Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 886 (BOM)

Baban s/o. Kewalram Ikhar v. State of Maharashtra

2010-06-29

A.P.LAVANDE, P.D.KODE

body2010
JUDGMENT P. D. KODE, J.:- The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 11.2.1997 in Sessions Case No.131 of 1996 of the said Court is subject matter of the present appeal. At the said trial present appellant along with appellant no.1, whose appeal has abated due to his death during the pendency of the appeal, was charged for committing the offence of murder of one Munna Nankulal Yadav in furtherance of their common intention by assaulting him with spear and knife. At the trial, by the judgment appealed, the trial court had arrived at the conclusion that appellant no.1 and 2 were guilty for committing murder of Munna Yadav in furtherance of their common intention and had sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for three months. 2. The said trial has emanated out of challan submitted by PW-11, PSI Abdul Rashid of Jaripatka, Nagpur Police Station as a result of investigation of Crime No.362/95 registered for offence under section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code on 2nd December, 1995 at 22.00 hours at the said Police Station. It is the case of the prosecution that on said day PW-11 while on duty had received telephone call from PW-5 Tulsabai that her husband was killed by Waman Nikhar (present appellant) and Baban (deceased appellant no.1). PW-11 had rushed to the spot at Shendre Nagar and found deceased with bleeding injuries lying on the road at the spot. PW-5 present at the said spot had identified deceased being her husband Munna Yadav. PW-11 had taken PW-5 to the Police Station and reduced into writing oral report Exh.32 given by her and thereon has registered above stated crime and returned to the spot. 3. It is the prosecution case that PW-5 in her report has stated that appellant by assaulting her husband Munna Yadav with sharp weapons murdered him. She has further reported that on the day of incident at about 8.00 p.m. her husband of the habit of having a pan after supper had been to Tekanaka square for bringing the same. 3. It is the prosecution case that PW-5 in her report has stated that appellant by assaulting her husband Munna Yadav with sharp weapons murdered him. She has further reported that on the day of incident at about 8.00 p.m. her husband of the habit of having a pan after supper had been to Tekanaka square for bringing the same. After half an hour, her son PW-10 Golu alias Durgesh came home running and told her that Baban Ikhar (deceased appellant) and present appellant were assaulting Babuji (father) by means of knife. PW-5 leaving the work, along with her son had rushed to the rear side of the house of deceased appellant Baban Ikhar. Her husband was lying on the road at the said place and the appellants were standing by his side. Both of them were holding weapons with hands smeared with blood. As she had reached the said place, deceased appellant asked her to go away from the said place, otherwise they would also assault her. Upon PW-5 raising shouts, appellant had fled away with weapons. PW-5 attempted to help her husband to get up but he was unable to get up. Her husband was drenched with blood. PW5 raised the shouts for help by running about the said place, however, nobody came for rescue. She went running to Tekanaka square and from public telephone booth gave information of incident on phone. After sometime, police arrived at the said spot. PW-11, upon said report had registered the crime as stated aforesaid and effected the investigation and at the conclusion of the same submitted charge-sheet against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nagpur. 4. After committal of the said case to the Court of Sessions, both the appellants had pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the trial Court on 17.4.1996. The prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses at a trial i.e. in addition to above referred witnesses, eyewitness PW-1 Shersingh Yadav - nephew, residing with the deceased, PW-2 Ram Pande, resident and passer by of Shendre Nagar, PW-4 Dr. The prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses at a trial i.e. in addition to above referred witnesses, eyewitness PW-1 Shersingh Yadav - nephew, residing with the deceased, PW-2 Ram Pande, resident and passer by of Shendre Nagar, PW-4 Dr. Datta regarding post-mortem of the deceased effected by him and post-mortem notes Exh.29; panch witnesses PW-3 regarding arrest of the present appellant and panchanama Exh.26 regarding the same effected on 15.12.1995, PW-6, Dharampal regarding memorandum, discovery and seizure panchanama Exh.42 of statement made by deceased appellant and discovery and seizure of blood stained spear (Art.15) , knife (Art. 16), blood stained shirt (Art.13) and pant (Art. 14) from the house of said appellant on 12.12.1995 in the evening, PW-7, Umesh Chinchkhede regarding seizure memo Exh.52 on 10.12.1995 of blood samples of deceased appellant collected by the doctors at Mayo Hospital and produced by Constable who had collected the same, PW8, Ramesh Yadav regarding inquest panchanama Exh.37 and spot panchanama Exh.38 and seizure of slipper (Art. 1) and samples of earth and blood stained earth respectively (Art.2 and 3) all from the spot, PW-9, Sunil Kumar regarding panchanama dated 10.12.1995 Exh.41 regarding arrest of deceased appellant, panchanama dated 4.12.1995 Exh.40 of seizure of clothes of the deceased produced by the police by collecting the same from the hospital i.e. seizure of shirt, baniyan, full-pant, woolen baniyan and underwear and waist-string, panchanama dated 12.12.1995 Exh.40, memorandum and discovery and seizure at the behest of deceased appellant. Out of the said 11 witnesses, eye-witness PW-2 and panch witnesses PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 having turned hostile, were required to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. In addition to the oral evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has relied upon several documents which were prepared during the course of investigation i.e. panchanamas, letters and CA reports etc. 5. The defence of the present appellant at the trial was that of total denial and of false implication. The present appellant during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence regarding his involvement/connection with the crime has claimed of same being false. With regard to the remaining circumstances-matters from prosecution evidence he had claimed of himself being unaware of the same. Though he had admitted that his blood sample was taken during the course of investigation had he denied of his nail clipping being taken. With regard to the remaining circumstances-matters from prosecution evidence he had claimed of himself being unaware of the same. Though he had admitted that his blood sample was taken during the course of investigation had he denied of his nail clipping being taken. He had claimed ignorance of the matters from the C.A. Report and the reason for which the prosecution witness has deposed against him. He did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 6. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion of prosecution having established Munna Yadav having died homicidal death. It also came to the conclusion that by the said evidence prosecution has established appellants no.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention on 2nd December, 1995 at Shendre Nagar having committed the murder of the said Munna Yadav. In consonance with the said findings arrived, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences for which they were found guilty as stated earlier. 7. Mr. Mahesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the present appellant, urged that: i) the trial Court manifestly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant upon discrepant, unreliable, unconvincing prosecution. ii) the evidence of eyewitnesses is full of improvement, omissions and contradictory to version given by the co-eye-witness and the same has effect of destroying evidence of each other. iii) the evidence of eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-10 considered upon the preponderance of probabilities does not inspire confidence of their claim of being eye-witnesses to the incident of assault upon deceased, either fully or even partly i.e. the incident which had resulted in his death. iv) the prosecution has suppressed the FIR i.e. information first in time given on phone by PW -5 to the Police Station and as such complaint Exh.32 cannot be treated as basis of FIR and/or for corroborating her evidence and the said FIR being not first in point of time is liable to be discarded. v) the evidence of the eye-witnesses is liable to be rejected on the count of their evidence not inspiring the confidence and themselves being close relatives of the deceased and prosecution having failed to examine any independent witness in support of the prosecution case. v) the evidence of the eye-witnesses is liable to be rejected on the count of their evidence not inspiring the confidence and themselves being close relatives of the deceased and prosecution having failed to examine any independent witness in support of the prosecution case. vi) non-establishment of motive for such gruesome offence and resting the case upon evidence of closely related witnesses with the deceased, suppression of original FIR raise strong probability of the appellant being falsely implicated at the behest of the person as claimed by the appellant, vii) non-recovery of weapon is also a circumstance in favour of the appellant. 8. Thus the learned counsel urged that since the prosecution evidence fails to inspire confidence much less fails to establish guilt of the appellant beyond pale of doubt, the appellant no.2 deserves to be acquitted by allowing the appeal preferred by him. 9. Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/state, supported the impugned judgment appealed and urged that no error was committed by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence which was duly established by the prosecution evidence. He urged that the evidence of PW-5 is duly corroborated by the report of incident immediately lodged by her. He urged that every information of cognizable offence given on phone is not required to be treated as First Information Report without verification of truth therein. He urged that PW-5 being present at the spot when, PW-11 has reached the spot for verification, hence no fault can be faulted of himself having reduced into writing information given by PW-5 regarding the incident and prosecution having treated the same as FIR. Hardly anything having crept in the evidence of eye-witnesses PW-1, PW -5 and PW-10 and apparently the same being most natural witnesses for the crime occurred and the defence having not brought on record of any other person was present at the time of incident, there evidence is not liable to be discarded. He urged that their evidence is also supported by the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. The same was rightly accepted by the trial court for basing the conviction upon the same and the same cannot be faulted on the basis of unnecessary presuming the matter as suggested by the defence. He urged that their evidence is also supported by the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. The same was rightly accepted by the trial court for basing the conviction upon the same and the same cannot be faulted on the basis of unnecessary presuming the matter as suggested by the defence. The learned APP thus urged for dismissing the appeal on the ground that there is no merit in the same. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and carefully perused the record and the decisions relied. 11. Apart from the defence having not disputed of the deceased having met homicidal death, the same is found convincingly established by the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Datta and the prosecution evidence pertaining to inquest panchanama and spot panchanama. Having regard to stand of appellant without unnecessarily dilating in detail about the said evidence, it can be said that scrutiny of the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Datta in terms reveal that the claim staked by him of having performed the post-mortem examination of the corpse of the deceased on 3.12.1995 and during the same having noticed 11 incised wounds, 7 stab wounds, one contusion and multiple abrasions and thus in all 22 external injuries of the dimensions at the location as described in P.M. Notes at Exh.29 and so also his further claim that during the internal examination having noticed 1 ½ liters of blood in peritoneal cavity and death being caused due to injury to the vital organs has remained undented during the cross-examination. The same is the case about his further claim of the said injuries being possible by weapon knife Article 16 and the same can also be caused by weapon spear Article 15. Similarly his claim of injuries mentioned at Sr. No. 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 & 22 in column No.17 in P.M. Notes being grievous injuries and the said injuries were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature has also remained unaffected during the cross-examination. 12. Similarly his claim of injuries mentioned at Sr. No. 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 & 22 in column No.17 in P.M. Notes being grievous injuries and the said injuries were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature has also remained unaffected during the cross-examination. 12. The few matters brought on the record during the cross-examination such as PW-4 having not taken notes while performing autopsy and/or himself having not given specific opinion regarding each of the injury being possible by which weapon or such a injuries were possible by other sharp weapon co-relating with dimensions with the injuries or police having not obtained his opinion whether injuries noticed by PW-4 were corresponding with the cuts found on the clothes of the deceased etc. cannot be said to be affecting his evidence and so also the prosecution case of deceased being assaulted by weapon Articles 15 and 16. Thus scrutiny of evidence clearly reveals the evidence given by PW-4 is convincing and inspiring confidence for acting upon same. Needless to add that the same is well corroborated by P.M. Notes Exh. 29 and so also the injuries as found on the person of the deceased while drawing inquest panchanama Exh.37 as established on record through the evidence of PW-8 and the Investigating Officer. The evidence of PW-4 is also to some extent corroborated by the situation noticed at the spot of the incident brought on the record through the evidence of PW-8 and spot panchanama Exh.38 and the relevant part of evidence pertaining to the same given by Investigating Officer PW-11. Upon scrutiny hardly anything has been found to have surfaced on the record during the said evidence affecting the evidence of PW-4 regarding manner in which injuries were caused to the deceased. Considering all the said evidence in proper perceptive the same leads to no other conclusion than deceased having met with homicidal death as correctly drawn by the trial Court. 13. Now taking up the moot question of the appellant and deceased appellant being responsible for causing the said injuries in furtherance of their common intention it will be necessary to assess mainly the evidence of the eyewitnesses and so also other evidence. 13. Now taking up the moot question of the appellant and deceased appellant being responsible for causing the said injuries in furtherance of their common intention it will be necessary to assess mainly the evidence of the eyewitnesses and so also other evidence. In the said process the evidence of PW-5 reveals of herself having staked a claim of having rushed to the spot after her son PW-10 and Shersingh PW-1 having reported her that appellant and deceased appellant were inflicting spear and knife blows upon her husband. She had further claimed that after reaching the spot having found her husband lying on the ground in injured condition with blood oozing from the injuries from head, eye and face and his stomach and the appellant and deceased appellant standing near him armed with spear and knife. Amongst other she had claimed of having shouted for help, nobody having come forward, both the accused having given threat not to make a shouts, otherwise they would kill her. She further claimed of having been to public telephone booth at Tekanaka and given a phone call to the police of appellant and deceased appellant having committed murder of her husband. During further part she had given the evidence regarding further events occurred, of arrival of police, deceased being taken to the hospital, appellant and deceased appellant having enmity with her husband, herself having given the report at the Police Station. All her said evidence is found well corroborated by the matters stated in report Exh.32 lodged by her promptly within one and half hour from the occurrence of incident. 14. Now carefully scrutinizing her evidence in the light of the matters stated in report promptly lodged by her and the answers given during the cross-examination, it can be safely said that core of her testimony of having rushed to the spot immediately after receiving information about the incident and at the said place having seen the appellants armed with weapons, themselves having threatened her is not at all found shattered. Needless to add that PW-5 had nowhere claimed of being eyewitness to the incident. Needless to add that PW-5 had nowhere claimed of being eyewitness to the incident. Though it is true that insignificant contradiction and omission regarding the reason for which her deceased husband has been out of the house has been brought on the record i.e. for the purchasing buffaloes as claimed contrary to for bringing beetal/pan as stated in the report Exh.32, the same being not in relation to main matters observed by her, the same cannot be said to be affecting core of her testimony as narrated herein-above, the same is the case regarding further omission brought on record regarding the act in which she was engaged when she had received the information i.e. cooking the food as claimed by her during the deposition and not found mentioned in her repot. Even the case of the variance brought on the record about the persons who had reported her about occurrence of incident also appears to be insignificant as the omissions pertains to only not mentioning PW-1 having told her about occurrence of incident. The same appears accordingly as during the evidence she has claimed of her son PW-10 and Shersingh having informed the same but while lodging the report having not mentioned about her nephew Shersingh PW-1. The fact of her son having reported the matter as claimed during the evidence is found corroborated by report lodged and so also the evidence of PW-10. Similarly, PW-1 Shersingh during his evidence have also claimed of having reported the matters to PW-5 and the said part of his evidence had remained unshattered. Additionally even the evidence of PW-10 also reveals similar claim. All the said evidence thus give an impression that PW-1 and PW-10 might be together at the relevant time. Similarly independent scrutiny of both the said witnesses who had staked identical claim though independently, the same does not reveal any material having surfaced on the record justifying that other was not present along with him while reporting matter to PW -5. Having regard to the ages of both the said witnesses i.e. PW-1 of 13 years and PW-10 of 8 years merely each of them having not stated of other being present as apparent from their evidence cannot be said to be affecting either claims staked by them or even the claim staked by PW-5. Having regard to the ages of both the said witnesses i.e. PW-1 of 13 years and PW-10 of 8 years merely each of them having not stated of other being present as apparent from their evidence cannot be said to be affecting either claims staked by them or even the claim staked by PW-5. In such state of affairs merely PW-5 having stated only about her son PW-10 having reported her while lodging report the same cannot lead to conclusion of claim staked by her at trial is either contradictory or in nature of improvement. 15. It is true that as pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant PW-5 in her evidence had claimed of having informed the police on phone about the appellant and deceased appellant having committed murder of her husband. The corroboration to the same is also found in the evidence of PW-11. It is also true that as pointed by learned counsel for the appellant and deceased appellant, further material pertaining to the same in a shape of entry made at the police station regarding the same has not been produced by the prosecution. However, the record does not reveal that the said aspect was pursued further on behalf of the defence to establish the said claim being false and/or any contrary information affecting the prosecution case was received at the police station. Having regard to the same, merely because entry regarding the same was not brought on the record by the prosecution cannot be said to be affecting either the evidence of PW-5 or the prosecution case in general. The same is the case regarding submission canvassed on behalf of the defence of the same being the original FIR and/or the prosecution had suppressed the same and/or Exhibit 32 is liable to be kept out of consideration on the said count. Without making any elaborate dilation about the relevant aspect it will be sufficient to say that the said submission was rightly repelled by learned APP by submitting out that every cryptic telephonic message is not required to be treated as FIR without the same being verified and during such verification if further authenticated elaborate information about the incident is received from the same first informant then no fault can be found with the prosecution on the same count of reducing the same in the writing and using the same as FIR. 16. 16. Similarly considering the distance of spot of incident from house of PW-5 brought on record from evidence of PW-5, so also from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-10, it is difficult to accept that the evidence of PW-5 is against probability factor. The same is obvious as merely because the eye-witnesses having seen the incident returned back informed the first informant and, thereafter, having rushed to the spot and seen the matters as deposed by her makes it difficult to accept apparently attractive defence submission that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the time required for inflicting the same, it would have been unprobable to expect assailants remaining at the spot till PW-5 had reached the same. 17. The difficulty expressed in the preceding paragraph is apparent as the evidence PW-1 reveals that after the deceased had fallen on the ground he had returned to home running for reporting the matter to PW-5. Even the case regarding the evidence given by PW-10 about the same respect is not different. The close scrutiny of the evidence of both the said witnesses does not reveal any effort made on part of defence to precisely bring on the record the time which would have been required for occurring the event of the said witnesses having returned and reported the matter to PW-5 and herself having reached the spot. Needless to add that it is also not brought on the record the distance from which both the eyewitnesses had seen the incident or distance from which they had returned i.e. whether they had reach up-till spot or had returned half way. Needless to add that latter reaching up till the spot, apparently appears to be improbable after taking into consideration their ages. Apart from it since it is well known that different persons acts/reacts in different manner in the same situation also makes it difficult to accept that the assailants i.e. the appellants would in all probabilities left the spot after the assault was over. In the same respect it will be significant to note that PW-5 had not claimed to be an eye-witness to an incident is definitely factor adding ring of truth to the evidence given by her. In the same respect it will be significant to note that PW-5 had not claimed to be an eye-witness to an incident is definitely factor adding ring of truth to the evidence given by her. Thus upon the scrutiny of evidence of PW-5 independently and so also qua the evidence of eye-witnesses the same apparently does not show any reason for not accepting and acting upon the same. 18. Now considering other features of the evidence of eye-witnesses and in the said process firstly scrutinizing the evidence of PW-1. The same reveals that with regard to the incident he had staked a claim that he was standing in front of his house at about 8.15 p.m. and had seen some persons running as there was quarrel in between deceased appellant and deceased Munna and he had gone running to see the quarrel. It reveals his claim that in the mean time present appellant had been to the said place with spear and he had caught hold of stick with deceased and told deceased appellant to kill the deceased. It reveals that thereafter deceased appellant had inflicted knife blow upon Munna and he has fallen upon ground. Deceased appellant had taken the spear from present appellant and had repeatedly given blows to the deceased. The further part of his evidence reveals his claim as discussed earlier of being to the house of his maternal aunt PW-5 and after returning along with her has found that deceased appellant and present appellant were inflicting knife and spear blows upon deceased. His further evidence relates to occurring of death of deceased about appellant wearing yellow black shirt and deceased appellant wearing while shirt. He had duly identified knife Art.15 and spear Art.16 before the court being the knife and spear. 19. Now carefully scrutinizing the evidence of PW-1, the same does not reveal any significant circumstance elicited during the cross-examination rendering the claim staked by him being unbelievable. The answer given by him during the cross-examination that police had not read over to him his statement but police had told how to give evidence in court and he had given the evidence as explained by the police cannot be construed as an admission given by witnesses leading to the conclusion that he was tutored by the police. The answer given by him during the cross-examination that police had not read over to him his statement but police had told how to give evidence in court and he had given the evidence as explained by the police cannot be construed as an admission given by witnesses leading to the conclusion that he was tutored by the police. As a matter of fact, considering his age and at the time of trial he had come from Calcutta for giving evidence, upon such a vague material, no conclusion of such a nature would be warranted. The same is the case regarding the answers given by him of police having recorded their statements at the spot of offence and again at the police station. As a matter of fact, no concrete material being brought on the record regarding the relevant aspect, the said answers cannot be considered as a circumstance effecting undented core of the testimony of PW-1. 20. Further scrutiny of his evidence duly fortifies the conclusion which were drawn during the preceding paragraphs of the judgment. The same is apparent as during the cross-examination it has been brought on the record that his house was in between the house of deceased and the spot of offence and the distance in between his house and that of deceased was of 200 ft. Similarly the said answers also gives an impression that for observing the incident he had not been upto the spot but upto the house of Shende about 25 ft. from the house of the deceased. Similarly considering his age the answers given by him qua the time required for himself reaching the house of PW-5 and from her house to the spot of offence also cannot be said to be a circumstance indicating that they had reached the spot after much delay that in no event the assailants would have been at the spot. However, the claim staked by him that after reaching the spot along with PW-5 having seen assailants repeatedly giving knife blows and spear blows to the deceased, clearly appears to be in the nature of exaggeration made by the witnesses due to omission regarding relevant aspect being brought on the record and furthermore said claim also being not supported by evidence of PW-5. Thus, beyond the aforesaid, hardly any significant material being elicited during the cross-examination, his remaining claim will not be liable to be discarded as tried to be canvassed on behalf of the defence. 21. Now considering the evidence of remaining eye-witness PW-10, his evidence reveals that he had identified appellant and deceased appellant and deposed that one year back deceased appellant was inflicting blows by knife and the present appellant was inflicting blows by spear upon his father at 8.30 p.m. He had claimed that after hearing shouts from rear side of his house, he had been to the said place and when he had reached the spot, both the appellants were inflicting blows by knife and spear and after assault his father had fallen down and blood was oozing from his body. He had sustained injuries on head, hand and chest. He had claimed that after seeing the same, he had been for calling his mother PW-5. 22. Now upon close scrutiny of his evidence it can be safely said that the same is in consonance with the account of incident/assault deposed by PW-1. During cross-examination he had denied the suggestion that after hearing hue and cry along with mother had gone out. He claimed of having narrated the facts to the police but police having not recorded the same. He claimed that he was interrogated by the police at the place at which his father was lying. 23. Now further scrutiny of his cross-examination reveals that during cross-examination two omissions were tried to be brought on the record i.e. deceased appellant no. 1 having assaulted by means of knife and that of present appellant blows by means of spear. Similarly, second omission was brought on the record regarding claim of PW-10 having seen the matter as claimed during the examination-in-chief after reaching the spot and regarding his father having sustained injuries and blood oozing from the same. As a matter of fact, the manner in which the said omissions were permitted to be brought on the record is far from satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the manner in which the said omissions were permitted to be brought on the record is far from satisfactory. In the process of permitting the same complex question containing multiple facet and pertaining to matters not amounting to contradiction was permitted to be put to child witness, it is difficult to accept that the same can affect core of his testimony of himself having seen his father being assaulted by means of knife and spear by both the assailants. Thus, the said substratum of his evidence has remained unaffected in spite of the cross-examination. 24. It is indeed true that the reference to the evidence of PW-11 I.O. reveals that statement of PW-10 was recorded on 18.12.1995 i.e. after about 16 days. However, the fact of PW-10 eye-witness being found supported from first information report/report lodged by PW-5, her evidence to such a respect having remained unshattered during the cross-examination clearly rules the possibility of PW-10 being later on planted by the investigating agency. In view of the same the discrepancy regarding recording of his statement tried to be brought on the record during the cross-examination and so also delay occurred in recording of his statement can never be said to be fatal to the prosecution in the present case. Such conclusion is apparent having regard to the age of PW-10 being of eight years and facts and circumstances revealing himself being natural witness to the incident claimed to have seen by him. 25. Thus, considering the evidence of the above discussed three witnesses i.e. PW-5, PW-1 and PW-10, it can be safely said that the same reveals that on the date, place and time, as claimed by the prosecution, deceased was assaulted by the deceased appellant and the present appellant and they had committed the murder by means of knife and spear. The said injuries caused to the deceased having resulted in the death has been established by the prosecution through the evidence of PW-4. The evidence of PW-4 also corroborates the evidence of the main eye-witness and so also the same is found corroborated by the evidence of PW-5. The account of incident, as discussed by the eye-witness is also found corroborated by the opinion given by Dr. Datta (PW-4) regarding the weapon. 26. The evidence of PW-4 also corroborates the evidence of the main eye-witness and so also the same is found corroborated by the evidence of PW-5. The account of incident, as discussed by the eye-witness is also found corroborated by the opinion given by Dr. Datta (PW-4) regarding the weapon. 26. Apart from the aforesaid, the further support to the account of incident deposed by PW-1 and PW-10 and thus to the prosecution case is found through the other corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial. The relevant aspect relating to the said evidence in the shape of clothes of deceased being found containing blood group of 'O', the weapon knife, seized at the behest of the deceased appellant, was found containing the blood of the same group. The spear was found containing human blood. The Investigating Officer, while seizing the said weapon, having seen such a presence upon such weapons etc. also corroborates and assures truthfulness of the prosecution case. Since elaborate discussion about the same is found to have been made by the trial court in paragraph 23 onwards, it is wholly unnecessary to make an elaborate discussion about the same. Needless to add that no fault can be found with the reasoning given thereto in the judgment delivered by the trial court. In the same context, it will be only necessary to say that merely because group of blood found on the spear was not determined, the same cannot be construed to be a circumstance against the prosecution, as finding of human blood on the said spear is definitely a factor consistent with the case of the prosecution. Similarly merely because the witnesses examined by the prosecution were related to the deceased and/or PW-5 would not be a ground for doubting the evidence of the said witness on the said count, as upon close scrutiny their evidence is found to be inspiring confidence. Needless to add that perusal of the prosecution evidence does not reveal any matter for coming to the conclusion that any particular part of the prosecution case has remained to be unfolded due to non-examination of any particular witness and his examination was necessary for unfolding the same. 27. In the premises aforesaid, after reappraisal of the entire evidence, we are of considered opinion that there are no merits in the appeal preferred and the same is liable to be dismissed. 27. In the premises aforesaid, after reappraisal of the entire evidence, we are of considered opinion that there are no merits in the appeal preferred and the same is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the same. Since surviving appellant no.2 is on bail pursuant to order dated 13th March, 1997, bail bonds executed by the said appellant and his sureties stand cancelled after the appellant no.2 surrenders before the trial Court. The appellant no.2 is granted time of four weeks to surrender before the trial Court. In case he fails to surrender within four weeks, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to take him in custody. The trial Court shall fill compliance report within three months. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.