JUDGMENT Jaswant Singh, J.:- The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, whereby the appellants-Inderjit Singh and Anil Kumar have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; have also been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and further ordered to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of the same to further undergo RI for two months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution was set in motion on the statement (Ex.PE) of complainant PW-4 Mohinder Singh, recorded by PW-6 Lehmber Singh, ASI on 18.07.2000 at 10.00 a.m. The statement reads as under: - “That I am r/o village Kajla and doing cultivation. My one brother had already died. Now, I Bagicha Singh and Sohan Singh are living together. I have two sons, one of my son Amrik Singh has gone abroad. Ranjit Singh is living here, Bagicha Singh has a one son named Sukhdev Singh, Sohan Singh my brother has son namely Surjit Singh, Surjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Ranjit Singh and Surjit Singh all cousin brothers are living together. Daughter of my brother Sohan Singh is married who is residing in New Zealand. Brother-inlaw (younger brother of her husband) Kashmir Singh who had come in the month of May. We have relatives in village Maulabadpur and in the same way our opposite party also have relatives at village Maulabadpur. Sohan Singh my brother is sarpanch of village Kajla. We had an altercation over making the street and drains of village pacca, Prem Singh s/o Sadhu Ram, Bhupinder Singh s/o Hardyal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Satnam Singh sons of Mehnga Singh, Kulwant Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Avtar Singh s/o Sohan Lal Addharmi, Buta Singh, Surjit Singh sons of Tarsem Singh jat r/o village Kajla were members of opposite party. We had a dispute and they estopped the construction of drain. About 3½ years back we got together at Banga. We sat in Banga at the shop of Jagat Singh when there persons insulated my brother. Sohan Singh, Then my brother met a defeat in election and Sarpanch was elected from opposite party. We had a dispute and they estopped the construction of drain. About 3½ years back we got together at Banga. We sat in Banga at the shop of Jagat Singh when there persons insulated my brother. Sohan Singh, Then my brother met a defeat in election and Sarpanch was elected from opposite party. Other party is nourishing a grudge over it and is trying their insult to lower our position. In the month of April, 2000 two persons whose identification is one of them height 5”8/9" aged about 40 years, wheatish colour, hairs of head partly gray, bald headed in the front and having mulla fashion and other aged about 25 years, height about 5’6/7" wheatish colour, clean shave, head hair cut, whom I can identify in come before me, came and said to my nephew Sukha that your Girl has gone to New Zealand I have to got to New Zealand and tell me the way. My nephew told them that our sister has been taken there by her in laws and I do not know how they have been taken her. Thereafter on about 18/19.5.2k both those persons came to our house again and told my nephew that brother-in-law of your sister (Devar) has come from New Zealand. At this my nephew Sukha Replied that I have no time, Then again on 1.7.2k both the above persons came and asked my nephew Sukha that your relatives at Maulabadpur had a quarrel. I will arrange if your want to engage a lawyer. At this my nephew replied that they engage themselves. During these meeting the person with Mulla fashion told my nephew that I am a cricket player. I had gone to England after playing cricket in Dubai and being apprehended in England had come back and told that I want to go abroad on the basis of cricket player. Other man was calling the first one by the name of Anil. Today both these persons came to our house at about 10 O’clock in the day and asked about Sukha my nephew. We told them that he is at the tubewell. My son Ranjit Singh went with them on their scooter at the tubewell. I also started for tubewell them on foot. When I reached near the tubewell of Nachhattar Singh s/o Garibu when above both persons and my son Ranjit Singh were coming back from the tubewell. We told them that he is at the tubewell. My son Ranjit Singh went with them on their scooter at the tubewell. I also started for tubewell them on foot. When I reached near the tubewell of Nachhattar Singh s/o Garibu when above both persons and my son Ranjit Singh were coming back from the tubewell. When they were at a distance of about one field from me. They dropped from the scooter and grappled with my son Ranjit Singh and in my presence after inflicting injuries to my son Ranjit Singh a knife/dagger they ran away. I tried to stop them but they ran towards Paddi Matwali within my seeing. I reached there and saw that my son had died. People gathered there on raising alarm my by me. My brother Sohan Singh and Sukhdev Singh reached the spot.” On the basis of the above statement (Ex.PE), the formalized FIR No.120 (Ex.PE/2) was recorded at Police Station, Banga, which is at the distance of 3 Km. from the place of occurrence, at 12.30 p.m. and special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 4.30 p.m. After the preparation of the inquest report (Ex.PB) by SI Lehmber Singh the postmortem was conducted by Dr. Subhash Chander-PW2 at Civil Hospital, Banga on the same day i.e. 18.07.2000 at 4.45 p.m. 3. During conduct of investigation accused Inderjit Singh was arrested on 07.08.2000 and accused Jaswinder Singh @ Binda was arrested on 09.08.2000. During interrogation, accused Inderjit Singh made disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) on 11.08.2000, wherein he disclosed that one daggar used in the crime was kept concealed after wrapping it in plastic envelope under some straws near the kikkar tree at the Bai on the western side of the road in the area of Village Paddi Matwali. In pursuance to the disclosure statement the daggar was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.PL). The remaining two accused namely Anil Kumar and Bahadur Singh was declared proclaimed offender. And the ‘opposite party’ comprising of Prem Singh s/o Sadhu Ram, Bhupinder Singh s/o Hardyal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Satnam Singh sons of Mehnga Singh, Kulwant Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Avtar Singh s/o Sohan Lal, Buta Singh @ Surjit Singh s/o Tarsem Singh r/o Village Kajla after investigation were put in Column No.2 while presenting the challan on 25.10.2000 against Inderjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh only. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 Cr.PC was filed by the learned PP for summoning the aforesaid person comprising the ‘Opposite party’ but the same was dismissed on 17.11.2001 by the learned trial Court. 4. Accused-Anil Kumar (proclaimed offender) was arrested on 25.01.2004 and accused Bahadur Singh (proclaimed offender) was arrested on 25.05.2006. On both occasions of the arrest of Anil Kumar and Bahadur Singh, supplementary challans were presented. However, an amended charge-sheet was framed on 22.01.2008 after realizing that the previous one was deficient. Initially, after framing of the charges the prosecution had been examined 13 witnesses. However, after the arrest of all the four accused and framing of charges on 21.09.2006, the prosecution examined only 7 witnesses out of the previously examined 13 witnesses. The prosecution also led documentary evidence from Ex.PB to Ex.PE. 5. Accused-appellants in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the allegations and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Accused-Inderjit Singh stated that he never remained in District Jail, Hoshiarpur with his co-accused Jaswinder Singh and others and they were also not known to him prior to the registration of the present case. He had been falsely implicated at the instance of one Sarabjit Singh of his village, who had earlier foisted a false case against him. Accused-Anil Kumar said that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Sohan Lal, who was a police stooge and was inimical towards him. Accused-Inderjit Singh produced Jagdish Lal as DW-I, who denied the recovery of daggar from Inderjit Singh in his presence. ASI Joginder Singh, Constable Parshottam Lal, Constable Amarjit Singh were produced as DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 respectively to show that Jaswinder Singh was acquitted in one FIR No.117 dated 01.05.1987 under Section 25 of Arms Act and the details of custody period of Jaswinder Singh in District Jail, Hoshiarpur. 6. Learned trial court on evaluation of the evidence on record found that prosecution had not been able to bring sufficient evidence on record to link accused Jaswinder Singh and Bahadur Singh under Section 120-B read with Section 302 and thereby vide impugned judgment herein acquitted them while convicting and sentencing accused appellants-Inderjit Singh and Anil Kumar. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the aforesaid two appellants. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have with their able assistance gone through the evidence. 8. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the aforesaid two appellants. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have with their able assistance gone through the evidence. 8. The case of the prosecution against the appellants-Inderjit Singh and Anil Kumar is based on the testimonies of the two eye witnesses namely complainant PW-4 Mohinder Singh (father of the deceased) and PW 3 Sukhdev Singh (cousin of the deceased). The version is further supported by PW-5 Sohan Singh (uncle of the deceased), who reached at the place of occurrence soon after the incident. PW-4-Mohinder Singh has deposed that both accused-appellants Anil Kumar and Inderjit Singh had in the month of April, 2000 come to their house and inquired from his nephew Sukhdev Singh as to how his cousin sister Surjit Kaur had arranged her departure to New Zealand. On 18.05.2000, again they both had come to their house and met Sukhdev Singh. Anil Kumar had told Sukhdev Singh that he used to play cricket in Dubai and from there he went to England and he was subsequently deported to India and that he now wanted to go to New Zealand. He asked Sukhdev Singh to accompany him to said Kashmir Singh (‘Devar’ of Surjit Kaur), who was visiting Punjab from New Zealand and consult him as to arrange his departure to New Zealand. Sukhdev Singh once again refused to go with them. On 01.07.2000, again Anil Kumar and Inderjit Singh visited their house and met Sukhdev Singh and told him to allow them to engage counsel to defend their relatives residing in village Maulabadpur in the case of their quarrel. Sukhdev had replied that their relatives would themselves engage a counsel. On the fateful day i.e. on 18.07.2000, both the accused-appellants came to their haveli on a scooter and when he along with his son Ranjit Singh (since deceased) and Sohan Singh were standing inquired about the whereabouts of Sukhdev Singh. They sent Ranjit Singh (since deceased) with the appellants-Inderjit Singh and Anil Kumar on the scooter to the fields where Sukhdev Singh was working. He also followed by them on foot. When he reached near the tubewell motor of Nachattar Singh, he saw three of them coming back on a scooter from opposite direction, while Inderjit Singh was driving the scooter and Anil Kumar was pillion rider and between the two Ranjit Singh was sitting. He also followed by them on foot. When he reached near the tubewell motor of Nachattar Singh, he saw three of them coming back on a scooter from opposite direction, while Inderjit Singh was driving the scooter and Anil Kumar was pillion rider and between the two Ranjit Singh was sitting. Thereafter, Inderjit Singh stopped the scooter and had scuffle with Ranjit Singh (deceased). Inderjit Singh and Anil Kumar both had a daggar with him and both caused injuries with daggar to Ranjit Singh. After causing injuries and on raising of the raula they both fled away on their scooter. When he reached near Ranjit, he found him dead. 9. PW-3-Sukhdev Singh has deposed along similar lines as Mohinder Singh PW-4. He has further deposed that on 18.07.2000 at around 10.00 a.m., the said two persons namely Anil Kumar and Inderjit Singh alongwith his cousin Ranjit Singh had come on scooter to his tubewell in his fields. Anil Kumar and Inderjit Singh had again asked him to get a lawyer engaged. After he had refused they had left back to the village, Inderjit Singh was driving the scooter and Anil Kumar and his cousin Ranjit Singh were sitting on the pillion seat and Ranjit Singh sitting between the two. He had followed them back to the village on bicycle. When he reached near the tubewell of Nachhattar Singh, he saw they had stopped the scooter and after Ranjit Singh had alighted they started giving stab blows to him. His uncle Mohinder Singh was coming from the opposite side and also witnessed the same. Thereafter due to the raising of the alarm the accused had fled toward village Paddi Matwali on their scooter. When we observed Ranjit Singh, it was found that he had succumbed to his injuries. 10. The version in respect of the repeated visits of accusedappellants to the house of the complainant party and their physical identity, as deposed by PW-4 and PW-3 is further supported by the testimony of Sohan Singh PW-5. When we observed Ranjit Singh, it was found that he had succumbed to his injuries. 10. The version in respect of the repeated visits of accusedappellants to the house of the complainant party and their physical identity, as deposed by PW-4 and PW-3 is further supported by the testimony of Sohan Singh PW-5. Complainant-Mohinder Singh PW-4 in his statement before the police, on the basis of which the FIR was lodged, stated that one of the accused (Anil Kumar) was having height 5 feet 8/9 inches, aged about 40 years, wheatish colour, hair of head partly grey with balding in front and having mulla fashioned (trimmed) beard; and the other accused (Inderjit Singh) was having height about 5 feet 6/7 inches, aged about 25 years, wheatish colour, clean shaven and having cropped hair cut. The first one was being called as Anil by the second one. He could identify them if brought before him. PW-4 in his deposition before the Court has given the identical features of both the accused as given in the statement before the police, apart from identifying both of them in Court. PW-3 Sukhdev and PW-5 Sohan Singh have supported and corroborated the identification of both the accused on identical lines. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that Anil Kumar has not been identified by complainant-Mohinder Singh PW4 in Court whereas in his (PW4) cross he admits that accused-Inderjit Singh was shown to him by the police in the Police Station after one week of the occurrence. It is, therefore, sought to be contended that the identity of the appellants-accused being perpetrators of the crime could not be said to be legally established. We have find no merit in this contention. The identity of the both the accused has been described with full physical features in the FIR itself, which was lodged on the statement of complainant-PW4 without any delay and soon after the commission of the crime. We have find no merit in this contention. The identity of the both the accused has been described with full physical features in the FIR itself, which was lodged on the statement of complainant-PW4 without any delay and soon after the commission of the crime. If the names of the accused (although name of Anil Kumar is disclosed in the FIR) with particulars were not mentioned by the complainant party, would not show any flaw in the prosecution version as the repeated cause of visits of the accused persons (enquiring about ways to go to New Zealand/for help in engaging a counsel for their relatives involved in a quarrel case) were not attended to at all by the family of the victim and therefore their reluctance in knowing full particulars of the accused persons was understandable. However, all the three witnesses PW-3 Sukhdev Singh, PW-4 Mohinder Singh and PW-5 Sohan Singh have clearly delineated the physical attributes of the accused appellants in their deposition. No suggestion was put by the defence to them doubting the identities of the accusedappellants. Further, even if Inderjit Singh was shown to PW-4 Mohinder Singh by the police one week after the occurrence, this fact, in our opinion, would not dent the prosecution case at all as PW-4 Mohinder Singh had already seen Inderjit Singh (and Anil Kumar) on four prior occasions and was fully familiar with his identification. We find that learned counsel while stating that Anil Kumar was not identified in Court by PW-4 Mohinder Singh has relied on the testimony of PW-4 given on 29.03.2001/09.07.2001/25.08.2001, much prior to the arrest of Anil Kumar (proclaimed offender) on 25.01.2004. PW-4 in his subsequent testimony given on 03.02.2007 after the arrest of all the four accused, has identified both the accused (Anil Kumar & Inderjit Singh) in Court who had caused injuries to his son (Ranjit Singh) and killed him besides reiterating their physical features. It is beyond comprehension that the father and brother of the deceased-Ranjit would falsely implicate accused-appellants while letting go the real culprits scot free. 12. Thus we find that both eye witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 have given a consistent version with regard to the identification of both the accused-appellants and the manner of occurrence. There presence at the spot of occurrence is probable and natural and their testimonies are truthful and reliable which inspires confidence. 13. 12. Thus we find that both eye witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 have given a consistent version with regard to the identification of both the accused-appellants and the manner of occurrence. There presence at the spot of occurrence is probable and natural and their testimonies are truthful and reliable which inspires confidence. 13. The ocular version of the prosecution further finds corroboration from the medical evidence tendered by PW-2 Dr. Subhash Chander, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Ranjit and found 14 incised injuries including 9 on his chest and three of the said injuries had also penetrated the lungs. In his opinion, the death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries already described. All the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and caused with sharp edged weapon. Although learned counsel for the appellants had tried to show the contradiction between the ocular version stating that Ranjit Singh had died at the spot and the deposition of Dr. Subhash Chander opining that the death had occurred between 2 to 24 hours of the injuries, however, we find the contradiction regarding the variation in possible time of death as insignificant, because of the fact that the rest of the medical evidence in the shape of nature of injuries (14 incised injuries, opined to be caused by sharp edged weapon) fully corroborates the ocular version (stab wounds by daggars by both the accused). It is well settled that reliable ocular version has primacy over the opinionated medical evidence. 14. Lastly, it is argued that DW-1 Jagdish Lal, independent witness of recovery of the daggar of Inderjit Singh has appeared as defence witness and deposed that no recovery of the daggar was made from Inderjit Singh in his presence. It was further argued that no recovery of any daggar from Anil Kumar was effected. In our considered opinion, the version of DW-1 does not create any doubt in the prosecution case. The recovery of the daggar in pursuance of disclosure statement made by Inderjit Singh stands fully proved by the testimony of IO/PW-6 Lembher Singh corroborated by the nature of the injury found on the dead body in the medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. Subhash Chander. The recovery of the daggar in pursuance of disclosure statement made by Inderjit Singh stands fully proved by the testimony of IO/PW-6 Lembher Singh corroborated by the nature of the injury found on the dead body in the medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. Subhash Chander. In our considered view, the non-recovery of daggar from Anil Kumar would also not be fatal to the prosecution case as both the eye witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 have clearly stated that deceased Ranjit was accompanying both the accusedappellants on a scooter and finally at the time of occurrence, only the two accused-appellants were seen attacking Ranjit Singh with daggars, which resulted in 14 incised injuries causing death of Ranjit Singh. Therefore, the trustworthy and truthful eye witnesses account clinches the issue of guilt of the accused-appellants. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that both the accused-appellants had inflicted in all fourteen incised injuries on the person of Ranjit Singh with sharp edged weapon (daggar) with the knowledge and intention to cause his death and thus guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, we are not convinced as far as the element of conspiracy is concerned with respect to the occurrence between the two accused-appellants, as the same is much less required in the present case for the simple reason that both the accused-appellants together actively participated in causing the murder of Ranjit Singh. In our view, the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 120-B IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants under Section 120-B IPC is set aside and their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial court under Section 302 IPC is maintained. Appeal dismissed in the above terms. ------------------