Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. Kabal Singh alias Happy son of Anokh Singh and Gurbax Singh alias Pujari son of Mukhtiar Singh have come up in appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for having committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, respectively. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- each was also imposed upon them and in default of which they were directed to undergo imprisonment for another six months each. 2. The case was registered against both the accused-appellants vide FIR No. 169 dated 2.11.1998 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC with Police Station Bhikhiwind. They are alleged to have caused the death of Gurdip Singh aged about 14/15 years on the fateful day i.e. 2.11.1998. 3. Gurdip Singh alias Sona son of Charinj was the eldest son of his father and was employed as a Siri with Dilraj Singh alias Laddi resident of village Sugga for the last about one year. He along with his father was standing at the tubewell of one Harbans Singh resident of Bhure from where the water was being taken to the field of Dilraj Singh. Kabal Singh son of Anokh Singh was an earlier resident of village Sugga and was well known to the deceased and his father. The other was Pujari resident of Dhun Dhai Wala. They reached the spot where the deceased and his father were standing in connection with the watering of the fields. Kabal Singh was armed with Khanjar (dagger) and Gurbax Singh alias Pujari was empty handed. They demanded an utensil from Gurdip Singh for drinking water. Gurdip Singh told them that there was no utensil and that they should drink the water themselves. Infuriated at this reply, Gurbax Singh alias Pujari caught hold of Gurdip Singh and started beating him. Gurdip Singh managed to rescue himself from the clutches of Gurbax Singh and tried to run away from the spot towards the kacha path leading from village Sugga to village Bhure. Both the accused persons chased him and Gurdip Singh was caught hold of by them. Gurbax Singh put his Parna around the neck of Gurdip Singh and threw him on the ground and raised a Lalkara asking Kabal Singh to teach him a lesson for not providing them with water to drink. Both the accused persons chased him and Gurdip Singh was caught hold of by them. Gurbax Singh put his Parna around the neck of Gurdip Singh and threw him on the ground and raised a Lalkara asking Kabal Singh to teach him a lesson for not providing them with water to drink. Kabal Singh then gave blows with his Khanjar on the left side of the chest, forehead and neck of deceased Gurdip Singh. Chiranj raised hue and cry which attracted Sarpanch Sarpreet Singh to the spot. He was working in the nearby field. Gurdip Singh succumbed to his injuries there and then the accused fled away along with their weapon while still raising Lalkaras. The occurrence took place at 5.00 p.m. on 2.11.1998. 4. The prosecution case in furtherance of the above narrated incident is that Inspector Malkiat Singh, SHO, Police Station, Bhikhiwind along with ASI Jatinderjit Singh and HC Ranjit Singh were going from village Bhikhiwind to village Bainka Baler while on a patrol. When they reached near the drain in the area of village Bhikhiwind, Charinj son of Sohan Singh resident of village Sugga met them. He made a statement before them and narrated the sequence of events as detailed above. Ex. PF is the statement which was sent to the police station for registration of the case and formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded by ASI Baldev Singh. Inspector Malkiat Singh accompanied Charinj to the place of occurrence in village Sugga. Dead body of Gurdip Singh was lying there and inquest report Ex. PC was prepared. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and the same was made into a parcel and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG. One black Patka lying near the dead body was also recovered and was made into a parcel and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and the police went about the usual investigation. 5. Kabal Singh accused was arrested and upon interrogation he disclosed that he had kept concealed the Khanjar (dagger) under a heap of Parali near the drain and offered to get the same recovered. Ex.PM is the statement of Kabal Singh which was recorded and thumb-marked by the accused and attested by the witnesses and the dagger was not recovered in pursuance of the said statement. Ex.PM is the statement of Kabal Singh which was recorded and thumb-marked by the accused and attested by the witnesses and the dagger was not recovered in pursuance of the said statement. Site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared and the weapon of offence was sealed into a parcel and deposited in the police station. The accused persons were challaned and the Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session vide order dated 11.2.1999. Kabal Singh accused was charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under Section 302 IPC and Gurbax Singh alias Pujari was charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, besides adducing other evidence in order to hone in the guilt of the accused persons. PW1/- Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, Chief Medical Officer provided the crucial medical testimony while PW5 Charinj Singh, father of the deceased and PW-6 Sarpreet Singh provided an insight into the occurrence being the eye-witnesses. Report of the Chemical Examiner was also tendered in evidence as Ex.PN. In their defence the accused did not summon any witnesses despite the fact that number of opportunities were given to them to produce their defence evidence. They closed their testimony by making respective statements. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after going through the evidence before him pronounced the accused persons guilty for having committed an offence under the provision of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced both of them to rigorous imprisonment for life. The accused appellants have assailed this judgment by way of one common appeal which was present through jail. 8. This Court vide order dated 12.4.2002, while admitting the appeal, directed that an amicus curiae be appointed to assist the Court on behalf of the accused-appellants. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no intention to kill Gurdip Singh as there was no motive. The prosecution story at best suggests that a sudden fight had erupted, and in the process Gurdip Singh had lost his life. In furtherance of this submission she drew our attention to the medical opinion of PW1 Dr. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no intention to kill Gurdip Singh as there was no motive. The prosecution story at best suggests that a sudden fight had erupted, and in the process Gurdip Singh had lost his life. In furtherance of this submission she drew our attention to the medical opinion of PW1 Dr. Sham Lal Gupta wherein he has stated that only injuries No. 7, 8 and 9 were responsible for the death of the deceased and rest of the injuries were merely superficial, She urged us to come to a conclusion that in view of the sequence of events, where denial of drinking water infuriated the accused-appellants, who then got into a scuffle with the deceased and in the process exceeded themselves resulting in the death of Gurdip Singh. This precisely was the main thrust of her argument. A feeble attempt was also made to say that PW3 LC Jasbir Singh does not give the time of handing over of the special report and this, therefore, cast a serious dent in the prosecution version and, therefore, prayed that benefit of doubt be given to the appellants. 10. Mr. A.S. Virk, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submitted that there was prompt recording of the FIR which was done at 7.00 p.m. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 5.00 p.m. and the statement of Charinj was recorded at 6.00 p.m. The special report was sent at 11.30 p.m. the same day and hence there was absolutely no delay, the benefit of which could be given to the accused. He further submitted that there was no previous enmity and the father of the deceased was the most crucial witness who had supported the prosecution case. Sarpreet Singh Sarpanch was also an independent witness who had supported the case and their evidence has not been shattered in the cross-examination. According to him, it was a case of cold blooded murder and the conviction and sentence was perfectly justified. 11. We have heard, both the counsel at length and have gone through the entire evidence with their assistance. 12. The first version in this case has come within one hour of the incident. According to him, it was a case of cold blooded murder and the conviction and sentence was perfectly justified. 11. We have heard, both the counsel at length and have gone through the entire evidence with their assistance. 12. The first version in this case has come within one hour of the incident. The police recorded the statement of Charinj, father of the deceased, at 6.00 p.m. and the FIR was recorded at 7.00 p.m. The incident took place at 5.00 p.m. There was thus absolutely no time for the complainant to produce any other element in the version. It also has to be remembered that the complainant is the father of the deceased who had witnessed the unfortunate incident in which he lost his son over a trivial issue. He was an anguished father who gave his prompt version to the police. He was also unfortunate enough to see the incident taking place in front of his eyes. There is thus no reason to disbelieve the first version coming from him so soon after the incident. 13. There is strong ocular version ably supported by independent eye-witness whose presence on the scene is very natural. The deceased and his father were watering the field and Sarpreet Singhs fields are situated just about 1-1/2 killa from the fields of Harbans Singh where the deceased was standing. It must be kept in mind that the occurrence took place on 2.11.1998, i.e. the time when watering of the fields for wheat crops is a natural occurrence. Therefore, presence of Sarpreet Singh is very natural. It does not seem that he has been introduced as a witness. No motive or enmity has been attributed to these two persons to implicate the accused persons falsely. Their evidence, therefore, is most trustworthy and cannot be discarded. PW-1 Dr. Sham Lal Gupta provided the medical opinion which is as under :- 1. Superficial incised wound 1.5 cm x 1/8 cm on left side of fore-head just above eye. 2. Superficial incised wound 1.5 cm x 1/8 cm just above injury No. 1. 3. Reddish contusion 2 cm x 1 cm left upper eye lid eyes swollen and there was no injury inside of eye. 4. Superficial incised wound 2 cm in length linear on left nostril just above upper lip. 5. Incised wound 3 cm x 5 cm on right side of neck lateral aspect. 3. Reddish contusion 2 cm x 1 cm left upper eye lid eyes swollen and there was no injury inside of eye. 4. Superficial incised wound 2 cm in length linear on left nostril just above upper lip. 5. Incised wound 3 cm x 5 cm on right side of neck lateral aspect. There was subcutaneous haemorrhage under the skin and muscles and no blood vessel was injured. 6. Incised wound 3 cm x 5 cm on right side of neck just below and paralle to injury No. 2. punctured wound 3.25 cms 1 cm on left side of chest lower. 7. Incised punctured wound 3.25 cm x 1 cm on left side of chest lower part anterior aspect. Margin everted. It is 4 cm below nipple. 8. Incised punctured wound 3 cm x 1 cm on left side of chest, just above nipple. Margins were everted. 9. Incised punctured wound 3.25 cm x 1 cm medial and parallel to injury No. 7. 10. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left lower back chest. Margins inverted. 11. Incised wound 2.25 cm x 0.5 cm on back of chest. Left side lower part. Margins averted and wound was above to injury No. 10. 12. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm on back of chest as median plain on vertical column. Margins inverted. On dissection there was subcutaneous haemorrhage under the skin on probing and opening the chest cavity. Injury No. 7 was communicating with injury No. 10. Injury No. 8 was communicating with injury No. 11 and injury No. 9 was communicating with injury No. 12. Intervening structures injured was lower part of heart, left ventricle lower lobleft lung and spinal cord. There was about one litre blood in chest cavity. Cause of death in this case, in my opinion, was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries No. 7, 8 and 9 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature." 14. Injuries No. 7, 8 and 9 were sufficient, in his opinion, to have caused the death in the ordinary course of nature. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased had been stabbed more than three times. There are six injuries which could have been caused by the Khanjar. Injuries No. 7, 8 and 9 were sufficient, in his opinion, to have caused the death in the ordinary course of nature. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased had been stabbed more than three times. There are six injuries which could have been caused by the Khanjar. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that Kabal Singh, who was armed with a Khanjar (dagger) was intent upon killing deceased Gurdip Singh. He had stabbed the deceased repeatedly and this is reflection of his state of mind. We have no hesitation to hold that Kabal Singhs intention was to kill Gurdip Singh. On the contrary, Gurbax Singh had felled the accused on the ground by throwing his Parna around his neck and pulling him to the ground and had raised a Lalkara. No other role and injuries have been attributed to him. He apparently wanted to chastise the deceased but did not share the common intention with Kabal Singh who committed murder. 15. While piecing together the sequence of events and while assessing the ocular testimony coupled with the medical testimony, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was Kabal Singh appellant who committed the murder of Gurdip Singh while Gurbax Singh did not share common intention with him. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal qua Kabal Singh accused and maintain his conviction and sentence. We, however, accept the appeal of Gurbax Singh and acquit him of the offence under the provisions of Section 302/34 IPC. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.