Thereafter, appellant Satnam Singh was also interrogated and he also made his disclosure statement Ex. PL in pursuance of which, he also got recovered kirpan Ex. P3 from his cattle shed vide recovery memo Ex. PN. On return to the police station, the parcels of recovered articles were deposited with the MHC Sarup Singh. Statements of the formal witnesses were also recorded by him. 6. After completion of the investigation of the case, both the appellants were challaned for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were charge-sheeted under the aforesaid Sections in this case vide order dated 26-7-1993 by the learned trial Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, he proved the post-mortem report Ex. PA; PW-2 Vir Kaur, who is a complainant in this case; PW-3 Manjit Kaur (18 years), she is daughter of the deceased; PW-4 Hira Singh, Patwari, he proved the site plan Ex. PF; PW-5 Ajit Singh, he is real brother of the deceased; PW-6 Surta Singh, he is also real brother of the deceased; PW-7 Mohinder Pal, Clerk of a Tehsil office, who proved the execution of registered Will Ex. PW-7/A; PW-8 SI Mangal Singh, he is witness to the recovery effected in his presence by the Investigating Officer; PW-9 SI Piara Singh, Investigating Officer in this case; PW-10 Constable Gurwant Singh, witness to the link evidence as he had taken the Special Report of this case; PW-11 Constable Nishan Singh, he had taken the sample to F.S.L. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They also examined three defence witnesses, namely, DW-1 Ajit Singh, Ahmad, who proved the Will (Ex. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They also examined three defence witnesses, namely, DW-1 Ajit Singh, Ahmad, who proved the Will (Ex. DA) purported to have been executed by Banta Singh (father of the deceased), attached with the Civil Suit No. 425 dated 13-12-1994; DW-2 Prem Masih, Deed Writer, he deposed that he had written the said Will on 26-2-1993 at the instance of Banta Singh; DW-3 Phoola Singh, Assistant Superintendent, Jails, Gurdaspur, he deposed with regard to the imprisonment undergone by Tega Singh son of Santa Singh in case FIR No. 572 of 1982 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Some documents Exs. DE to DG were also tendered into evidence by the appellants before the trial Court. 9. Learned trial Court after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, convicted and sentenced both the appellants as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal 10. We have heard Shri D.P.S. Kahlori, learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri A. S. Virk, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State of Punjab, assisted by Shri Smile Dhir, Advocate, for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record. 11. The main thrust of argument of learned Counsel for the appellants is that here, in the instant case, presence of two star witnesses, namely, PW-2 Vir Kaur and PW-3 Manjit Kaur at the given place and time of occurrence is highly doubtful. In that regard, he submitted that had these two star witnesses been present, they being wife and daughter of the deceased would have intervened and then sustained injuries. He further submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the metalled road near the DERA of Faqir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, but none from the said DERA was joined at the time of preparing the inquest report. Not only that, no passer-by on the main-road was associated during the investigation of this case. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, both the aforesaid witnesses are in fact interested in the success of this case set-up by the prosecution against the appellants. Not only that, no passer-by on the main-road was associated during the investigation of this case. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, both the aforesaid witnesses are in fact interested in the success of this case set-up by the prosecution against the appellants. At the last leg of his argument, it was also submitted that in this case, there was no motive to cause the murder of their father by the appellants. In fact, the appellants were already given their due share in the land vide Will Ex. DA by their grand-father, Banta Singh. In this respect, learned Counsel then also made reference to the statements of DW-1 Ajit Singh, DW-2 Prem Masih and DW-3 Phoola Singh. 12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that in this case, FIR was lodged promptly i.e. within less than two hours in the Police Station Ran gar Nangal, which is at a distance of 5 Kms. from the place of occurrence. However, the statement of the complainant, Vir Kaur (PW-2) was recorded at 6.30 p.m. The FIR Ex.. PE/1 lodged on the basis of her statement contains all the details of the occur rence. In such a situation, there was no scope to give the names of the appellants in the FIR falsely. He then also submitted that in fact, both the star witnesses along with Rattan Singh (deceased) were going to their dera situated in the fields after making the purchases from Bus Adda of Village Ammo Nangal when they were intercepted by the appellants at. the road side before reaching to their house and at the relevant time of occurrence, no other else had witnessed the occurrence. He further argued that in fact, Vir Kaur was also medico-legally examined on 25-4-1993 at 7.15 a.m. vide her MLR Ex. DA, wherein she is shown to have sustained three injuries in the nature of abrasions. The clotted blood was also found present on her both elbows. According to him, the complainant had intervened and fallen on her injured husband at the time of occurrence but, she was pushed away by the appellants. In this regard, he also referred to the cross-examination of PW-3 Manjit Kaur. The clotted blood was also found present on her both elbows. According to him, the complainant had intervened and fallen on her injured husband at the time of occurrence but, she was pushed away by the appellants. In this regard, he also referred to the cross-examination of PW-3 Manjit Kaur. At the fag-end of his arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab submitted that even otherwise, there is no reason to leave the real culprit to go scot-free and to involve the appellants falsely. He then contended for the dismissal of this appeal. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above points of arguments raised on behalf of the parties and find that the contentions put-forth on behalf of the appellants are devoid of any merit, inasmuch as PW-2 Vir Kaur and PW-3 Manjit Kaur, who are eye-witness to the occurrence of this case, were cross-examined at length but, their veracity could not be shaken on any material points of this case. According to PW-2 Vir Kaur, on the date of occurrence, they in the company of Rattan Singh (since deceased) had gone to make purchases from Village Ammo Nangal. While coming back, at about 5.00 p.m., both the appellants armed with kirpans appeared from the road side and then stopped Rattan Singh. At that time, they had remarked that he would be taught a lesson for giving them less share In the land. Saying so, Santokh Singh had inflicted kirpan blow on the back-side of the head of Rattan Singh. He then gave another kirpan blow on the head of Rattan Singh as a result of which, he fell down. After that, appellant-Satnam Singh inflicted a kirpan blow hitting on the left side of the neck and ear. Satnam Singh again inflicted a kirpan blow on the shoulder of Rattan Singh. Then they both kept on inflicting kirnan blows. This version of PW-2 Vir Kaur has been vouched-safe by PW-3 Manjit Kaur. Not only that, the ocular version of these two witnesses further finds corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examination vide his report Ex. PA and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- - 1. Incised wound 10 x 2 cm on upper and lateral part of left side of the neck, just below left ear lobule. This wound was muscle deep only. Ravinder Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examination vide his report Ex. PA and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- - 1. Incised wound 10 x 2 cm on upper and lateral part of left side of the neck, just below left ear lobule. This wound was muscle deep only. Underlying skin subcutaneous tissue and Vessel were cut. 2. Incised wound 15x2 cm above injury No. 1, and parallel placed to injury No. 1 lobule of ear was also cut. Underlying muscles and bones of parieto occipital region was also cut. Brain matter was cut. 3. Incised wound 15x3 cm in the center of the ear and parallel to injury No. 2 and extending posteriorly towards occipital region. Underlying skin, muscles and skull bones were cut. Brain matter was cut. 4. An incised wound 10 x 2 cm on the left parieto occipital region, 10 cm away from middle and 4 cm away from interior hair line. Underlying skin, muscles and skull bones were cut. Brain matter was cut. 5. Incised wound 8x2 cm on the top of head, 2 cm away from midline towards left and 7 cm away from interior hair line. Underlying skin, muscles and skull bones were cut. Brain matter was cut. 6. 10x2 cm incised wound on right parietal region 7 cm from midline, 8 cm above right pinna. Underlying skin, muscles and vessels were cut. Wound was bone deep. 7. 1-1/2x1 cm superficial incised wound on the right side of the forehead at its middle. 8. Lacerated wound 5x1 cm on the side of forehead, 2 cm lateral to injury No.7. 9. Superficial incised wound 5x1 cm on the back at inter scapular region. 10. Superficial incised wound 1-1/2 x 1 cm on the back at the region of left scapula." 14. PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar after giving the above details of injuries also opined that the cause of death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few seconds to 15 minutes and between death and post-mortem, within 24 hours. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few seconds to 15 minutes and between death and post-mortem, within 24 hours. All these facts proved in the medical evidence go a long-way to corroborate the ocular version consisted in the statements of PW-2 and PW-3. At this stage, it would be pertinent to make a reference of injuries sustained by PW-2 Vir Kaur vide MLR, Ex.DA. Dr. Ravinder Kumar in his cross-examination has categorically stated that before conducting the post-mortem examination, he had also prepared the MLR Ex. DA at 7.15 a.m. on 25-4-1993 in respect of the injuries shown on the person of Vir Kaur (PW-2). Injuries on her person, as given in the said MLR Ex. DA, are also reproduced as follows :- - 1. Abrasion 5x2 cm on the dorsum of right elbow. Clotted blood was present. 2. Abrasion 4x3 cm on the dorsum of left elbow. Clotted blood was present. 3. Linear Abrasion on the right knee. 5 x linear. 4. Complaint of pain both side of back of chest . 15 It has come in the cross-examination of PW-3 Manjit Kaur that during the occurrence of this case, her mother had fallen on the dead body of Rattan Singh (since deceased) in order to save him but, she was pushed away by Santokh Singh, appellant. 16. In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find no merit in any of the aforesaid points of arguments regarding the nonintervention of the complainant at the time of occurrence. Further it has also come in the evidence that on raising an alarm by PW-2 Vir Kaur and PW-3 Manjit Kaur, PW-5 Ajit Singh and PW-6 Surta Singh, who are the real brothers of the deceased, had also come to the spot and It is also apparent from the evidence that none from the DERA of Faqir Singh had come at the spot as at that time, Faqir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch was not present at his DERA. The occurrence finished within few minutes and it was on the road side of metalled road of a village, so it could not have been witnessed by any independent witness/passer-by. In such a situation, non-joining of independent witness, would hardly affect the prosecution case. 17. The occurrence finished within few minutes and it was on the road side of metalled road of a village, so it could not have been witnessed by any independent witness/passer-by. In such a situation, non-joining of independent witness, would hardly affect the prosecution case. 17. Now, adverting to the motive part of this case, in this regard, it has been specifically deposed by the material witnesses of this case that the appellants along with their brother, sisters and mother Niranjan Kaur (first wife of the deceased) were residing separately in the village, whereas, the deceased along with his second wife-Vir Kaur (PW-2) and her children was residing in the DERA of his fields. It has been consistently stated by PW-2 Vir Kaur and PW-3 Manjit Kaur that the appellants were not satisfied with their due share given in the house and land by the deceased. On that account, they were nursing a grudge against their father Rattan Singh (deceased). At the time of occurrence, before opening the attack, they had specifically stated that they would teach him (deceased) a lesson for giving them less share in the land. In these facts and circumstances, it can safely be inferred that the appellants were annoyed with their father and thus, they were bent upon to eliminate him. 18. Now, adverting to recovery part of this case, it has come in the evidence that after the occurrence, PW-9 SI Piara Singh had raided the house of the appellants, but they were found absconding. Ultimately, both the appellants were produced before him on 29-4-1993 by Faqir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. After their arrest, during inter-rogation, the appellant made his disclosure statement Ex. PH, in pursuance of which, he got recovered kirpan Ex. P2, which was taken into possession from his house vide recovery memo Ex. PJ. Thereafter, appellant-Satnam Singh upon interrogation also made his disclosure statement Ex. PL in pursuance of which, he also got recovered kirpan Ex. P3 from his cattle shed which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN. Further as per the report of FSL Ex. PT the human blood was found on the aforesaid kirpans recovered from the appellants. 19. Thereafter, appellant-Satnam Singh upon interrogation also made his disclosure statement Ex. PL in pursuance of which, he also got recovered kirpan Ex. P3 from his cattle shed which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN. Further as per the report of FSL Ex. PT the human blood was found on the aforesaid kirpans recovered from the appellants. 19. In this view of our foregoing discussion and keeping in view the ocular version, medical evidence, recoveries and link evidence brought on the file, we find no infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 20. In the premises aforesaid, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.