P. K. BHASIN , J. ( 1 ) CONVICTION of one Daya Ram @ Chottu s/o Budh Ram for the offence under section 302 IPC for the murder of one Jaya vide judgment dated 20-09-1999 and imposition of life imprisonment upon him vide order dated 21-09-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in sessions case no. 399/96 in respect of fir No. 632/1996 registered at Punjabi Bagh police station on 12-07-1996 has led to the filing of this appeal by the appellant. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Jaya was working as a nurse in Mahavir Nursing Home, West Punjabi Bagh. The appellant Daya Ram @ chotu was working as a domestic servant near the said Nursing Home in Kothi No. 49-A/41, West Punjabi Bagh and he was in love with Jaya and they had agreed to marry. However, Jaya came to know that Daya Ram @ Chotu was already married and was having children also and so she refused to marry him. Due to that he started teasing and threatening Jaya. On 12-07-96, the day of incident, at about 8. 20 p. m. the deceased Jaya came out of the Nursing Home to see off her colleague Ms. Kutty (PW-5) and when they were on the road outside the Nursing home Daya Ram @ Chotu came there from the front side and he immediately caught hold of Jaya by her hair and told her that he would teach her a lesson for refusing to marry him and then attacked her with a knife and inflicted 4/5 blows on her stomach, chest and neck due to which Jaya fell on the ground and was in a pool of blood. Ms. Kutty while raising an alarm entered the Nursing Home and told the incident to the owner of the Nursing Home namely Smt. Prem Lata Sood and in the meantime Jaya also came inside the nursing home and fell down there and died. ( 3 ) ALL the aforesaid facts were narrated by the eye-witness Ms. Kutty in her statement Ex. PW-5/a recorded by Inspector Basera (PW-17) and on that basis fir No. 632/1996 was registered under Section 302 IPC. ( 4 ) ON 13-07-1996 the appellant was arrested and during interrogation by the police he made a disclosure statement and got recovered the knife Ex. Kutty in her statement Ex. PW-5/a recorded by Inspector Basera (PW-17) and on that basis fir No. 632/1996 was registered under Section 302 IPC. ( 4 ) ON 13-07-1996 the appellant was arrested and during interrogation by the police he made a disclosure statement and got recovered the knife Ex. P-1 from a sewer pipe in Kothi No. 18, Road No. 52, West Punjabi Bagh. ( 5 ) ON completion of investigation of the present case the police filed a charge-sheet in Court against the accused-appellant for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and. In due course the appellant was committed to sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under section 302 IPC to which the appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) TO prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including the sole eye witness Ms. Marry Kutty. ( 7 ) ON the conclusion of prosecution evidence statement of the appellant was recorded by the trial court as required under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations against him and pleaded false implication. He also pleaded that he never gave any threat to the deceased or compelled her to marry him. He even denied his presence at the spot. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the additional public prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused (the appellant) and considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Daya Ram @ Chhotu for the commission of the offence under Section 302 ipc. Feeling aggrieved the convicted accused filed this appeal. ( 9 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State and with their assistance have also gone through the prosecution evidence. In this case the star prosecution witness is PW-5 Ms. Merry Kutty. She is an eye witness of the occurrence. She deposed that she knew deceased Jaya as both of them were working in Mahavir nursing Home. She also knew Daya Ram as he used to visit Jaya in Mahavir nursing Home. She further stated that the accused wanted to marry Jaya and he used to threaten her that if she would refuse to marry him he would kill her. She deposed that she knew deceased Jaya as both of them were working in Mahavir nursing Home. She also knew Daya Ram as he used to visit Jaya in Mahavir nursing Home. She further stated that the accused wanted to marry Jaya and he used to threaten her that if she would refuse to marry him he would kill her. She further deposed that on 12-07-96 when she was going along with deceased Jaya to leave her on the road for catching a bus at about 8. 20 p. m. and at that time daya Ram accused came from front side and killed Jaya in her presence by inflicting knife blows on the neck and chest of Jaya. She immediately went inside the Nursing Home and informed the owner of the Nursing Home Madam sood (PW-1 ). The deceased Jaya also came inside the Nursing Home with blood oozing from her injuries. She further deposed that Dr. Sood gave a telephone call to the police and she (PW-5) lodged her report Ex. PW-5/a. ( 10 ) IN cross-examination PW-5 stated that the murder had taken place in front of the gate of the Nursing Home and that there was no shop in front of that gate and there was no shop even towards the right side of the gate. She also stated that at the time of the murder she was standing at a distance of about five steps from the deceased. PW-5 also stated that at the time of murder two watchmen were sitting at the gate at a distance of five steps from the place of murder but she did not see what they did at that time. She also deposed that the house in which the accused used to work as a domestic servant was behind the Nursing Home. She stated that she had no knowledge if any complaint had been lodged by the deceased regarding the fact given to her by the accused. It was also stated by her that the accused had run away from the spot immediately after causing the murder of Jaya. She also stated that she had seen the accused in the electric light. She also stated that the accused used to threaten Jaya in her presence in the Nursing Home. It was also stated by her that the accused had run away from the spot immediately after causing the murder of Jaya. She also stated that she had seen the accused in the electric light. She also stated that the accused used to threaten Jaya in her presence in the Nursing Home. She denied the suggestion that she was not present with Jaya or that Jaya was alone (at the time of incident ). ( 11 ) PW-1 Dr. Prem Lata is the owner of Mahavir Nursing Home where deceased jaya was working as Nurse. She deposed that on 12-07-1996 at about 8 p. m. when she was present in her room Mary Kutty, Nurse of her Nursing Home came in perplexed condition and informed her that Jaya had been murdered by some Chotu on which she came out and saw Jaya lying in a pool of blood near a tree and on checking she was found dead. She further deposed that she then informed the police on telephone. She also deposed that Mary told her that Chotu had killed jaya with a knife. ( 12 ) PW-2 is Bhagirath Parshad on whose instance the appellant was apprehended by the police. He deposed that the accused was working with him but had left the job one month prior to the incident. He also deposed that on 12-07-96 police came to his house at about 10 p. m. along with Vinod and he told the police that Daya Ram had left the services one month prior to the incident. He further deposed that on 13-07-96 accused Daya Ram came to his house at 7. 00 a. m. and thereafter he gave information to the police on telephone and the accused was handed over to the police. ( 13 ) PW-4 Ct. Sohan Ram deposed that on 13-07-96 he was posted at police station Punjabi Bagh and on that day he had accompanied SI Jagdish Tanwar and the SHO to Mangol Puri where one Bhagirath met them and informed them that he had made the telephone call. He also deposed that the accused was apprehended on the information of Bhagirath and was taken to police station where he was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. He further deposed that the accused took them to Mahavir Nursing Home and also to H. No. 18/52, punjabi Bagh and got recovered the churi Ex. He also deposed that the accused was apprehended on the information of Bhagirath and was taken to police station where he was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. He further deposed that the accused took them to Mahavir Nursing Home and also to H. No. 18/52, punjabi Bagh and got recovered the churi Ex. P1 from the sewer pipe. ( 14 ) PW-3 is Paramjeet Singh who is a witness to the recovery of the knife ex. P1, the weapon of offence. He has deposed that he was called by the police as one churi had to be recovered from the sewer line of premises No. 18/52 punjabi Bagh. He further deposed that the police took his permission to break the sewer line where the churi was hidden and then the sewer pipe was broken and churi Ex. P1 was recovered from there and the same was then sealed by the police and seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/b. In cross-examination this witness stated that the churi was recovered from the pipe at the instance of the police. ( 15 ) PW-8 ASI Jagdish Prasad deposed that on 13-07-96 he was posted at police station Punjabi Bagh and accompanied the SHO of police station Mangol puri where disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/a of the accused was recorded after interrogation. He also deposed that they took the accused to Mahavir Nursing home, Punjabi Bagh and then to H. No. 18/52, Punjabi Bagh from where one churi ex. P1 was recovered from the sewer pipe at the instance of the accused and the same was sealed with the seal of DSB and seized vide memo Ex. PW3/b. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the churi Ex. P1 was not got recovered by the accused and it was planted on him. ( 16 ) PW-17 Inspector D. S. Basera is the investigating officer of the case. He has deposed that on 12-07-96 he was posted as SHO, police station Punjabi bagh and on that day after receiving copy of DD No. 52-B he reached Mahavir nursing Home along with other staff though SI Ram Lal Gulati and Ct. Onkar Singh were already present at the spot. He has deposed that on 12-07-96 he was posted as SHO, police station Punjabi bagh and on that day after receiving copy of DD No. 52-B he reached Mahavir nursing Home along with other staff though SI Ram Lal Gulati and Ct. Onkar Singh were already present at the spot. He then deposed that he found the dead body of Jaya lying in a pool of blood near the wall of the nursing home having injuries with a sharp edged weapon on the neck, chest and left side of the abdomen. He further deposed that Ms. Marry Kutty, an eye witness, met him at the spot and he recorded her statement Ex. PW-5/a on the basis of which formal fir Ex. PW-9/a was recorded. He also deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW-17/b at the instance of the complainant. He thereafter deposed about seizure of different articles from the spot, identification of dead body by some persons etc. PW-17 also deposed that on 13-07-96 accused was arrested from Mangol Puri on the identification of Bhagirath Prasad and also about recovery of weapon of offence from a pipe of Kothi No. 18, Road no. 52, West Punjabi Bagh at the instance of the accused in the presence of the landlord Sardar Paramjit Singh of the kothi. ( 17 ) THESE were the only witnesses whose evidence was referred to during the course of hearing. Evidence of other witnesses being formal was not even referred to from either side who had taken some part or the other during the investigation. ( 18 ) THE learned trial Court has found the above noted evidence adduced by the prosecution sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. However, assailing the correctness of the findings of the trial court learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the very presence of the so-called eye witness PW-5 Marry Kutty is doubtful. It was further contended by the counsel that there is a material infirmity in the prosecution evidence inasmuch as the eye-witness Marry Kutty has claimed that when she had gone inside the nursing home after the incident had taken place to inform Dr. Sood about that the deceased Jaya had also thereafter come inside the nursing home with blood oozing from her injuries while as per PW-1 Dr. Sood about that the deceased Jaya had also thereafter come inside the nursing home with blood oozing from her injuries while as per PW-1 Dr. Premlata sood when Marry Kutty came to her room to inform her about the incident she came out and saw Jaya lying in a pool of blood near a tree. Learned counsel submitted that these contradictory statements of the two material prosecution witnesses make the evidence of both of them highly doubtful. ( 19 ) ON the other hand it was contended by the learned Additional Public prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court holding the appellant guilty and so this appeal is liable to be dismissed. He supported the trial Court?s judgment on all aspects. ( 20 ) WE are of the view that on the basis of the reasons put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal the impugned judgment cannot be set aside. The judgment is based on a proper appreciation and analysis of the evidence of the eye witness and that of PW-1 Dr. Prem Lata sood to whom immediately after the occurrence the eye witness Marry Kutty had informed that Jaya had been killed by Chotu with a knife. PW-5 Marry Kutty appears to be a wholly independent and reliable witness. She had no axe to grind against the appellant and we see no reason to discard her testimony. She could not be discredited in cross-examination. No contradictions could be elicited from her with reference to her first information statement to the police nor has she made any improvement in Court regarding the incident. Her presence at the spot cannot be doubted for any reason and particularly when her employer Dr. Prem Lata Sood has also deposed about her presence. Her testimony gets full support from the FIR Ex. PW-5/a which she gave to the police. ( 21 ) THE evidence of PW-5 Marry Kutty also gets strength from the statement of PW-1 Dr. Prem Lata Sood, the owner of the Nursing Home where this eye witness and the deceased used to work together, who has claimed that she was informed by marry Kutty at about 8. 30 p. m. that Jaya had been murdered by Chotu. We do not consider the statement of Dr. Prem Lata Sood, the owner of the Nursing Home where this eye witness and the deceased used to work together, who has claimed that she was informed by marry Kutty at about 8. 30 p. m. that Jaya had been murdered by Chotu. We do not consider the statement of Dr. Prem Lata Sood to the effect that when she was informed by Marry Kutty about the incident she had come out and saw Jaya lying in a pool of blood near a tree to be in any way inconsistent or contradictory to the version of PW-5 Marry Kutty. The site plan Ex. PW-13/a shows that the dead body was seen lying inside the compound of the Nursing Home near palm trees and the place of incident shown is outside the Nursing Home on the road. So when the eye witness Marry Kutty says that when she came inside the Nursing Home to inform Dr. Sood about the incident Jaya also came inside the Nursing Home and dr. Sood says that when she came out she saw the deceased lying near a tree there is no contradiction on any aspect in the statements of these two witnesses. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that what dr. Sood really claimed is that, in fact, she had seen the deceased lying outside the Nursing Home on the road near a tree cannot be accepted to be correct and is clearly based on a misreading of the statement made by the witness. ( 22 ) THE evidence of the eye witness gets full corroboration even from medical evidence adduced by the prosecution in the form of post mortem report ex. PW-10/a which shows five incised wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased including the chest and neck about which the eye witness had also deposed. ( 23 ) THE prosecution case gets further strength from the recovery of the knife Ex. P-1 at the instance of the accused on next day of the incident when he was arrested and had made a disclosure statement whereby he had volunteered to get the weapon of offence recovered. The recovery of the knife was witnessed by an independent witness PW-3 Paramjit Singh. His evidence has been noticed already and we find that during his cross-examination also nothing favourable for the accused could be extracted. The recovery of the knife was witnessed by an independent witness PW-3 Paramjit Singh. His evidence has been noticed already and we find that during his cross-examination also nothing favourable for the accused could be extracted. The police officials have also deposed about the recovery of the knife Ex. P-1 at the instance of the accused. When that knife was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) it was found to be having human blood of AB group which was also the blood group of the deceased. The FSL reports are Ex. PX and PY. The accused had not offered any explanation for the presence of human blood of AB group which was the blood group of the deceased on the knife which he had concealed and then got recovered after his arrest. ( 24 ) NO other point was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 25 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that the impugned judgment of the trial court holding the appellant guilty for the murder of Jaya does not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference by this Court in appeal and there is no merit in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal and uphold the judgment dated 20-09-99 and the order on sentence dated 21-09-99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case no. 399/96 in respect of FIR No. 632/96, police station Punjabi Bagh.