Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 570 (MP)

ASHOK v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-04-10

MANJUSHA P.NAMJOSHI, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2008
Judgment S.K.KULSUSHRESTHA, J. ( 1. ) The convicted appellants have assailed the judgment dated 19.02.1999 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mohw (District Indore) in Session Trial No.78/1996 whereby while acquitting co-accused Kanhaiyalal, the appellants have each been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the judgment directs the defaulter to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2. ) The appellants were indicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and, m the alternative, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case of the prosecution, a quarrel took place between accused Suresh and PW-2 Baldev in village Umeriyagaon about the person who should drive the Icher vehicle. During the course of the quarrel, PW-7 Tej Singh Chouhan arrived and tried to intercede, but Suresh gave a slap to Tej Singh Chouhan, with the result, PW-2 Baldev started abusing Suresh. PW-3 Gopibai arrived and took away Baldev and the quarrel subsided. After a short while, Hukum s/o Rameshwar came back from the duty and witnessed that the accused persons armed with various weapons passed by his house shouting that they will be done to death. On hearing the said intimidation, deceased Hukum and Baldev came out of the house and followed the accused to prevent them from the assaulting Tej Singh and few paces behind, Meenabai, Gopibai and Shivkanya followed them. When Hukum reached the tamarind tree, three persons and the co-accused attacked. Accused Ashok with a Falia, Suresh with a sword and Rajkumar with a knife assaulted the deceased who fell down as a result of their attack. The accused persons, thereafter, fled away. ( 3. ) On account of the seriousness of the injuries sustained by Hukum, Kamal and Chander took him to Indore for treatment. Tej Singh also accompanied him while Baldev Singh, Raghunath and Meenabai proceeded to the Police Station, Kishanganj where Meenabai lodged report Ex.P/1. On the basis of the report, an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. ( 4. ) The injuries of deceased Hukum were examined by PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand, who gave his report Ex.P/4. In this report, PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand recorded that puple of the patient were dialated, pulse was not palpable and blood was coming out from the neck and chest. ( 4. ) The injuries of deceased Hukum were examined by PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand, who gave his report Ex.P/4. In this report, PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand recorded that puple of the patient were dialated, pulse was not palpable and blood was coming out from the neck and chest. On this basis, the doctor opined that he was brought dead. ( 5. ) In further investigation, spot map Ex.P/2 was prepared and samples of blood stained and control soil were taken vide panchnama Ex.P/3. On learning about the death of Hukum Singh, case of sudden death was registered vide Ex.P/5 and inquest was held of which panchnama Ex.P/6 was prepared. Under requisition Ex.P/23, the dead body of Hukum was sent to M.Y. Hospital for postmortem examination. The autopsy was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Prakash Chand Jain who gave autopsy report Ex.P/24. According to the testimony of the said doctor and the autopsy report Ex.P/24, the deceased had the following external injuries: - (1) Incised wound 8 x 2 x 4 cm just below left part of neck and below mandible lower angle runs obliquely, transverse and downward. (2) Incised wound 5 cm x muscle deep 2 cm x 0.5 cm width transverse oblique direction present on post part of neck and its post end is 8 cm below occipital protuberance and its out end is 7 cm below and post to left ear pinna. (3) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present on parie to temporal area (left) and 5 cm "above and slightly post to left ear pinna. Sagittal oblique in direction. (4) Contused abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right frontal area 2 cm below the right eye brow. ( 6. ) As per the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the death occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the body as described. The death was homicidal in nature. ( 7. ) On learning about the death of Hukum Singh, the case was altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further investigation was made. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused persons were arrested on 04.10.1995. The death was homicidal in nature. ( 7. ) On learning about the death of Hukum Singh, the case was altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further investigation was made. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused persons were arrested on 04.10.1995. On being interrogated, they made disclosure vide memo Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/9 and on the basis of the information furnished, knife was seized at the instance of accused Raj Kumar, a Falia from Ashok and a sword from Suresh. Bushirt was also seized from Ashok and all seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Indore from where report Ex.P/20 was received. The articles were forwarded to the Seroligist and report Ex.P/21 was received to the effect that bushirt seized from appellant Ashok was having stains of human blood. After completion of the investigation, the accused persons were prosecuted. ( 8. ) on being indicted for the said offences, the accused stated that strangers had committed murder of Hukum but on account of enmity, they had been falsely implicated. DW-1 Radheshyam, DW-2 Isaq Ali and DW-3 Arun Choudhary were examined in defence. ( 9. ) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based on appreciation of the evidence. The learned counsel has severely criticized the manner in which the first information report was recorded and has stated that if it were true that PW-9 Dilip Bhandari, Investigating Officer had dictated the report and it was recorded by another Sub Inspector, it was necessary under Regulation 744 of the Police Regulations to record this fact in the first information report itself. He has further urged that having not examined the scribe of the first information report, the first information report does not constitute any legal evidence. He has also expressed his doubt about the sanctity of the first information report on the ground that though Dilip Bhandari asserts that the report of the incident was sent to the Magistrate having jurisdiction on 02.10.1995, the fact that it had reached the Court on 4.10.1995, creates a doubt of the said report being in existence on 02.10.1995 and gives rise to an inference that it has been antedated. Learned counsel has further stated that the case of the prosecution is doubtful for the reason that Tej Singh (PW-7) had though accompanied the deceased to the hospital where he was examined by Dr. Nirmal Chand (PW-6) who gave report Ex.P/4, it was not disclosed to the doctor that the appellants were the assailants and on the contrary, it was stated that unknown persons had assaulted the deceased. He has further stated that PW-7 Tej Singh having already been furnished names of the assailants, would not have stated that the assailants were unknown. He has also criticized the manner in which the offence was investigated and the delay and lethargy on the part of the investigating officer in taking requisite steps in the matter, ( 10. ) Learned counsel for the State has, per contra, submitted that the requirement of the first information report does not lay down that it is to be, written by the person to whom the matter is reported and it is sufficient if it has been recorded under his dictation. He has also submitted that the statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code also do not require the statement of witnesses be reduced in writing by the person who has been informed about the incident. ( 11. ) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 12. ) In so far as the homicidal death of Hukum Singh is concerned, the appellants have not disputed the same. Even otherwise from the testimony of PW-1 Meenabai, PW-2 Baldev Singh, PW-3 Gopibai, PW-4 Bharat Singh Chouhan, PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand and PW-11 Dr. Prakash Chand Jain and the PM report Ex.P/24 coupled with the inquest report, Clearly establish that Hukum Singh met a homicidal death. The moot question for our consideration is as to whether the appellants were responsible for causing the said death and if so, nature of the offences committed by them. ( 13. ) The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case while the defence examined three witnesses. Out of the eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 Meenabai, PW-2 Baldev, PW-3 Gopibai and PW-4 Bharat Singh Chouhan have been examined as eye witnesses. ( 13. ) The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case while the defence examined three witnesses. Out of the eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 Meenabai, PW-2 Baldev, PW-3 Gopibai and PW-4 Bharat Singh Chouhan have been examined as eye witnesses. Learned,counsel for the appellants has doubted the truthfulness of the statements of these witnesses on the ground that they are partisan and though independent witnesses must have been available, the investigating officer did not produce them in the case or recorded their statement. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is partisan and all that, that is, necessary is that the evidence of such witness should be minutely scrutinized. ( 14. ) PW-1 Meenabai has deposed that while she was going to fetch water from a hand-pump, she saw that her brother-in-law Baldev and accused Suresh were quarreling. At that moment, her uncle-in-law Tej Singh, Sarpanch, arrived and tried to intervene. Accused Suresh resented his intrusion and gave a slap to Tej Singh. At that time, her mother-in-law Gopibai was coming from the side of the well and both of them then went to the place and brought back Baldev after persuading the parties to refrain from quarreling further. At this juncture, her brother-in-law Hukum Singh came to the house from his duty and her mother-in- law brought water for him The three accused along with the co-accused passed b\ the house stating that they would finish Tej Singh. Sensing some untoward incident, her brother-in-law Hukum Singh left the house and followed the accused to ensure that quarrel does not ensue. They also followed Hukum Singh. When the accused persons had reached the house of Kamal, they suddenly returned. The accused persons, stating that he belonged to the same family, started assaulting Hukum Singh and killed him and fled away from the place of incident. Tej Singh and Kamal took the deceased for treatment while she proceeded along with Baldev, Gopibai and Rugnath to the Police Station where she lodged first information report Ex. P/1. ( 15. The accused persons, stating that he belonged to the same family, started assaulting Hukum Singh and killed him and fled away from the place of incident. Tej Singh and Kamal took the deceased for treatment while she proceeded along with Baldev, Gopibai and Rugnath to the Police Station where she lodged first information report Ex. P/1. ( 15. ) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the first information report cannot be taken to be a reliable document as it was not recorded by PW-9 Dilip Bhandari, as admitted by him, but by a Sub Inspector to whom he had dictated the text and thereafter has subscribed his signatures. Learned counsel has submitted that as per the Police Regulation 744, if a person to whom the report is made, is unable to record it, he has to assign reasons in the first information report itself. This question has also been put to the investigating officer PW-9 by the defence but he has shown ignorance about the provisions of Regulation 744 of the Police Regulation. Before proceeding to consider the impact of Regulation 744, it would be necessary to elicit the requirement of recording FIR as per Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under: - "154. Information in cognizable cases. - (1).Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every sutli information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of a police station in relation to that offence." ( 16. ) It is manifest from the provision herein above reproduced that the information can be reduced to writing by the officer to whom it is furnished or under his direction. Even if we do not believe the cause assigned by the investigating officer that his hand was trembling on account of hyper-tension, since Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits that the first information report can be recorded under the direction of the officer -in-charge of the Police Station to whom the report was made, we have to see as to what is the impact of Regulation 744 of the Police Regulation. ( 17. ) Regulation 744 reads as follows: - "744. Statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. - When an investigating officer decides to record a statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, the record should be made at the time the witness is examined. The diary itself should be written privately, usually at end of the days work, and not in the presence of witnesses as though its compilation were a public function. The diary must be written up day by and not at leisure after the investigation is completed. The investigation officer will ordinarily write the case-diary in his own hand-writing and will sign and date it, after recording the hour at which the investigation is closed each day. The diary must be written up day by and not at leisure after the investigation is completed. The investigation officer will ordinarily write the case-diary in his own hand-writing and will sign and date it, after recording the hour at which the investigation is closed each day. Should he, for any reason; be unable to write himself, he may use a literate head constable or constable as his amanuensis but in such case it must be distinctly stated why the investigating officer could not himself write the diary, which should be signed both by the investigating officer and the writer. The names of informers need not be entered in the diary and no court can compel an investigating officer to disclose the name of an informer. When, therefore, action is taken on information, the source of which the investigating officer does not wish to disclose, he will preface the report in the diary of that action with the remark "From information received I did so and so"." ( 18. ) Perusal of the provision as herein above extracted, shows that Regulation 744 is not applicable in matters relating to the recording of the first information report. It is also clear that when the first information report is recorded under the direction of the SHO to whom the report is made, it is not necessary to examine the scribe as, according to the case of the prosecution, it was recorded under the direction of the SHO PW-9, Dilip Bhandari who has testified to it. The purpose of first information report is the same as of any document on the basis whereof, under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, he can be contradicted. It has also been stated that FIR can be used for corroboration as well. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that Regulation 744 had no application in matter relating to recording of the FIR nor there is any requirement for examining scribe thereof when the Station House Officer has testified to it. ( 19. ) Criticism has also been levelled with regard to 161 statements having not been recorded by the investigating officer PW-9 Dilip Bhandari. It is in this arena that the learned counsel pressed into service provision of Regulation 744. ( 19. ) Criticism has also been levelled with regard to 161 statements having not been recorded by the investigating officer PW-9 Dilip Bhandari. It is in this arena that the learned counsel pressed into service provision of Regulation 744. We may straightway point out that so far as regulations with regard to the investigation are concerned, they are directory and cannot override the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code or any other law, though they can definitely supplement the same. Regulation 744 is an enabling one as it provides an opportunity to the person unable to write, to seek assistance of another. Regulation clearly provides that the investigation officer for any reason unable to write himself, may use a literate head constable but in such case, it must be distinctly stated why the investigating officer could not himself write the diary, which should be signed by both the investigating officer and the writer. The reference or allusion made to the diary in the regulation is not to the statements recorded but to the entries made with regard thereto. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the investigation did not suffer from any serious flaw as shown, to vitiate the entire investigation. Reference has also been made to the Regulation 635 with regard to the details required to be entered as prescribed by Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861. Learned counsel has stated that though it is required to mention in the general diary, the names of the complainant or the informant, names of the witnesses examined and the other requirements enumerated thereto, investigating officer has admitted that he did not enter the names of the witnesses examined by him immediately upon his return to the police station. The above requirement is also procedural as examination of the witnesses by Police under Section 161 of the Crimina.1 Procedure Code permits the investigating officer or other police officer to examine a person orally and he may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of examination under the said section. Sub Section (3) requires that a separate and true record of the statement of each such person shall be made. Sub Section (3) requires that a separate and true record of the statement of each such person shall be made. It is, therefore, clear that insofar as the statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code are concerned, they do not form part of the case diary but are maintained separately for being filed in accordance with Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code along with the charge sheet. Attention has also been invited to Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. that every police officer making an investigation is required to enter his proceedings in investigation in a diary from day to day setting forth the time at which the information reached him and the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. We cannot confuse the case diary with the general diary. The case diary is sacrosanct in the manner and the accused is not permitted access to it unless it is used for refreshing memory. Since the accused had the access to 161 statements and not to case diary, it clearly shows that 161 statements do not form an integral part of the case diary, although the investigating officer is required to record substance of the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 20. ) From the above discussion, we are of the view thai the case of the prosecution is not vitiated on account of any flaw in the first information report or procedure adopted for recording statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 21. ) A doubt has also been raised with regard to the first information report having been lodged at a time it purports to have been. Learned counsel has submitted that although the first information report was stated to have been recorded on 02.10.1995, it reached the Magistrate having jurisdiction on 04.10.1995. PW- 9 Dilip Bhandari when asked about the delay has merely stated that as per the dispatch register, the same had been sent on 02.10.1995. If by reference to the dispatch register, witness deposes that it was sent on 02.10.1995, the accused could have been examined the said register to ascertain whether the statement was true. PW- 9 Dilip Bhandari when asked about the delay has merely stated that as per the dispatch register, the same had been sent on 02.10.1995. If by reference to the dispatch register, witness deposes that it was sent on 02.10.1995, the accused could have been examined the said register to ascertain whether the statement was true. He has further submitted that in paragraph 31, he has admitted that on 02.10.1995, report about the investigation had not been mentioned till 03.10.1995, which casts a serious doubt about the investigation. We find that though the investigating officer meticulously followed the law and the procedure prescribed, non-mention of the steps taken in investigation in the roz-namcha promptly does not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. ( 22. ) As pointed out herein above, there are four eye witnesses and the evidence of PW-1 Meenabai has already been referred to. PW-2 Baldev Singh has also corroborated the version of Meenabai. He has referred to the earlier quarrel in which Tej Singh had been slapped and stated that thereafter the accused persons assaulted the deceased with the sword and Falia and knife. When he heard that the accused were challenging by stating that they will finish the family of Sarpanch, they followed to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. Hukum Singh returned and started leading the party, following the accused person, although they attacked Hukum Singh and killed. Learned counsel has pointed out that Baldev has stated that although four accused assaulted him with swords, it appears that the statement of this witness in paragraph 2 has not been appreciated in correct perspective. In paragraph 2, he has clearly stated that accused persons were wielding sword, Falia and knife and the acquitted accused with Lathth (staff). Under these circumstances, the statement that "all of them attacked with swords" appears to have been made in some confusion. It has also been pointed out that the evidence of this witness cannot be believed as he has criminal propensities and is facing prosecutions. The witness has, however, clarified that it was only a case of verbal quarrel for which he has been prosecuted. ( 23. ) PW-3 Gopibai is the sister-in-law of Tej Singh. She has described the incident in which Tej Singh was slapped and subsequently accused persons having arrived with weapons ar:d intimidating the family with the above arms. The witness has, however, clarified that it was only a case of verbal quarrel for which he has been prosecuted. ( 23. ) PW-3 Gopibai is the sister-in-law of Tej Singh. She has described the incident in which Tej Singh was slapped and subsequently accused persons having arrived with weapons ar:d intimidating the family with the above arms. He has also confirmed that they followed the accused persons but as they reached near the house of Ganesh, Suresh assaulted Hukum Singh with a sword, Ashok with a Falia and Raj Kumar with a knife. Thereafter accused persons ran away. She has stated that the accused had attacked the deceased conjointly. ( 24. ) Bharat Singh Chouhan (PW-4) is another eye witness though his name has not been mentioned in the first information report, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. Bharat Singh has corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses and has stated that after the incident Tej Singh left for Indore but in the evening they learnt that Hukum Singh had succumbed to the injuries. His statement was recorded on the same evening. ( 25. ) Learned counsel has referred to the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand and the report Ex.P/4 given by him. In the report Ex.P/4, while recording the history that it was a case of assault with Farsa at about 01.30 p.m. on that date in village Umeriya by some persons. Since name of Tej Singh is mentioned as the person who accompanied the dead body, learned counsel has inferred that Tej Singh has given this information though he knew, as per the statement of this witness, that the accused persons had belaboured him. PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand in his testimony has deposed that he was working as Medical Officer in Choithram Hospital and Research Centre, Indore when Hukum Singh s/o Rameshwar was brought by his uncle Tej Singh. He had stated that some people had assaulted the deceased with Farsa. He, therefore, gave a report Ex.P/4 and informed the Police. ( 26. ) Tej Singh has been examined as PW-7. Tej Singh has deposed to the earlier part of the incident in which Suresh had given him a slap and quarrel had ensued in which others had interceded. There was turmoil in the village and some people had informed him that the accused persons were approaching with arms. ( 26. ) Tej Singh has been examined as PW-7. Tej Singh has deposed to the earlier part of the incident in which Suresh had given him a slap and quarrel had ensued in which others had interceded. There was turmoil in the village and some people had informed him that the accused persons were approaching with arms. When he saw where the crowd had gathered and he reached the place, he found that Hukum Singh was lying in a pool of blood. Gopibai told him that Ashok with Falia, Suresh with sword and Raj Kumar with a knife had caused injuries to Hukum Singh. Hukum Singh was-taken in a Maruti Car to Indore where he was declared dead and his body was sent to MY. Hospital. Learned counsel has submitted that Tej Singh is unreliable for reasons more than one. It has been conceded by him that names of the assailants had been communicated to him but still he did not mention the names to PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand. In his cross examination, he has denied having informed the doctor that some people had assaulted the deceased with Farsa. We may at once notice, that Tej Singh was not the only person who had accompanied the deceased but there were many more. Merely because his name was recorded as the person who accompanied the dead body, it cannot be inferred that the history was furnished by him. PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand has though stated that Tej Singh had given the said information, it is only on the basis of the medical report that he had said so. There is no evidence to the effect that Tej Singh was known to Dr. Nirmal Chand and, therefore, Dr. Nirmal Chand had no reason for remembering the facts of the said case right up to the date of his examination in chief. Tej Singh has also not been shown to Dr. Nirmal Chand to ascertain whether Tej Singh had given the said information. On the basis of such vague assertion on the part of Dr. Nirmal Chand, it cannot be inferred that the information recorded in Ex.P/4 had been given by Tej Singh. ( 27. Tej Singh has also not been shown to Dr. Nirmal Chand to ascertain whether Tej Singh had given the said information. On the basis of such vague assertion on the part of Dr. Nirmal Chand, it cannot be inferred that the information recorded in Ex.P/4 had been given by Tej Singh. ( 27. ) Learned counsel for the respondent/State has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhargavan and others versus State of Kerala ( AIR 2004 SC 1058 ) to the effect that non-disclosure of the names to the doctor is of no consequence. It has been further observed that the primary duty of the doctor is to treat a patient and not to find out by whom the injury was caused. It is, therefore, clear that the evidence of the eye witnesses namely PW-1 Meenabai, PW-2 Baldev, PW-3 Gopibai and PW-4 Bharat Singh Chouhan is in no way adversely affected on account of the recital in the injury certificate Ex.P/4 or on account of the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand. ( 28. ) Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that since PW-7 Tej Singh has a criminal record, he is not a reliable witness. Tej Singh has admitted that in the past, he had been prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also admitted that while he was Sarpanch, he had been prosecuted for misappropriation. He was also prosecuted with regard to the theft of electric motor. ( 29. ) The role of PW-7 Tej Singh was limited to taking the deceased to the hospital and with regard to the earlier quarrel in which he had been given a slap by Suresh. It is not a case where Tej Singh has been examined as an eye witness. Had it been a case where Tej Singh wanted to help the prosecution, there was no impediment in his proceeding to do so. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence of Tej Singh that he had not made any such statement to PW-6 Dr. Nirmal Chand to whom Tej Singh was a1 stranger, deserves to be accepted. ( 30. ) PW-8 Dashrath Singh is a witness to the disclosure of the weapons but he has not supported the prosecution case. PW-10 R.K. Singh has conducted inquest. Nirmal Chand to whom Tej Singh was a1 stranger, deserves to be accepted. ( 30. ) PW-8 Dashrath Singh is a witness to the disclosure of the weapons but he has not supported the prosecution case. PW-10 R.K. Singh has conducted inquest. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Serologist Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21 indicate that there were blood stains on the shirt of accused Ashok. In view of the overwhelming evidence of the eye witnesses, this piece of evidence namely the report of the Serologist in respect of the shirt of the accused Ashok, that the same contained human blood, further corroborates the eye witness. ( 31. ) In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that this appeal sans merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the jail sentence. ( 32. ) Simultaneously, warrants be issued against the appellants for their production before the trial Court for being sent to jail for serving out their sentence. Appeal dismissed.