Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1201 (DEL)

STATE (DELHI ADMN. ) v. MOHAN SINGH

2006-07-21

P.K.BHASIN, R.S.SODHI

body2006
P. K. BHASIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 31. 5. 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, delhi acquitting both the respondents herein, who happen to be husband and wife, of the charges under Sections 302/34, IPC and respondent No. 1 under Section 27 of the Arms Act also. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution put up before the trial Court is as follows: on 4. 12. 85 an information about some quarrel in Gali No. 11. Double Storey quarters at Motia Khan was received at Pahir Ganj Police Station at 10. 55 a. m. and the same was recorded as DD No. 14-A. Copy of that DD entry was handed over for investigation to PW-16 ASI Charan Singh, who then went to DDA quarters in b block in Motia Khan along with one constable and came to know that one paramjit Singh r/o B-68 had been stabbed with barchha by one Mohan Singh and the injured had been removed to Willingdon Hospital by Daler Singh and Kuldip singh in the scooter of Satpal. ASI Charan Singh then went to the hospital, collected the MLC of Paramjit Singh who was stated to be unfit for making his statement at that time. Later in the day he, however, succumbed to the stab injury. In the hospital ASI Charen Singh met PW-4 Daler Singh, who claimed himself to be the eye-witness of the incident of stabbing and so his statement Ex. PW-4/a was recorded by the ASI. In that statement Daler Singh stated that he was living with his family at B-5, Double Storey Quarters, Motia Khan, Delhi. That day (4. 12. 85)at about 10. 30 a. m. he was talking to Kuldeep Singh (PW-5) at the chowk in his block. They saw Paramjit Singh s/o Tara Singh r/o B-68, Motia Khan (the deceased)going to his house and when Paramjit Singh reached in front of the house of Mohan Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) Mohan Singh was sitting in front of his house. Mohan Singh got up and slapped Paramjit Singh from behind and Paramjit singh's Pagri (turban) fell down. They saw Paramjit Singh s/o Tara Singh r/o B-68, Motia Khan (the deceased)going to his house and when Paramjit Singh reached in front of the house of Mohan Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) Mohan Singh was sitting in front of his house. Mohan Singh got up and slapped Paramjit Singh from behind and Paramjit singh's Pagri (turban) fell down. When Paramjit Singh asked Mohan Singh as to what was the matter Mohan Singh replied, 'sade Nall Bahut Jhagra Karda Si, A] dekhene Hana Ki Tuhade Ghar Kiven Shagan Aaunda Hai (you had been quarreling with us, now we will see how you receive 'shagan' in your house ). The wife of Mohan Singh, namely, Smt. Inderjit Kaur (respondent No. 2 herein) who was also present there said, 'halle To Chand Hi Maari Hai, Huneh hi Tainu khatam Karwani Hai (at this time only slap is given to you, I will get you finished now) and saying so she went inside the house and brought a barchha (Ex. P-5) and gave the same to Mohan Singh and said, 'mohne Edha Kam Karde' (Mohan, finish him ). It was further stated by Daler Singh that Mohan Singh then stabbed Paramjit singh in his chest with force with the barchha upon which they (Daler Singh and kuldeep Singh) raised alarm 'maar diya-maar diya' and when Mohan Singh again tried to stab Paramjit with the barchha he (Daler Singh) and Kuldeep Singh picked up brick bats and hit Mohan Singh and in the meantime many persons started collecting at the spot and Mohan Singh ran away from there with the barchha. He (Daler Singh) along with Kuldeep Singh placed Paramjit Singh in the three-wheeler of Satpal Singh (PW-13) and took Paramjit to RML hospital where Satpal singh got Paramjit Singh admitted. Daler Singh claimed that Mohan Singh had assaulted Paramjit with the barchha on the instigation of his wife Inderjit Kaur @ madhu with the intention of killing him. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the statement of Daler Singh (PW-4) a case under Sections 302/34,ipc was registered vide FIR No. 1458/85 at 12. 45 p. m. at Pahar Ganj police station. On the same day both the accused persons were arrested from a bus-stop. Accused Mohan Singh was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement pursuant to which he also got recovered blood stained barchha Ex. 45 p. m. at Pahar Ganj police station. On the same day both the accused persons were arrested from a bus-stop. Accused Mohan Singh was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement pursuant to which he also got recovered blood stained barchha Ex. P-5 from a koora Ghar (Dumping place) in Motia Khan. On completion of usual investigation the two accused persons were charge-sheeted and in due course they were committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter a charge under Sections 302/34, 1pc was framed against both the accused and a separate charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Mohan Singh only was also framed by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) PROVE its case prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses out of whom two (PWs 4 and 5) were the eye-witnesses and PW-13 Satpal is the witness to whom the decersed had told at the spot itself when he also had reached there that he (the deceased) had been stabbed by Mohan Singh. ( 5 ) THE Trial Court after examining the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, pws 4 and 5, and that of PW-13 found all of them to be untrustworthy and rejecting their evidence acquitted both the accused. Feeling aggrieved the State has come up in appeal. ( 6 ) ARGUING in support of the appeal learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State strenuously contended that the impugned judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained at ail as the reasons given for the acquittal of the accused are palpably wrong, unsustainable and manifestly erroneous. He submitted that the prosecution case rested on the cogent and reliable evidence of two eye-witnesses as also that of another witness PW-13 whom the deceased had immediately after the incident told at the spot itself that accused Mohan Singh had stabbed him and evidence of all of them has been discarded on totally flimsy grounds. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. M. L. Yadav, Advocate, who was appointed by us as Amicus Curtate to represent the two respondents who were unrepresented at the time of hearing of the appeal, submitted relying upon some judgments of the supreme Court reported as 2006 ( 1) SCC (Crl.) 627, Vijai Singh v. State of UP; III (2004) SLT 475-II (2004) CCR 282 (SC)=2005 SCC (Crl.) 43, State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and Others and, II (2005) SLT 44=1 (2005) CCR 123 (SC)-2005 SCC (Crl.) 1237, State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalakrishna that the accused having been acquitted by the trial Court for the reasons which cannot at all be said to be in any way perverse, this Court being the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Add ). Sessions Judge. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents the trial Court has rightly analysed the prosecution evidence while recording the acquittal in favour of the respondents and it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court on appraisal of the evidence on record was not possible at all or was so unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of this Court. ( 8 ) BESIDES making these submissions regarding the scope of first Appellate court's powers while dealing with a judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court the Counsel for the parties also took us through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. We shall now proceed to consider the evidence relied upon by the prosecution and the reasons given by the trial Court to find out if these reasons can be said to be perverse and wholly unsustainable, as was the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. However, before we do that we would like to notice the views of the Supreme Court regarding the scope in an appeal against acquittal which we will have to keep in mind while examining the evidence and reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the same. ( 9 ) IN Ajlt Savant Majagval v. State of Karnatka, V (1998) SLT 494-III (1997)CCR I35 (SC)- (1997)7scc 110 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the scope of interference by High Court in an appeal against acquittal observed as under:"12. ( 9 ) IN Ajlt Savant Majagval v. State of Karnatka, V (1998) SLT 494-III (1997)CCR I35 (SC)- (1997)7scc 110 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the scope of interference by High Court in an appeal against acquittal observed as under:"12. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which corresponds to Section 417 of the old Code provides for appeal in case of acquittal. 13. There was quite a controversy among the Courts with considerable divergence of judicial opinion as to the scope of appeal against an order of acquittal. This controversy remained unabated till some guideline was indicated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. This decision was considered in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan in which the legal position was explained by this Court as under- (1) The evidence upon which the order of acquittal was passed by the trial Court can be reviewed, reappreciated and reappraised by the appellate Court. (2) The principles laid down by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor provide correct guidelines for the appellate Court while disposing of the appeal against the order of acquittal. (3) The words 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficiently cogent reasons' or 'strong reasons' used by this Court in its various judgments do not have the effect of curtailing power of the high Court to reconsider, review or scrutinise the entire evidence on record so as to come to its own conclusions in deciding the appeal against an order of acquittal. 14. As a matter of fact, the powers of the High Court are not different from its powers in an ordinary appeal against conviction. The additional burden which is placed on the High Court is that it has to consider each of the grounds which had prompted the trial Court to pass the order of acquittal and to record its own reasons for not agreeing with the trial court. 15. In State of UP v. Samman Dass this Court again reiterated the above principles and pointed out that there were certain cardinal rules which had always to be kept in view in appeal against acquittal. It was pointed out that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused especially when he has been acquitted by the trial Court. It was pointed out that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused especially when he has been acquitted by the trial Court. It was further to be kept in view that if two views of the matter are possible, the view which favours the fact that the trial Judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and that the accused is still entitled to the benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a rational-thinking person will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of an irrational mind. 16. This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. These principles have been set out in innumerable cases and may be reiterated as under: (1) In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers, and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. (2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (3) Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. (4) In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court. (5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. (5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. (6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box. (7) The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that Stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. " ( 10 ) IN an earlier case reported as Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. The State of gujarat, III (1996) CCR 16 (SC)=jt 1996 (6) SC 79 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:"before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach,of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently lllegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, If the appellate Court holds for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then 'and then only' reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. " ( 11 ) KEEPING in mind these views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we now proceed to consider if the impugned judgment of acquittal can be said to be perverse or wholly unsustainable. As noticed already, the prosecution has examined two eye-witnesses of the incident. Both of them have fully supported the prosecution while deposing in Court. They have narrated the incident in the manner it was narrated in the first information report given by PW-4 Daler Singh. How the incident took place according to these two eye-witnesses has been described by us earlier In para No. 2 of this judgment, Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also recorded in his judgment under challenge that both the eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Even the learned Counsel for the respondents did not dispute that fact. However, their evidence has been found to be untrustworthy by the Trial Court. Since the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that their evidence could not at all be discredited we ourselves have also minutely examined that evidence. ( 12 ) THE incident took place at B Block, Motia Khan. Both the accused, the deceased and the two eye-witnesses were during the year 1985 residing in B Block, double Storey Quarters, Motia Khan. It is also undisputed that on the date of incident, i. e. 4. 12,85 PW-13 Satpal Singh, to whom the deceased had told at the spot itself that he had been stabbed by Mohan Singh, had come to B Block in Motia Khan to attend betrothal ceremony in the house of his brother-in-law (wife's brother) Dhanwant Singh who was residing at H. Number B-67, Double Storey Quarters, motia Khan. The house No, of the accused was B-68. The house No, of the accused was B-68. It has also come on record in the cross-examination of the two eye-witnesses and PW-13 Satpal Singh that pw-5 Kuldeep Singh, PW-13 Satpal Singh and the deceased Paramjit Singh are related to each other. ( 13 ) PW-4 Daler Singh has deposed that he knew Mohan Singh and Inderjit kaur being his neighbours. He then deposed that on 4. 12. 85 at about 10. 30 a. m. when he and Kuldeep Singh were standing and talking to each other near a hand pump and water tap on the crossing of their block his neighbour Paramj it Singh was going towards his house and when he (Paramjit Singh) reached near the house of accused Mohan Singh, who was sitting in front of his house, accused Mohan Singh came from behind and gave a slap to Paramjit Singh because of which the turban of Paramjit Singh fell down. He further deposed that Paramjit Singh enquired from mohan Singh as to what the matter was to which accused Mohan Singh replied "tu sade NAAL BAHUT JHAGRA KARDA SI. AJ WEKHNA HAI TUHADE ghar KIVEN SAGAN AAONDA HAI'. He thereafter deposed that accused inderjit Kaur @ Madhu uttered 'haale TE CHAND HI MAARI HAI HUNEN hi TAINU KHATAM KARWANI HAAN' and saying so she went inside her house and brought a barchha from inside her house and handed over the same to accused Mohan Singh uttering 'mohne, EHDAA KAAM KAR DE' on which mohan Singh gave a stab injury with that barchha on the chest of Paramjit Singh with full force. PW-4 then deposed that he and Kuldeep Singh raised an alarm 'maar diya maar diya' and when Mohan Singh attempted to give another blow with the barchha he and Kuldeep Singh picked up brick bats and hurled the same on mohan Singh and those brick bats hit accused Mohan Singh. Many people of the mohalla then collected and accused Mohan Singh succeeded in making good his escape along with the barchha from the back side of the block. He further deposed that he and Kuldeep Singh removed Paramjit Singh in the scooter rickshaw of satpat to RML Hospital where police recorded his statement Ex. PW-4/a. ( 14 ) THE other eye-witness PW-5 deposed that he knew both the accused persons being his neighbours. He then deposed that on 4. 12. 85 at about 10. He further deposed that he and Kuldeep Singh removed Paramjit Singh in the scooter rickshaw of satpat to RML Hospital where police recorded his statement Ex. PW-4/a. ( 14 ) THE other eye-witness PW-5 deposed that he knew both the accused persons being his neighbours. He then deposed that on 4. 12. 85 at about 10. 30 a. m. when he and Daler Singh were talking to each other near the hand-pump where a water tap was also installed in their block, Paramjit Singh deceased was going to his house and when Paramjit Singh came near the house of accused Mohan Singh he (Mohan Singh) was sitting in front of his house and then accused Mohan Singh gave a slap to Paramjit Singh from behind. The turban of Paramjit Singh fell down. He further deposed that Paramjit Singh asked as to what the matter was (ki gal hai ). Mohan Singh replied TU SADB NAAL BAHUT JHAQRA KARDA SI. AJ wekhne HAN TUHADE OHAR KIVEN SAOAN AAONDA HAI' (you have been picking up quarrel with us quite often. Today I shall see how the Shagan is received at your house ). He thereafter deposed that accused Inderjlt Kaur @ Madhu uttered 'haale TE CHANDE HI MAARI HAI HUNEN HI TAINUN khatam KARWANI HAAN' and saying so she went inside her house and brought a barchha from inside her house and handed over the same to accused mohan Singh and exhorted 'mohane, EHDAA KAAM KAR DE* (Mohan, finish him off ). Thereafter accused Mohan Singh gave a blow with the barchha on the chest of Paramjit Singh. PW-S also deposed that he and Daler Singh raised an alarm 'maar diya, maar diya'. He further deposed that Mohan Singh attempted to give another blow with barchha and then he and Daler Singh picked up brick-bats and pelted the same towards accused Mohan Singh some of which hit the accused mohan Singh on his face, knee and other parts of the body. He further deposed that people of the Mohalla collected there and he and Daler Singh removed Paramjit singh in the scooter rickshaw of Satpal to Willingdon Hospital where statement Ex. PW-4/a of Daler Singh was recorded. ( 15 ) THE third material prosecution witness is PW-13 Satpal Singh. He has deposed that Dhanwant Singh was his brother-in-law (Sala) and his betrothal ceremony took place on 4. 12. PW-4/a of Daler Singh was recorded. ( 15 ) THE third material prosecution witness is PW-13 Satpal Singh. He has deposed that Dhanwant Singh was his brother-in-law (Sala) and his betrothal ceremony took place on 4. 12. 85 and he had gone to attend the same at H. No. 67, double Storey Quarters, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. He then deposed that when he was getting down from that house he heard the noise of 'maar diya, maar diya' on which he went towards the chowk and saw Paramjit Singh standing at the chowk with his left hand holding the wound on his chest. He further deposed that paramjit Singh told him that Mohan Singh had given barchha blow to him. He thereafter deposed that he ran and brought his three-wheeler scooter to the spot and took Paramjit Singh to RML Hospital. He also deposed that Kuldeep Singh and daler Singh gave support to Paramjit Singh while sitting in the scooter on the way. ( 16 ) FROM the impugned judgment we find that the learned Counsel for the accused persons had sought to discredit the prosecution case and particularly the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 on the ground that there were material contradictions in their evidence and that prosecution had not associated any of the persons who admittedly had also gathered at the spot. The two independent witnesses (PW-15 brij Lal and PW-19 Ved Prakash) to the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of accused Mohan Singh had not supported the prosecution and that the alleged recovery of the barchha was not admissible and reliable as the place of its recovery viz. 'koora ghar' was accessible to all. It was also their argument that medical evidence was not consistent with the ocular evidence of the incident. These are the only submissions advanced before the trial Court on behalf of the two accused persons. ( 17 ) WE now come to the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the evidence of PWs 4, 5 and 13 in particular and prosecution case in general. Learned additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the two eye-witnesses as doubtful because according to him in the 'case history with Death Notes' (Ex. ( 17 ) WE now come to the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the evidence of PWs 4, 5 and 13 in particular and prosecution case in general. Learned additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the two eye-witnesses as doubtful because according to him in the 'case history with Death Notes' (Ex. PW-14/b) prepared in the RML Hospital, where the deceased was rushed after the incident, at serial No. 7 it was noted that as per patient's attendants the patient had been assaulted by 'spear or shot. Learned trial Court observed that the attendants of the patient were PWs 4, 5 and if PWs 4 and 5 (eye-witnesses) were actually truthful witnesses then they would not have informed the doctor in the hospital that the deceased had either been stabbed or shot when actually he was stabbed with a barchha as per the prosecution itself. This version given by the two eye-witnesses to the doctor thus, according to the trial Court, made their testimony highly doubtful as also the entire prosecution case itself. At first blush this reason appeared to us also as cogent but when we actually looked at the document Ex. PW-14/b we find the reason to be wholly unsustainable. At serial No. 7 of this case history prepared after the death of the deceased at about 12. 20 p. m. the doctor noticed 'hist, available from pts. attendants is that pt. had been assaulted by 'spear on chest'. The trial Judge has misread the words 'on chest' as 'or shot' when, in fact, it is not so written. In fact, we find, quite interestingly, from the submissions made before the trial Court on behalf of the accused, as noticed in para No. 30 of the impugned judgment, that it was not even the plea of the accused that the two eye-witnesses should not be believed as they had given the history of injury to the deceased as a result of shooting. We are, therefore, of the view that this first reason given by the trial Court for doubting the evidence of PWs 4 and S and prosecution case in general is wholly unsustainable and palpably wrong. ( 18 ) NEXT reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for doubting the occurrence of the incident in the manner narrated by the two eye-witnesses is that the blade of the spear Ex. ( 18 ) NEXT reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for doubting the occurrence of the incident in the manner narrated by the two eye-witnesses is that the blade of the spear Ex. P-5 (weapon of offence used in the stabbing) is 9. 3" long and blood shown on the blade was upto 6. 8" which showed that the blade had gone inside the body of the deceased that much deep but the injury actually caused was of 3-4 cms. length in the chest (This is so mentioned in the case history Ex. PW-14/b, referred to already ). What the learned Judge wanted to convey was that if actually the wound caused by the barchha Ex. P-5 was of 3-4 cms. deep then blood on the blade of the barchha could not have been there upto the length of 6. 8" as shown in its sketch (Ex. PW-16/b) and if actually the spear had gone inside the body upto 6. 8" deep then the deep injury would not have been found to be of 3-4 cms, length. We find even this reason given by the Trial Court for doubting the prosecution case as wholly untenable. It is the case of the accused themselves that the injury sustained by the deceased in the incident was caused by this very barchha ex. P-5 produced in Court by the prosecution during the trial. We find even this reason given by the Trial Court for doubting the prosecution case as wholly untenable. It is the case of the accused themselves that the injury sustained by the deceased in the incident was caused by this very barchha ex. P-5 produced in Court by the prosecution during the trial. In this regard we may mention here that the defence of the two accused as put to the two eye-witnesses in cross-examination was that on the day of the incident accused Mohan Singh was being beaten by PWs 4 and 5 (the two eye-witnesses) as well as the deceased alongwith other persons and at that time accused Mohan Singh was made to lie down on the ground and these people had tried thrice to run a taxi over him (accused mohan Singh) and then his wife Inderjit Kaur went to call the police and in the meantime the deceased went to his house and brought the 'barchha' Ex, P-5 and when he tried to stab accused Mohan Singh with that bat chha others including PWs 4 and 5 caught hold of the bamboo portion of the barchha to prevent the deceased from stabbing Mohan Singh and the deceased tried to snatch the barchha from them and in that process the blade of the barchha got detached from the bamboo and pierced into the chest of the deceased. Happening of incident in this manner, of course, was rsfuted by both the eye-witnesses. Thus, in view of this defence of the accused themselves the trial Court could not have entertained any suspicion about the use of barchha Ex. P-5 in the stabbing incident or doubted the prosecution version on this second ground also. In any case the presence of blood upto the length of 6. 8' of the blade of the barchha is not such a circumstance which may render the identity of the barchha to be doubtful because even if the blade of the barchha had gone inside the chest of the deceased upto 3-4 cms. In any case the presence of blood upto the length of 6. 8' of the blade of the barchha is not such a circumstance which may render the identity of the barchha to be doubtful because even if the blade of the barchha had gone inside the chest of the deceased upto 3-4 cms. the blood could have still percolated down to the remaining portion of the blade, ( 19 ) ANOTHER reason given by the trial Court for rejecting the evidence of the two eye-witnesses and that of PW-13 Satpal Singh to whom the deceased had immediately after the stabbing told that he had been stabbed by Mohan Singh was that according to PW-13 Satpal Singh he did not observe any blood at the spot nor in his three-wheeler in which the deceased was taken to hospital and also that he could not say if blood had stuck to the clothes of PWs 4 and 5 when they put the deceased in the three-wheeler. Referring to this part of cross-examination of PW-13 the trial Court observed that it was not probable that no blood would fall on the ground or in the scooter or on the clothes of the persons who put the deceased in the scooter and so either the prosecution story was incorrect or the investigation has not been proper. According to the learned trial Judge absence of blood on all these places and blood not having been lifted by the police casts doubt about the correctness of the happening of the incident in the manner narrated by these witnesses. It appears that what the trial Court wanted to say was that the incident did not take place at the place where it is shown to have occurred or the absence of blood on the clothes of PWs 4 and 5 makes their presence at the spot at the time of incident doubtful. However, we find this not to be so. The accused themselves have taken a plea in the cross-examination of PWs 4 and 5 that in fact, they along with the deceased and many other persons were giving beatings to accused Mohan Singh and had also attempted to kill him by driving a taxi over him after making him lie down on the ground. The accused themselves have taken a plea in the cross-examination of PWs 4 and 5 that in fact, they along with the deceased and many other persons were giving beatings to accused Mohan Singh and had also attempted to kill him by driving a taxi over him after making him lie down on the ground. Thus, presence of PWs 4 and 5 at the place of occurrence is admitted by the accused themselves and it is not the case of the accused that the incident took place not where the eye-witnesses claimed but at some other place. In fact, it was suggested to PW-4 in cross-examination by the accused themselves that the place of incident was at a distance of 30/40 ft. from the house of the accused. ( 20 ) THERE is no doubt that in this case the investigating officer ASI Charan singh (PW-16) does not claim to have lifted any blood from the spot and PW-13 also does not claim to have noticed blood at the spot, etc. but in our view because of all this the prosecution case cannot be said to be doubtful. We have already noticed that it is the case of the accused themselves also that the deceased Paramjit singh had received injury in his chest because the barchha Ex. P-5 had pierced into his chest at the time of incident. In these circumstances even the failure of the investigating Officer to lift blood from the spot or the three-wheeler scooter in which the deceased was taken to the hospital will not render the prosecution case as doubtful as has been found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In any case the Investigating Officer as well as the two eye-witnesses were not cross-examined regarding this aspect and so the accused cannot get any benefit from the statement of PW-13 in his cross-examination that he had not noticed any blood at the spot etc. The Trial Court has also observed that in the absence of statements of the two eyewitnesses regarding the blood of the deceased in their examination-in-chief their testimonies do not inspire confidence. The Trial Court has also observed that in the absence of statements of the two eyewitnesses regarding the blood of the deceased in their examination-in-chief their testimonies do not inspire confidence. There is no doubt that the two witnesses have not said in their examination in chief about the blood as to whether it had fallen on the ground or not or on their own clothes when they had put the deceased in the three wheeler scooter but on this ground their testimonies could not be ignored and discarded. These witnesses were supposed to depose about the manner in which the incident in question had taken place which they have done. In order to demolish their trustworthiness they should have been cross-examined on the aspect of presence of blood on their clothes, etc. but, as noticed already, they were not cross examined o n this aspect. We are, thus, of the view that even this reason given by the learned trial Court for doubting the prosecution case is not tenable at all and could not have been taken on the basis of evidence on record. ( 21 ) THE next reason given by the trial Court for giving the benefit of acquittal to the respondents is that the prosecution had not produced the doctors who had prepared the MLC and the post-mortem report of the deceased and thereby the accused persons had been deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the authors of the said medical documents. In our view this reason is as flimsy as the earlier ones and because of non-examination of the doctors prosecution case could not have been doubted. Since it is admitted case of the respondents themselves that the deceased had got injured because of the blade of the barchha piercing into his chest and since it has not been disputed by them that the death of the deceased occurred because of that injury no prejudice whatsoever can be said to have been caused to the respondents because of non-examination of doctor, who according to PWs 17 and 21 from the RML Hospital had left the service end their whereabouts were not known and, therefore, the prosecution case could not have been rejected on this ground. As per the post-mortem report Ex, PW*21 /a the cause of death was the stub injury on the left side of chest of the deceased, The prosecution In any case has examined one doctor from the forensic department of RML Hospital, PW-22 Dr. Sanjay Das who described the Injuries to the deceased as per the post-mortem report. It was not elicited from him that the Injury to the chest could not have caused the death of the deceased. Nor was It even urged before us. ( 22 ) YET another flimsy reason given by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents is that no motive for the crime has been proved by the prosecution, It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given this finding without examining the cross-examination of the two eye-witnesses wherein the accused themselves had brought in the motive for the crime. The trial Court has not referred to the suggestion put to PW-5 at all regarding the previous incident of beatings of accused Mohan Singh by the deceased. So, the Judge should not have observed (in para No. 38 of his judgment) that there was no prior enmity or quarrel between the accused and the deceased, it was suggested to PW-5 Kuldeep Singh in his crossexamination that accused Mohan Singh was earlier to the present incident beaten by the deceased Paramjit Singh and his family members on account of some dispute of children. To PW-4 Daler Singh it was suggested on behalf of the accused that about 3 of 4 months prior to the present occurrence there was an exchange of hot words and abuses between the accused and Joginder Singh (who as per PW-4 is a close relative of the wife of the deceased and was living very close to the house of the deceased ). PW-4 admitted that suggestion. These suggestions put by the accused themselves clearly establish that accused had a grudge against the deceased. Thus, the trial Court could not have reached to the conclusion that there was no motive for the crime and its findings in this regard are contrary to the evidence on record. In any case, when ocular evidence is trustworthy absence of motive pales into insignificance. Thus, the trial Court could not have reached to the conclusion that there was no motive for the crime and its findings in this regard are contrary to the evidence on record. In any case, when ocular evidence is trustworthy absence of motive pales into insignificance. ( 23 ) THE trial Court has also observed in the impugned judgment that PW-5 kuldeep Singh although claimed to have been living in the same locality where the incident took place but still he did not know the name of anyone of the locality persons who according to him had also collected at the spot and that fact appears to have weighed in the mind of the trial Judge while disbelieving his testimony. In our view for this reason also the testimony of this eye-witness of the incident could not have been viewed with suspicion. As noticed already the presence of both the eye-witnesses at the spot at the time when the deceased got injured had been admitted by the accused themselves when they took the plea that these two witnesses along with the deceased and other persons were beating accused Mohan singh. So, just because PW-5 Kuldeep Singh did not know the name of locality persons who had collected at the spot after the incident that would not be a ground to reject his testimony. ( 24 ) THE learned trial Court has also observed that as per the statement of P W-4 Daler Singh many people had come to the spot at the time of occurrence but Kill none of them had been Joined by the prosecution as witnesses for this case, In our view because of non-examination of anyone of those persons who had collected at the spot after the occurrence Is of no adverse consequence for the prosecution case since the reasons given by the trial Court In not accepting the evidence of PW 4, 5 and 13 have not been found to be sustainable at all. In fact, the Trial Judge himself has in his Judgment observed, referring to some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court, that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters In a criminal trial. It was, thus, not necessary for the prosecution to have examined each and every member of the crowd which had collected at the spot. It was, thus, not necessary for the prosecution to have examined each and every member of the crowd which had collected at the spot. The prosecution has examined those witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the incident and the court is concerned with their evidence which if trustworthy is to be relied upon without any hesitation. ( 25 ) THE Trial Court has also observed that the deceased himself was a bad character and there was a prize on his head announced by the Punjab Government and if that was so he would have definitely attempted to save himself from the assault of Mohan Singh but he did not do that and that fact also made the prosecution case doubtful. From the entire evidence on record we do not find any material from which the trial Court could say that the deceased was a bad character. The Investigating Officers (PWs 16 and 20) did not admit the suggestions put to them in cross-examination regarding the involvement of the deceased in many murder cases. So, we fail to understand on what basis the trial Judge concluded that the deceased was a bad character. This finding is based on no evidence and so cannot be sustained at all. ( 26 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed in para No. 39 of the impugned judgment that the two eye-witnesses claim to have thrown 7/8 brick-bats on accused Mohan Singh (when Mohan Singh wanted to inflict second blow to the deceased with the barchha) and that the brick pieces which had been produced in Court were quite big in size and, therefore, if actually the same had been pelted at accused Mohan Singh from a short distance the same would have caused severe injury to Mohan Singh but he is not stated to have sustained any major injury by those brick-bats. There is no doubt that the investigating officer (PW-20) admitted in cross-examination that accused Mohan Singh had only bruises over his nose, arm and back but since it is not the case of the eye-witnesses that the bricks had hit the accused on any of his vital parts of the body it is quite possible that the bricks thrown on him caused only bruises and nothing turns around on this observation of the trial Court and the evidence of the two eye-witnesses cannot be doubted for this reason also. ( 27 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that the rejection of evidence of PW-4 Daler singh and P W-5 Kuldeep Singh, the two eye-witnesses of the incident, for the reasons given by the trial Court was wholly unjustified. Similarly, the rejection of evidence of PW-13 Satpal Singh for the reason that he did not notice any blood at the place of occurrence and that he had not seen blood coming out from the wound of the deceased and also because no blood had stuck to his scooter was not justified and, in fact, we have no hesitation in concluding that the reasons given by the learned trial Court for doubting the evidence of these three witnesses could not have been taken at all for discarding their evidence on the basis of evidence on record. ( 28 ) IN this case, apart from the fact that evidence of the two eye-witnesses and pw-13 Satpal Singh is absolutely reliable and trustworthy and deserved to be accepted by the trial Court we find that the prosecution case gets further strengthened from the fact that accused persons during the trial have taken false and contradictory pleas on many important aspects of the matter. As noticed already, it was suggested to the two eye-witnesses in their cross-examination that, in fact, they along with the deceased and many other persons were giving beatings to accused Mohan Singh and had tried to kill him by running a taxi over him after making him lie down on the ground. It was also the case of the accused persons that when all that was going on the deceased himself had gone to his house or gurudwara and had brought the barchha Ex. P-5 with the intention of assaulting the accused Mohan Singh and when the deceased was about to assault accused mohan Singh with that barchha the Mohallawalas overpowered Paramjit Singh and caught hold of barchha and in that process the blade came out of the handle of barchha and pierced into the chest of Paramjit Singh. To PW-20 Inspector Gian prakash a contradictory suggestion was given to which his reply was like this:"it is wrong that deceased was hitting the accused Mohan Singh with barchha which was loose and, thus in a bid of accused Mohan Singh to save himself, struck against deceased. To PW-20 Inspector Gian prakash a contradictory suggestion was given to which his reply was like this:"it is wrong that deceased was hitting the accused Mohan Singh with barchha which was loose and, thus in a bid of accused Mohan Singh to save himself, struck against deceased. "in this regard the learned trial Court made the following observations in para No. 36 of the impugned judgment:"it is to be kept in mind at this stage that the defence of the accused before this Court has been that he was being beaten by PWs Daler Singh, kuldeep Singh, deceased Paramjit Singh besides the other persons and during that process, the deceased Paramj it Singh is stated to have brought the barchha himself and in a bid to save himself (Mohan Singh), the said barchha is stated to have hit the deceased. " ( 29 ) SINCE it was the plea of the accused themselves that some Mohallawalas had tried to prevent the deceased assaulting accused Mohan Singh and it was in that process that the deceased got injured they could have very well examined any of those Mohallawalas to support the said plea. However, they have not done so and so it remains unsubstantiated. In fact, this plea in defence appears to us to be in any case highly improbable. If the deceased himself along with the two eye-witnesses and some other persons had beaten accused Mohan Singh and had also made him lie down on the ground so that ataxi could be run over him they could have achieved that object easily and there was no occasion for the deceased to go from the spot to fetch some weapon with which accused Mohan Singh could be killed. And if at all the deceased wanted to kill accused Mohan Singh with the aid of the barchha he could have done that also because accused Mohan Singh was all alone and could not have resisted that attack. The accused have been suggesting different versions to different witnesses while prosecution witnesses have been consistent in their version of the incident. ( 30 ) THE plea taken by the accused that the deceased along with others had, in fact, beaten Mohan Singh before the deceased got injured with the barchha gets falsified from other false pleas taken by the accused. ( 30 ) THE plea taken by the accused that the deceased along with others had, in fact, beaten Mohan Singh before the deceased got injured with the barchha gets falsified from other false pleas taken by the accused. It was suggested to PW-4 daler Singh in cross-examination that when they were giving merciless beatings to Mohan Singh accused Inderjit Kaur had gone to the police booth to call the police. To PW-5 Kuldeep Singh also it was suggested that accused Inderjit Kaur had gone to call the police and she brought a police constable armed with a rifle but the alleged barchha blow had already been received by the deceased before their arrival at the spot. To PW-4 it was suggested that she had brought two constables. This plea of accused Inderjit Kaur having gone to the police booth appears to have been taken to show that when incident of stabbing took place Inderjeet Kaur was not present at the spot. However, the accused have not examined any of the two police constables who according to them had accompanied Inderjit Kaur to the spot to substantiate this plea. ( 31 ) THIS plea of the accused, in fact, becomes patently false from their own contradictory stands taken during the cross-examination of different prosecution witnesses. It was suggested to PW-4 Daler Singh that the two constables brought by accused Inderjit Kaur to the spot had apprehended accused Mohan Singh and took him to Pahar Ganj Police Station. This plea appears to have been taken to belie the statement of PW-4 Daler Singh that when Mohallawalas collected accused mohan Singh had fled away from the spot with the barchha. However, to PW-5 kuldeep Singh it was put in cross-examination that both the accused were taken away to police station by the constable who had come to the spot. When the investigating officer ASI Charan Singh (PW-16) was cross-examined a totally contradictory thing was suggested to him. It was put to him that both the accused persons had, in fact, themselves gone to the Pahar Ganj Police Station and had surrendered there. That is not the end of false and contradictory pleas of the accused. PW-20 Inspector Gian Prakash, who is also the investigating officer, was given a suggestion that accused Inderjit Kaur had, in fact, visited the police station at 9. That is not the end of false and contradictory pleas of the accused. PW-20 Inspector Gian Prakash, who is also the investigating officer, was given a suggestion that accused Inderjit Kaur had, in fact, visited the police station at 9. 30 p. m. to give food to her husband when she was arrested illegally. From all this it is apparent that the pleas taken by the accused are absolutely false and have been totally ignored by the trial Court while ordering unmerited acquittal of the two accused. These false pleas taken by the accused lend more credence to the testimony of PWs 4, 5 and 13. ( 32 ) THE prosecution has also relied upon the recovery of the weapon of offence, i. e. Ex. P-5 at the instance of accused Mohan Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement. That was blood stained barchha having the blood of the deceased on its blade. The two independent witnesses to that recovery were PW-15 Brij Lal and PW-19 Ved Prakash. Both of them turned hostile. So, it was ar argued by the Counsel for the accused that this recovery should not be believed and used against the accused merely on the evidence of police officials. Additional public Prosecutor had on the other hand submitted that just because these two witnesses had turned hostile the police witnesses (PWs 16 and 20) can still be relied upon. We are of the view that even if we ignore this piece of evidence, the guilt of the accused stands established from the ocular evidence of PWs 4 and 5 and the version of PW-13 that immediately after the stabbing the deceased had told him that mohan Singh had stabbed him. As far as use of barchha Ex. P-5 in the incident is concerned the accused themselves have admitted that it was used in the incident. We have found that it was used by accused Mohan Singh to stab the deceased. It was produced by accused Inderj it Kaur and given by her to her husband and she had exhorted him to finish off Paramjit Singh, the deceased. Thereafter Mohan Singh stabbed the deceased and that assault proved fatal. Both the accused had acted in furtherance of their common intention and as has already been observed by us they had a grudge also against the deceased. Thereafter Mohan Singh stabbed the deceased and that assault proved fatal. Both the accused had acted in furtherance of their common intention and as has already been observed by us they had a grudge also against the deceased. In Surjan Stngh and Another v. State of haryuna, VII (1998) SLT123-III (1998) CCR 228 (SC), there were three accused prosecution for the offence of attempt to murder. The allegations against them were that two of them had exhorted the third one to finish the complainant of that case and upon that exhortation the third accused had fired from his pistol and caused injuries to the complainant. All the three accused were finally convicted by the trial court under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and that conviction of all the three accused WAS maintained right upto the Supreme Court, ( 33 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that this State appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal of the two accused is liable to be set aside as it is based on wholly untenable reasons which can be said to be perverse. Thus, this appeal it allowed and we convict both the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Respondent No. 1 Mohan Singh is also convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. For the offence of murder both the respondents are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act respondent No. 1 Mohan Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Substantive sentences to run concurrently. Both the respondents shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. Appeal allowed.