Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of two appeals Criminal Appeal No.511-DB of 2000 filed by Joginder s/o Mohar Singh r/o village Budhpur, District Rewari and Varun Kumar s/o Narender Singh r/o Village Budhpur, District Rewari and Criminal Appeal No 565-DB of 2000 filed by Kalu alias Amit s/o Mahesh Kumar r/o Village Budhpur, District Rewari. These have been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 7.9.2000 and the sentence order dated 14 9.2000 passed in case FIR No. 116 dated 7.4.1999 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station City Rewari by Dr. S.K. Kapoor, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide which the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Pushpinder and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 years. It was ordered that if fine was recovered, it would be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased Pushpinder. 2. The prayer made in this appeal is to set aside the impugned judgment and the sentence order and to acquit the appellants of the charge of murder under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by way of acceptance of this appeal. 3. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 7.4.1999, PWS Ram Chander Yadav had gone to Ahir College, Rewari for attestation of his certificates. PW4 Karambir Yadav met him there. PWS Ram Chander Yadav then went to Geography Department. The time was about 8.30 a.m. Pushpinder (deceased) was standing there. He inquired from Ram Chander Yadav as to how he was there that day and PW 5 Ram Chander Yadav informed him that he was there as he had to get copies of his certificates attested. By that time, suddenly appellants Joginder, Varun Kumar and Kalu alias Amit came running. Kalu alias Amit gave a sword blow from behind which struck on the `takna (ankle) of Pushpinder. Pushpinder ran towards the office of the Principal. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav also ran behind him. Varun Kumar - appellant gave a sword blow on the leg of Pushpinder. Pushpinder ran ahead. PWS Ram Chander Yadav caught hold Joginder and Varun Kumar - appellant. Pushpinder ran towards the office of the Principal. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav also ran behind him. Varun Kumar - appellant gave a sword blow on the leg of Pushpinder. Pushpinder ran ahead. PWS Ram Chander Yadav caught hold Joginder and Varun Kumar - appellant. Kalu alias Amit - appellant showed him the sword. He then set them free. Pushpinder had fallen down in front of the office. Joginder - appellant gave sword blow on the forehead of Pushpinder. In the meantime, PW4 Karambir Yadav reached there, PW5 Ram Chander Yadav lifted Pushpinder. The appellants fled away from the place of occurrence by jumping over the wall. The college boys enquired from PW5 Ram Chander Yadav as to where he would take Pushpinder. He placed him at some distance and PW 4 Karambir Yadav helped him in doing so. PW4 Karambir Yadav removed the shoes of Pushpinder. The college boys brought a Maruti Car. PW4 Karambir Yadav and PW5 Ram Chander Yadav took Pushpinder to Government Hospital, Rewari. The doctor bandaged Pushpinder, but he was declared dead. PWS Ram Chander Yadav informed the uncle of Pushpinder on telephone The police reached the Hospital where Ram Chander Yadav PW5 was sitting outside the Hospital. The police took him to the Superintendent of Police. The lady Superintendent of Police desired to inspect the spot. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav then with her went back to the college and she inspected the spot. The police recorded the statement of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav v. Dr. Sunita Garg, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Rewari on 7.4.1999 at 9 a.m. sent ruqa Ex.PA to Station House Officer, Police Station City Rewari informing him that Pushpinder Singh s/o Sarwan Singh r/o Musepur, District Rewari was brought dead in the Hospital. On receipt of this ruqa, PW8 Raja Ram, Station House Officer along with other police officials reached Civil Hospital, Rewari. PW 4 Karambir Yadav met him there. He recorded his statement which is Ex.PD. Endorsement Ex.PD/1 was made and it was sent for registration of the case. The FIR was registered by PW2 Head Constable Ram Bhagat. PD/2 is the copy of the FIR, which was registered at 10.50 a.m. He made an entry in the Daily Diary Register at Serial No.8, copy of which is Ex.PE. 4. PW8 Raja Ram SI/SHO conducted Inquest proceedings on the dead body of Pushpinder. The Inquest proceedings are Ex.PB/1. 5. The FIR was registered by PW2 Head Constable Ram Bhagat. PD/2 is the copy of the FIR, which was registered at 10.50 a.m. He made an entry in the Daily Diary Register at Serial No.8, copy of which is Ex.PE. 4. PW8 Raja Ram SI/SHO conducted Inquest proceedings on the dead body of Pushpinder. The Inquest proceedings are Ex.PB/1. 5. Raja Ram SI scribed application Ex.PB and sent the dead body of Pushpinder for post mortem examination. 6. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. Ahir College, Rewari and prepared site plan Ex.PL. He lifted blood from the spot and put it in a tin box of a small size. He made it a parcel and sealed it with impression of letters `RK. It was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PM. 7. He recorded the statements of PW-1 Sube Singh and Rakesh. He received a parcel containing clothes of the deceased. He also received copy of the post mortem report. The parcel of clothes were taken into possession vide recovery memo EX.PE 8. Raja Ram SI had arrested Joginder - appellant on 11.4.1999. Varun Kumar and Kalu alias Amit were arrested on 11.4.1999. The investigation was then handed over to other Police Officer. 9. PW 1 Dr.Sunita Garg conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Pushpinder s/o Sarwan Singh, Ahir of village Musepur, aged about 22 years and found the following injuries : 1. A spindle shape vertical incised wound 6 x 1 cm on right side of fore-head. It was bone deep and 1 cm from midline. 2. An incised would 1 x 0.5 cm, 1 cm, anterior to lateral malleolus on the left foot. 3. An incised would 5 x 3 cm on posterior medial side of right thigh, 6 inch above the right knee. On dissection, haemotoma was found with under lying femoral vessel cut. On internal examination, there was found a fracture of frontal bone on the right side, corresponding to injury on scalp with underlying haematoma. Both the chambers of the heart were empty. Stomach contained gastric juices. Small intestines contained semi digested food. Large intestines contained faecal matter. Bladder was empty. On dissection, haemotoma was found with under lying femoral vessel cut. On internal examination, there was found a fracture of frontal bone on the right side, corresponding to injury on scalp with underlying haematoma. Both the chambers of the heart were empty. Stomach contained gastric juices. Small intestines contained semi digested food. Large intestines contained faecal matter. Bladder was empty. All other organs were healthy." In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of head injury and injury to femoral vessels, which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death had occurred probably within few hours of injuries. Ex. PC is copy of the postmortem report. The clothes of the deceased i.e. Shirt Ex.P1, T-shirt Ex.P2, Pant Ex.P3 and underwear Ex.P4 were sealed into a parcel and were handed over to the police. 10 In the course of investigation, PW 6 Constable Ramesh Kumar draftsman prepared site plan Ex.PO. 11. PW 10 Inspector Manbir Singh was conducting the investigation of this case. He went to Police Station City Rewari on 15.4.1999. The appellants were lodged there. PWs Ashok and Rameshwar, both public men were present in the Police Station and they were joined in the investigation. First of all, Joginder - appellant was taken out of the lock-up and was interrogated by PWO Manbir Singh Inspector in the presence of witnesses Rameshwar and Ashok Kumar. He disclosed that he had kept concealed a `khukhri in the house of his friend in village Innuendo. His disclosure statement Ex.PO was reduced into writing. Thereafter, Varun Kumar - appellant was taken out from the lock-up and was interrogated in the presence of witnesses Rameshwar and Ashok Kumar. He disclosed that he had kept concealed one knife in village Kanawari in the house of his maternal uncle. His disclosure statement Ex.PO/1 was reduced into writing. Thereafter, Kalu alias Amit was taken out of the lock-up and was interrogated in the presence of Rameshwar and Ashok Kumar. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing which is Ex.PO/2. He disclosed that he had kept concealed his sword in the fields in his village. 12. On 15.4.1999, the appellants were produced in the Court and their police remand for two days was obtained. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing which is Ex.PO/2. He disclosed that he had kept concealed his sword in the fields in his village. 12. On 15.4.1999, the appellants were produced in the Court and their police remand for two days was obtained. On 16.4.1999, the appellants were further interrogated in the presence of the same set of witnesses. They all disowned their previous statements recorded on 15.4.1999. On 16.4.1999, Joginder - appellant made another disclosure statement, which is Ex.PO/3 that he had kept concealed his khukhri in the upper shelf of the bed room of his house in village Budhpur. Varun Kumar - appellant also made another disclosure statement Ex. POM that he has kept concealed his knife in the turi room of his house in village Budhpur. Kalu alias Amit also made another disclosure statement Ex.PO/5 that he had concealed his sword in the turi room of his house in village Budhpur. Thereafter, all the appellants were taken to village Budhpur. First Joginder - appellant got recovered khukhri Ex.P5 in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Its sketch Ex.P51 A was prepared. It was put under a sealed cover and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P51B. Ex.P5/C is the site plan showing the place of recovery. Thereafter, appellant Kalu alias Amit got recovered sword Ex.P6 in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Its sketch Ex.P61 A was prepared. It was put in a sealed cover and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P6/B. Ex.P6/C is the site plan showing the place of recovery. Last of all, Varun Kumar appellant got recovered knife Ex P7 in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Its sketch "Ex.P7 I A was prepared. Ex.P7/B recovery memo was also prepared. Ex.P7/C is the site plan showing the place of recovery. The case property was deposited in the malkhana of the Police Station. 13. On completion of the investigation PW9 Shri Bhagwan Inspector prepared final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for presenting it in the Court. 14. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellants for committing the murder of Pushpinder Singh s/o Sarwan Singh r/o Village Musepur, in furtherance of their common intention. 14. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellants for committing the murder of Pushpinder Singh s/o Sarwan Singh r/o Village Musepur, in furtherance of their common intention. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 15. The prosecution at the trial examined 10 witnesses, namely PW 1 Dr. Sunita Garg, PW2 Head Constable Ram Bhagat, PW3 Constable Prem Singh, PW4 Karambir Yadav, PW5 Ram Chander Yadav, PW6 Naresh Kumar draftsman, PW7 Head Constable Jagdish Chander, PW8 Raja Ram Sub Inspector, PW9 Inspector Shri Bhagwan and PW 10 Inspector Manbir Singh. They proved various documents which are on the file. 16. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. They stated that they are innocent. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav is a got up witness. In fact, it was a blind murder. They have been roped in after due deliberations. They have nothing to do with this occurrence. 17. The appellants, however, adduced no evidence in their defence. 18. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and of Senior Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent - State of Haryana were heard and the evidence was scrutinised with their help. 19. The prosecution has examined PW 4 Karambir Yadav in whose presence the alleged occurrence took place. He has not supported the prosecution version. He was got declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined at length and was confronted with his statement Ex.PD. He deposed that on 7.4.1999, he remained at his house. He knows PW Ram Chander. He is student of Ahir College. He had not gone to Ahir College on 7.4.1999 along with PW Ram Chander. He had received information at about 11.30 a.m. that there was a fight in the College and Pushpinder was taken to the Hospital. The Public Prosecutor put him the question that he had signed his statement Ex.PD at point `A after reading it. His answer was that he had not made this statement to the police. He had received information at about 11.30 a.m. that there was a fight in the College and Pushpinder was taken to the Hospital. The Public Prosecutor put him the question that he had signed his statement Ex.PD at point `A after reading it. His answer was that he had not made this statement to the police. When after hearing the information at Kosli and after taking bath etc., he reached Police Station City Rewari, it was about 3 p.m. and at that time he signed on a blank paper. Another question No. 3 was advanced to PW4 Karambir Yadav by the Public Prosecutor that he made statement Ex.PD in Civil Hospital, Rewari and after it was read over to him and that he admitted it to be correct and then signed it at point `A at Civil Hospital. Rewari. His answer was that it was correct. The net result is that PW 4 Karmabir Yadav has not supported the prosecution version. He was lodger of the FIR. 20. The prosecution has examined PW5 Ram Chander Yadav. He fully supports the prosecution version. His deposition runs to this effect that on 7.4.1999, he had gone to Ahir College, Rewari for attestation of his certificates. PW4 Karambir Yadav met him there. He then went to Geography Department. It was about 8.30 a.m. Pushpinder (deceased) was standing there. He enquired from him as to how he was there on that day and he informed him that he was there in connection with the attestation of his documents. Then, suddenly, the appellants Joginder, Varun Kumar and Kalu alias Amit came there running. Kalu alias Amit gave a sword blow from behind which struck on the takna (ankle) of Pushpinder. Pushpinder ran towards the office of the Principal. He also ran behind him. Varun Kumar appellant gave a sword blow on the leg of Pushpinder. Pushpinder ran ahead. PW5 Ram Chander caught hold Joginder and Varun Kumar appellants. Kalu alias Amit appellant showed him the sword. He then set them free. Pushpinder then fell down in front of the office. Joginder appellant had given sword blow on the forehead of Pushpinder. In the meantime, Karambir reached there. He lifted Pushpinder. The appellants fled away by jumping over the wall. The college boys gathered there. PW4 Karambir Yadav helped him in putting Pushpinder in the car for taking him to Government Hospital, Rewari. Joginder appellant had given sword blow on the forehead of Pushpinder. In the meantime, Karambir reached there. He lifted Pushpinder. The appellants fled away by jumping over the wall. The college boys gathered there. PW4 Karambir Yadav helped him in putting Pushpinder in the car for taking him to Government Hospital, Rewari. His deposition further runs to the effect that the doctor had bandaged injuries of Pushpinder and he was declared dead. He then gave a telephonic message to the uncle of Pushpinder. The police then came in the Hospital and his statement had been recorded. He had disclosed everything to the police. The solitary statement of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav carries conviction to our mind. He is a credible witness. His statement cannot be discarded, though several infirmities have been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants. He is not related to the deceased, nor he has any enmity with any of the appellants. He is a truthful witness. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that name of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav does not find mention in the DDR. It has got no significance. His name finds mention in the FIR i.e. statement Ex.PD of PW4 Karambir Yadav. Non-mentioning of the witnesses in the Daily Diary Register would at the most be an inadvertent omission on the part of the police. Further we do not find any infirmity in the statement of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav, if he did not attest the Inquest Proceedings. 21. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants also pointed out that according to PW5 Ram Chander Yadav he took the deceased to the Hospital along with PW4 Karambir Yadav, but name of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav does not find mention in the record of the Hospital. Ex.PA is the ruqa sent to Police Station City Rewari intimating the fact that Pushpinder had been brought dead. It was very brief information. It was not necessary that the names of the persons should have been mentioned in it, who had brought the deceased. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav categorically disclosed that he along with Karambir Yadav had taken Pushpinder to the Civil Hospital, Rewari and his deposition has not been rebutted by any cogent evidence. There is no record contrary to this deposition. The Ld. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav categorically disclosed that he along with Karambir Yadav had taken Pushpinder to the Civil Hospital, Rewari and his deposition has not been rebutted by any cogent evidence. There is no record contrary to this deposition. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants further argued that according to PW 5 Ram Chander Yadav, his clothes were stained with blood while PW8 Raja Ram Sub Inspector deposed contradictory that his clothes were not stained with blood. If the police did not take into possession the blood stained clothes of PW5 Ram Chander, this fact by itself cannot belie the veracity of the prosecution. version. 22. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants further argued that PW5 Ram Chander Yadav is a chance witness. He had no purpose or occasion to be present in Ahir College, Rewari on the day of occurrence. He was not to take any examination on that day. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav has cogently explained that he was present there in connection with the attestation of his certificates. There is no reason to doubt his presence there. He was a student of Ahir College, Rewari and was undergoing studies under Distance Education Scheme. His centre of examination was Ahir College, Rewari. So, his statement cannot be brushed aside on the theory that he is a chance witness. 23. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants also argued that PW5 Ram Chander was a close friend of the deceased. His statement cannot be discredited for this reason. His statement has been scrutinised with greater care and caution. Nothing has emerged out which may discredit his statement. The occurrence had taken place in broad day-light. PW5 Ram Chander Yadav had witnessed the occurrence. There is no dispute about the identity of the appellants. So, the solitary statement of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav can safely be acted upon in coming to the conclusion that the appellants chased Pushpinder, caused him fatal injuries with deadly weapons and committed his murder, in furtherance of their common intention. The evidence on the file cogently established their common intention. The appellants came together running armed with swords. They inflicted injuries to Pushpinder. They then fled away together with their weapons. 24. Ram Singh, father of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav, during trial had moved an application on 5.8.1999, the day on which PW5 Ram Chander Yadav was examined. The evidence on the file cogently established their common intention. The appellants came together running armed with swords. They inflicted injuries to Pushpinder. They then fled away together with their weapons. 24. Ram Singh, father of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav, during trial had moved an application on 5.8.1999, the day on which PW5 Ram Chander Yadav was examined. It was alleged in this application that his son Ram Chander Yadav had not witnessed the occurrence and his name was cited as a witness, because he is friend of Pushpinder (deceased). It was also mentioned in this application that PW Ram Chander Yadav was kidnapped by the complainant on 4.8.1999. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that this application casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the statement made by PW5 Ram Chander Yadav. An attempt was made by moving this application through Ram Singh, the father of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav, to prejudice the trial. The Trial Court relied upon the statement of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav and ignored this application. The witness did not own the allegations contained in this application. He asserted that he was making the deposition truthfully and was not under the pressure of the police and the complainant party. He denied the allegation that he was in the custody of the complainant party for the last three days. The effort made by the appellants to influence the trial by making the father of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav to move the said application was exposed. 25. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that according to PW5 Ram Chander Yadav, the appellants were armed with swords and they caused injuries to Pushpinder (deceased) with swords. However, different weapons were recovered by PW 10 Manbir Singh Inspector from the appellants in pursuance of their disclosure statements. Khukhri (Ex.P5) was allegedly recovered from Joginder - appellant. Sword (Ex.P6) was allegedly recovered from Kalu alias Amit - appellant and the knife (Ex.P7) was allegedly recovered from Varun Kumar - appellant. The statement of PW 10 Inspector Manbir Singh revealed that the appellants made different disclosure statements on 15.4.1999. They were further interrogated on 16.4.1999 and they resiled from their previous statements made on 15.4.1999. Sword (Ex.P6) was allegedly recovered from Kalu alias Amit - appellant and the knife (Ex.P7) was allegedly recovered from Varun Kumar - appellant. The statement of PW 10 Inspector Manbir Singh revealed that the appellants made different disclosure statements on 15.4.1999. They were further interrogated on 16.4.1999 and they resiled from their previous statements made on 15.4.1999. They then came out with their fresh statements which were recorded on 16.4.1999 and the weapons Khukhri (Ex.P5), Sword (Ex.P6) and the Knife (Ex.P7) were then recovered from Joginder, Kalu alias Amit and Varun Kumar - appellants, respectively. The conduct of the appellants in making two contradictory disclosure statements was to mislead the Investigating Officer. In this case either the Investigating Officer has bungled with the matter or the appellants have created confusion by making two contradictory statements and then getting different weapons recovered. Statement of PW5 Ram Chander Yadav is categoric that the appellants were armed with swords and we believe the same. The medical evidence does not contradict the oral version that the injuries were caused with swords. Even though, the doctor opined that injuries to Pushpinder were possible with Khukhri (Ex.P5), Sword (Ex.P6) and knife (Ex.P7), it cannot over-ride the ocular evidence i.e. direct evidence given by PW5 Ram Chander Yadav. The recovery of weapons is only a corroborative piece of evidence. If this evidence is ignored, no dent is caused to the prosecution case. 26. In view of the above discussed evidence, we find that the prosecution case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. We find no infirmity in the impugned Judgment. The sentence imposed on the appellants commensurates with the offence committed by them. So, no interference is also called for in the impugned sentence order. We uphold the impugned judgment and the sentence order and dismiss the appeals.