JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.1995, passed by learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 1994, whereby accused/ appellant Kishori has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.), and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that accused/appellant Kishori is younger brother of complainant Nanhe (P.W.1). Mamta (deceased) was wife of the complainant and sister-in-law of the accused/appellant. Wife of accused/appellant is Kanta. Wife of accused/appellant left her husband’s house in village Ram Jeevanpur after getting annoyed with him. Accused/appellant Kishori made several efforts to call his wife Kanta back to his house but failed. Lastly on 10.7.1994 he again went to village Bajpur alongwith his brother-in-law Rohtash Kumar (P.W.3) to call back Kanta. Parents of Kanta refused to send back Kanta as they alleged that accused/appellant Kishori was a man of bad character and had relations with other women. On this Kishori asked as to who had told it to them. In reply to this Kanta told him that Mamta (deceased) told her about the character of the accused/appellant. This enraged the accused/appellant Kishori on which at about 6.30 on 10.7.1994 he came back to his village and told the complainant Nanhe (P.W.1) and his wife Mamta (deceased) that the deceased had ruined his life by poisoning ears of his wife. He further told them that he would not let the complainant and his wife live happily, after his matrimonial life is spoiled. With these words he stabbed Mamta with a knife (CHHURI) and gave several blows. On raising alarm by the complainant, accused/appellant Kishori left the place of incident after brandishing the long knife. Complainant Nanhe (P.W.1) took his wife Mamta in bus registration No. U.S.E.-666, which had come in the village taking a BARAAT (marriage party) there. When Mamta was taken to the hospital at Kashipur she was declared dead, thereafter complainant Nanhe lodged First Information Report (exhibit A-1) with police out post Sultanpur Patti, P.S. Bajpur on the very day i.e. 10.7.1994 at about 10.20 p.m. On the basis of said report the police prepared check report (Exhibit A-4). When Mamta was taken to the hospital at Kashipur she was declared dead, thereafter complainant Nanhe lodged First Information Report (exhibit A-1) with police out post Sultanpur Patti, P.S. Bajpur on the very day i.e. 10.7.1994 at about 10.20 p.m. On the basis of said report the police prepared check report (Exhibit A-4). Investigation was taken up by Sub Inspector Devki Nandan (Exhibit A-4). On the next day (11.7.1994) at about 11.30 a.m. police went to L.D. Bhatt Hospital, Kashipur, took dead body of Mamta in their possession, prepared inquest report (Exhibit A-13) and also prepared sample seal (Exhibit A-14), sketch of dead body (Exhibit A-15), police form no. 18 (Exhibit A-16) and other necessary papers. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On 11.7.1994 at about 3.00 p.m. Post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Mamta by Dr. J.K. Goel (P.W.6), who prepared autopsy report (Exhibit A-11) and was recorded as many as five incised ante mortem injuries and opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. Meanwhile the investigation progressed and taken over by S.I. Dharam Pal Singh (P.W.5), who further interrogated the witnesses. The Investigating Officer recovered CHHURI (knife) used in the crime, on pointing out of accused/appellant Kishori and memorandum (Exhibit A-3) was prepared. After completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet (Exhibit A-10) against the accused/appellant Kishori for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions, for trial. Learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital, to whom the case was transferred, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. on 6.1.1995 against the accused Kishori who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined P.W.1, Nanhe complainant and eyewitness P.W.2 Ram Kumar, eye-witness, P.W.3 Rohtash Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased and eye-witness, P.W.4 S.I. Devki Nandan, who started investigation, P.W.5 S.I. Dharampal Singh, who completed the investigation and P.W.6 Dr. J.K. Goel, who conducted the post mortem examination. On this prosecution got examined P.W.1, Nanhe complainant and eyewitness P.W.2 Ram Kumar, eye-witness, P.W.3 Rohtash Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased and eye-witness, P.W.4 S.I. Devki Nandan, who started investigation, P.W.5 S.I. Dharampal Singh, who completed the investigation and P.W.6 Dr. J.K. Goel, who conducted the post mortem examination. The oral and documentary evidence was read over to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the trial court, in reply to which he admitted that plaintiff is his brother and deceased is sister-in-law. However as to the rest of the evidence he alleged that the same was false. Lastly accused pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity with Ram Kumar (P.W.2). However, no evidence in defence was adduced on behalf of the accused/appellant. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that accused/appellant Kishori guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. Thereafter the parties were heard on sentence and the convict (Kishori) was sentenced imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 22.12.1995 passed by IInd Addl. Sessions judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 312/1994, this appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court on 10th of January, 1996, where it was admitted on 12th of January, 1996. The appeal is received by this court by transfer under Section 35 of U.P. reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal. 5. Before further discussion we think it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries found on the body of deceased Mamta, recorded by P.W.6 Dr. J.K. Goel, who prepared autopsy report (Exhibit A-11) on 11.7.1994. The ante mortem injuries are being reproduced to below. (i) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x abdominal cavity deep on back of the left side abdomen in the middle. (ii) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on right side of abdomen lateral aspect 6 cm above the right iliac crest. (iii) Incised wound 2.5 cm x .5 cm on right side face 3 cm below right eye. (iv) Incised wound 2 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on left side face 1.5 cm outer left angle of mouth. (v) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on right axillary’s region 9 cm from right nipple at 10 O’clock position. On internal examination P.W.6 Dr. (iv) Incised wound 2 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on left side face 1.5 cm outer left angle of mouth. (v) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on right axillary’s region 9 cm from right nipple at 10 O’clock position. On internal examination P.W.6 Dr. J.K. Goel found 10th rib of right side cut and fractured. He further found that the cavity of the abdomen contained 1.5 litres of blood. The Medical Officer opined that deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. From the statement of P.W.6 Dr. J.K. Goel read with postmortem report (Exhibit A-11), it is established on the record that Mamta had died homicidal death. Now the question to be examined by this Court is whether accused/appellant Kishori committed murder of sister-in-law Mamta (deceased) or not? 6. P.W.1 Nanhe is real brother of accused/appellant Kishori. Mamta (deceased) was his wife. He has stated that accused/appellant Kishori got married to Kanta, who was not happy with him. About 5-6 months back she had left for her parental house in Bajpur. Kishori (accused/appellant) made efforts to call back his wife but she did not come. On 10.7.1994 in the morning accused/appellant Kishori alongwith Rohtash (P.W.3) went to parental house of Kanta, where he was told that Kanta would not come back with him. On being asked the reason, accused Kishori was told that he is the man of bad character. On this accused/appellant Kishori wanted to know, who told his wife as to his character. His wife Kanta disclosed name of Mamta (deceased) sister-in-law of the accused/appellant. The witness (P.W.1) further states that on the same day at about 6.30 p.m. accused/appellant Kishori armed with CHHURI (knife) came and told the witness (P.W.1) and his wife Mamta that they have ruined his family life and he would not let them live happily. Thereafter he stabbed Mamta with knife and gave four-five blows. Injured Mamta fell down. Meanwhile Ram Kumar, P.W.2, One Purushottam, Dal Chandra and others, who also saw the incident raised alarm with P.W.1 Nanhe. On this accused Kishori wielding the knife left the place and ran towards river. 7. P.W.2 Ram Kumar has corroborated the prosecution story as narrated by P.W.1 Nanhe relating to the incident, which had occurred on 10.7.1994 at about 6.30 p.m. 8. On this accused Kishori wielding the knife left the place and ran towards river. 7. P.W.2 Ram Kumar has corroborated the prosecution story as narrated by P.W.1 Nanhe relating to the incident, which had occurred on 10.7.1994 at about 6.30 p.m. 8. P.W.3 Rohtash Kumar, brother-in-law of the complainant and accused/appellant, has corroborated the prosecution story, not only about what had happened at 6.30 p.m. in village Ram Jeevanpur, where Mamta was stabbed by appellant, but he has also proved the motive of commission of crime by stating that he accompanied the accused/appellant to his in-laws’ house in the morning on the day of incident where he was told by his wife Kanta that it was Mamta, who disclosed regarding the character of the accused. The testimony of all these three eye-witnesses namely Nanhe (P.W.1), Ram Kumar (P.W.2) and Rohtash (P.W.3), gets corroboration from the medical evidence i.e. ante mortem injuries recorded by P.W.6 Dr. J.K. Goel. The prosecution has not only proved the fact that accused/appellant, with intention to kill, gave several blows of knife on the person of Mamta but also proved the motive of commission of crime. 9. P.W.4, S.I. Devki Nandan, who initially investigated the crime, has stated that on 11.7.1994 he recovered CHHURI (knife) on pointing out of accused Kishori and prepared memorandum (Exhibit A-3). This document on record shows that it has not been only signed by the witnesses of recovery but also there is thumb impression of the accused Kishori. As such there is further corroboration of the prosecution story, as the weapon used in the crime is recovered on pointing out of the accused/appellant Kishori. Therefore having reassessed the evidence on record we concur with the findings recorded by the trial court. The prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant Kishori. 10. It is pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the blood stained knife and blood stained Pajama, which are said to have been recovered on pointing out of the accused though sent to the forensic laboratory but no report is on the record to connect the blood stains with the incident in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the non-filing of the forensic laboratory report on the record, in the present case, is not fatal to the prosecution case. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the non-filing of the forensic laboratory report on the record, in the present case, is not fatal to the prosecution case. Had it been a case of circumstantial evidence or weak kind of evidence, non-filing of the forensic laboratory report could have been said to be material. But where the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses is natural and trustworthy, mere non filing of the report of forensic laboratory is not sufficient to shake otherwise trustworthy evidence given by the eyewitnesses. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant read out the evidence of the witnesses and argued that the conviction recorded by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record and do not find anything in cross examination, which creates any reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of testimony given by the eye witnesses. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even if the evidence on record is taken to be true it constitutes offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reason that there are as many as five blows given on the vital parts of the deceased, as such it cannot be said that the appellant had no intention to cause death of Mamta. 13. For the reasons as discussed above we do not find any force in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is affirmed. The lower court record be sent back to make the accused serve out sentence awarded against him by the trial court. (Warrant recall application no. 536/2009 and urgency application 1351/2009 also stand disposed of).