JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment dated 6.9.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-Track) No.1, Jhalawar, whereby appellant Mahesh @ Hari was convicted and sentenced as under : U/s. 302 IPC : Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a written report of the incident was handed over on September 9, 1996 at 1.35 A.M. by the informant Bhikam Chand Yadav, to Shankar Lal, Sub- Inspector, at S.R.G. Hospital, Jhalawar. In the report it was reported that the informant resided in front of Sonic Bread Shop, at Mangalpura, Jhalawar. On intervening night of Sunday and Monday, at 1.00 A.M. in the night on 30.9.1996, his son Pradeep alongwith his friends Rajeshwar Chaturvedi and Vijay Sen were returning home on scooter from Hospital, where they had gone for dressing. The informant and his brother Narendra were waiting for Pradeep in the market, downstairs of their house. Pradeep alongwith Vijay Sen and Rajeshwar Chaturvedi then came and stopped the scooter in front of the shop. With this, in no time a Jeep RJ 17 T 0018 came from the side of Mastan Singh's shop, it stopped and Mahesh alias Hari s/o Shankar Lal and driver Gopal, got down from the jeep. Mahesh had a sword in his hand, Gopal exhorted him to kill Pradeep saying that he (Pradeep) had caused sword injury on his hand; don't leave him alive. On this, Mahesh alias Hari inflicted a sword blow on front side of Pradeep's neck with the intention to kill him, resulting in cutting his throat which caused him to fall down. On trying to save him (sic), Mahesh and Gopal fled in the jeep towards Bus Stand. Pradeep, who was lying in pool of blood was then taken to the Police Station on scooter and from there he was taken to Hospital in jeep. Pradeep was declared dead by the doctor at the Hospital. On this report, a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation, autopsy on the dead body was got conducted, necessary memos were prepared and the challan against accused Mahesh @ Hari, Gopal and Aslam was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. as they were absconding. Pradeep was declared dead by the doctor at the Hospital. On this report, a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation, autopsy on the dead body was got conducted, necessary memos were prepared and the challan against accused Mahesh @ Hari, Gopal and Aslam was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. as they were absconding. Then on their surrender in Court on dated 9.2.1998, and on case being committed, the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhalawar. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his explanation, appellant Mahesh @ Hari stated that the eye-witnesses examined were persons of criminal background and he was falsely implicated due to enmity as the deceased Pradeep made a deadly attack, which injured his hand at the paw so he was unable to hold a sword. One witness in defence was, however, examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions acquitted accused Gopal and Aslam, while convicted the appellant Mahesh @ Hari as indicated here-in-above. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and with their assistance scanned the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity as the deceased Pradeep had made a deadly assault on the appellant wherein paw of his hand was injured and the appellant could not grip the sword as alleged by the prosecution. 5. Death of Pradeep Kumar was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex.P.17), following ante mortem injuries were found on the body: Injury No. 1 Clear Cut, Transverse Incised wound 6" x 3'' up to cervical vertebrae (grievous-sharp weapons). On autopsy of the dead body, the following muscles, veins and arteries, were cut on left side of neck : 1. Muscles : (1) Platys ma muscles. (2) Muscle sterno cleidomastoid (3) Muscle Sterno hyoidclimus (4) Muscle cartilage zyredica (5) Cartilage cricodiea 2. Oesophagus and trachea are cut 3. Veins : (1) External Jugular vein (2) Internal carotid artery (3) Internal Jugular veins Following muscles and veins were cut on Rt. side of neck: 1. Muscles: (1) Platys ma muscles. (2) Sterno mastoid muscle (3) Sterno hyoidclimus muscle (4) Muscle cartilages zyredica 2. Oesophagus and trachea are cut 3. Veins : (1) External Jugular vein (2) Internal carotid artery (3) Internal Jugular veins Following muscles and veins were cut on Rt. side of neck: 1. Muscles: (1) Platys ma muscles. (2) Sterno mastoid muscle (3) Sterno hyoidclimus muscle (4) Muscle cartilages zyredica 2. Veins : Rt. External Jugular vein is cut. Injury No.2 Abrasion 1" over lateral aspect of left jaw. (Simple blunt weapon). In the opinion of (P.W.16) Dr. Ramesh Chand Dube, mode of death was syncope and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to Injury over neck. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The duration of death was about eight to ten hours. 6. In the case like the present, where enmity is alleged to be the main defence, it would be essential to scrutinise the testimony of the witnesses with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence o notwithstanding the existence of enmity. In A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3173 (3183), Anil Rai v. State of Bihar , Apex Court has observed that the enmity is doubled edged weapon and where it is alleged to be the motive for the commission of the crime, this cannot be made a basis to discard their testimony if it is otherwise found to be cogent and convincing. The Apex Court has observed 5 as under : "The admitted position of law is that enmity is a double edged weapon which can be a motive for the crime as also the ground for false implication of the accused persons. In case of inimical witnesses, the Courts are required to scrutinise their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence to be acceptable notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Where enmity is proved to be the motive for the commission of the crime, the accused cannot urge that despite proof of the motive of the crime, the witnesses proved to be inimical should not be relied upon. Bitter animosity held to be a double edged weapon may be instrumental for false involvement for the witnesses inferring and strongly believing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. Such possibility has to be kept in mind while evaluating the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. Bitter animosity held to be a double edged weapon may be instrumental for false involvement for the witnesses inferring and strongly believing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. Such possibility has to be kept in mind while evaluating the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. Testimony of eye witnesses D which is otherwise convincing and consistent, cannot be discarded simply on the ground that the deceased were related to the eye witnesses or previously there were some disputes between the accused and the deceased or the witnesses. The existence of animosity between the accused and the witnesses may, in some cases, give rise to the possibility of the witnesses exaggerating the role of some of the accused or trying to rope in more persons as accused persons for the commission of the crime. Such a possibility is required to be ascertained on the facts of each case." 7. Bearing in mind the above guidelines of the Apex Court, on analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is revealed that the incident took place at 1.35 A.M. on 30.9.1996 at the midnight, just in front of the house of the deceased where his father Bhikam Chand Yadav (P.W.13) and uncle Narendar Kumar Yadav (P.W.7) were waiting for the deceased to come back from the hospital where he had gone for dressing alongwith his friend Rajeshwar (P.W.15) and Vijay Sen on scooter. As per the deposition of Bhikam Chand (P.W.3), Narendra Kumar (P.W.7) and Rajeshwar (P.W.15), when the deceased returned on his scooter alongwith his two friends mentioned above and halted (stopped) the scooter near the retail shop, a Jeep No. RJ 17 T.0018 came in fast speed from the side of shop of Mastan Singh and the accused Mahesh @ Hari and Gopal alighted from the jeep and Gopal exhorted him to kill Pradeep and the appellant Mahesh @ Hari inflicted sword blow on the neck of Pradeep, causing him to fall down. When these witnesses rushed to save him, the accused fled in the jeep towards bus stand. 8. When these witnesses rushed to save him, the accused fled in the jeep towards bus stand. 8. The testimony of the above witnesses have been tried to be assailed on the ground that no assault with sword as alleged could be made by the appellant as his right hand paw was injured in earlier deadly attack by the deceased Pradeep himself and that the appellant was falsely implicated for the offence. In this regard, these witnesses have been extensively cross-examined but they have categorically deposed that the sword blow was inflicted by the appellant with both the hands. With a view to prove that appellant Mahesh @ Hari could not use his right hand to grip a sword, (D.W.1) Dr. Sharat Chandra Vijay Vargiya, Junior Specialist Orthopedics S.R.G. Hospital, Jhalawar, has been examined, who has deposed that right hand thumb of the accused appellant Mahesh was squeezed and hence no sword could be held in the grip but in the cross-examination he clarified that the thumb was not dead but it was folded at the joint as such no grip to hold the sword could be achieved. However, from the testimony of Dr. Sharat Chandra (D.W.1), it appeared that the doctor though speaks about the thumb that it could not be used to grip a sword but apparently he does not say that the fingers of the hand also could not be used with the help of rest of the palm so as to grip a sword with the help of the other hand. Accordingly, there is no such material on record to conclusively rule out the use of the sword by the appellant with the help of both the hands in the wake of the consistent testimony of the eye-witnesses discussed here-in-above. 9. While delving into the intrinsic worth of the testimony of the eye-witnesses, it may be noted that the incident occurred in extremely swift manner and the jeep was used to strike and run leaving no time for the witnesses to save or even to react though they were nearby, lest the appellant could be trapped. 9. While delving into the intrinsic worth of the testimony of the eye-witnesses, it may be noted that the incident occurred in extremely swift manner and the jeep was used to strike and run leaving no time for the witnesses to save or even to react though they were nearby, lest the appellant could be trapped. The presence of the witnesses at the spot was natural as, the father of the deceased Bhikam Chand (P.W.3) and his uncle Narendra Kumar (P.W.7) were waiting for the deceased Pradeep to return, in front of their house, downstairs in the main street while Rajeshwar (P.W.15) had gone with the deceased and had come on scooter alongwith him. The veracity of the incident is further reinforced from the fact that the deceased was taken to, the police station without any delay on scooter situated at a distance of a furlong only and then to the Hospital in police jeep. This has also been corroborated by Shankar Lal Sub-Inspector (P.W.18) who himself accompanied the deceased in jeep to the hospital. Pradeep was declared dead on arrival at the hospital and then a written report (Ex.P.2) was handed over to Shankar Lal (P.W.18), within less than almost 35 minutes or so and then the F.I.R. (Ex.P.9) was registered at about 1.45 A.M. Prompt lodging of the report in the manner stated above further corroborates the fact that the incident occurred in the manner narrated by the eye witnesses and that there had been no occasion to change the genesis of the occurrence so as to falsely implicate the accused appellant with the crime on account of enmity as alleged. In view of the cogent, consistent and convincing testimony of the eye-witnesses, there appears to be no cause to infer that these witnesses might have falsely implicated the appellant on account of enmity rather the enmity on account of grievous hurt at right paw of the appellant has surfaced to be the motive behind commission of the crime. In view of the cogent, consistent and convincing testimony of the eye-witnesses, there appears to be no cause to infer that these witnesses might have falsely implicated the appellant on account of enmity rather the enmity on account of grievous hurt at right paw of the appellant has surfaced to be the motive behind commission of the crime. The involvement of the appellant is further reinforced with the fact that the registration number of the jeep used in the crime was mentioned in the F.I.R. and the vehicle was recovered at Tonga Stand, Jhalawar on 30.9.1996 at 1.05 P.M. though the appellant was absconding and challan against him was filed u/S. 299 Cr.P.C. and he was arrested on his surrender in the Court on 9.2.1988 i.e. about 1 year 4 months after the incident and then the sword was recovered at his instance. 10. On evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the touch stone of the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra), we find that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 11. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to appellant under Section 302 IPC are maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******