Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 65 (CHH)

MUJIB KHAN v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-02-18

R.L.JHANWAR, T.P.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Cr. Appeal No.04 of 2005• and Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2005 arising out of judgment dated 29.12.2004 in Sessions 'Trial No. 154 of 2003 by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Appellants - Mujib Khan and Abdul Rajjak Khan stand convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.15000/- and in default to further undergo further R.I. for six months each under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for one month each under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST.No.154 of 2003 vide judgment dated 29.12.2004. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 15.12.2002 Sharda Pandey @ Banti Pandey was returning after having dinner from the reception of Pankaj Tripathi, situate at Engineering Colony, Fafadih. At the same time, the deceased Rainish Pillai was also coming out from that reception, when he reached main gate, appellants who were present near gate assaulted him with knife. First of all, appellant Abdul Rajjak Khan took out his saw like knife and gave blow upon the neck of Rainish Pillai, thereafter on the stomach. The deceased Rainish Piliai forcibly pushed him, due to which, Rajjak fell down and weapon of offence also fell on the ground in that process. Co-accused Mujib Khan lifted that knife and repeatedly assaulted Rainish Pillai, due to which, Rainish Pillai fell on the ground. People passerby tried to catch the accused persons, but they fled from the spot. The complainant Sharada Pandey along with persons took the injured Rainish Pillai to Hospital by jeep and during the course of treatment Rainish Pillai succumbed to injuries. Banti Pandey lodged F.I.R. vide Ex.P.2. Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P.36 and EX.P.37. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P.11, inquest over the dead body was prepared vide EX.P.12. Dead body was sent to Dr. Bhimrao Amdedkar Hospital, Raipur for autopsy vide Ex.P.13 where Dr. Ulhas Gonnade P.W.10 conducted autopsy vide Ex.P.14 and found the following injuries: I. Stab incised wound on lateral part of right shoulder, transversely oblique with blunt end anteromedially and was acute and postero laterally. Dead body was sent to Dr. Bhimrao Amdedkar Hospital, Raipur for autopsy vide Ex.P.13 where Dr. Ulhas Gonnade P.W.10 conducted autopsy vide Ex.P.14 and found the following injuries: I. Stab incised wound on lateral part of right shoulder, transversely oblique with blunt end anteromedially and was acute and postero laterally. Size of wound is 4.7 cm. x 0.8 cm. x 9 cm. 2. Stab incised wound, vertically oblique at lower part of upper half of right arm with blunt anteromedically and was acute end postero laterally. Size is 5 cm x 0.8 cm. on medial surface of right arm with acute and antero superiorly. 3. An abrasion size 0.5 cm above and posterior injury No.2 in same direction. Size 5.3 cm. x 0.2 cm. 4. A stab incised wound of vertical over lateral aspect of mid third of right arm. Size is 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 7.5 cm. 5. An incised wound over lateral aspect and upper lip transversely; size is 0.5 x 0.1 cm. lateral end acute, medial end blunt. 6. A stabbed lacerated wound. Size is 16 cm. left lateral and 2.5 cm. below xyphoit. 7. A scratch mark measuring II cm. below and 10 cm. right lateral to xyphoit process; vertically oblique, size 2.5 cm. x 0.1 cm. was present 48" above food level. 8. A stab incised wound of oblique on left side of base of neck, present 68 cm. above foot level. All the above injuries were fresh and ante-mortem in nature. Mode of death was shock due to haemorrhage as a result of stab injury on the neck and death was homicidal in nature. During course of investigation, accused appellants were taken into custody, they made disclosure statements vide Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.34, by virtue of which, weapon of offence knife and chappal were recovered at the instance of the appellants vide EX.P.21. Vide EX.P.1 Jeep bearing No. M.P. 04/8336 stained with blood was seized. Vide Ex.P.3 one Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.0517773 was also seized. Vide Ex.P-4 mobile phone being used by the appellant Abdul Rajjak Khan was seized. Blood stained cloths, shoes and one marriage card of Pankaj & Arti was seized vide Ex.P.5. Blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P.6. Blood stained cloths of one Raman Deep Singh, who took the deceased to hospital, were seized vide EX.P.7. Blood stained cloths, shoes and one marriage card of Pankaj & Arti was seized vide Ex.P.5. Blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P.6. Blood stained cloths of one Raman Deep Singh, who took the deceased to hospital, were seized vide EX.P.7. Similarly, blood stained cloths of Sheikh Juber, who has assisted in taking the deceased to hospital, were seized vide Ex.P.8. Bloodstained shirt of the deceased was examined by Dr. Ulhas Gonnade P.W.10 vide Ex.P.15. Vide Ex.P.16 weapon of offence knife was examined by P.W.10 Dr. Ulhas Gonnade. Blood stained cloths of appellants were seized vide EX.P.31 and EX.P.32. Vide Ex.P.35 blood stained cloths of Sharada Pandey were also recovered. Appellants were also medically examined vide EX.P.40 and Ex.P.41, but no external or internal injuries were found on their person. Sealed and seized articles were sent to chemical examination vide Ex.P.43, P.44 and P.15 and those articles were received by the F.S.L. vide Ex.P.17 and EX.P.18. 4. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of J.M.F.C, Raipur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has received the case on transfer for its trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses. Accused appellants were also examined under Section 313 of the Code where they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in crime in question. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting the co-accused Asif Khan under Section 302/ 34 of the I.P.C., convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 7. We have heard Shri Hashim Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Yadav, Dy. G.A.I Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment impugned and record. 8. Shri Hashim Khan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in believing the evidence of alleged eye witnesses Sharad @ Banty Pandey P.W.2, Raman Deep Singh P.W.4, Sheikh Zuber P.W.5, Deepak Pandey P.W.6 and Vinod Tiwari P.W.20. The evidence of the above witnesses is contradictory to each other. 8. Shri Hashim Khan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in believing the evidence of alleged eye witnesses Sharad @ Banty Pandey P.W.2, Raman Deep Singh P.W.4, Sheikh Zuber P.W.5, Deepak Pandey P.W.6 and Vinod Tiwari P.W.20. The evidence of the above witnesses is contradictory to each other. There are material contradictions in their statements adduced in the Court as well as in the statements given before the Police under section 161 of the Code. He also argued that some of the witnesses have stated the size of the knife is 6", and some have stated it to be 6 feet. Prosecution has not produced knife before the Court during trial. He further argued that prosecution has not proved the fact that whole incident took place. Some witnesses have stated that the place of incident was inside Pandal whereas some 'have stated that dead body was found outside the Pandal and some have stated it to be at the gate of Pandal. It was further argued that disclosure statements of the accused persons and the seizure thereof are also not proved, according to Evidence Act, therefore, the seizure of the articles on the basis of disclosure statement is not reliable but the learned trial Court has wrongly placed reliance thereof. Jeep was also seized after long period of incident. He also submits that FIR was lodged at police chowki situated nearby Hospital at Raipur but the same has not been produced by the prosecution, therefore, the FIR produced by the prosecution is not reliable because the witness who has lodged the F.I.R. has not corroborated the FIR Bloodstains found on articles have not been proved to be human blood and did not match the blood group of the deceased. He further stated that the deceased, accused persons and witnesses are belonging to one political party, there was rivalry among them, therefore, accused persons were falsely implicated in crime in question. The prosecution witnesses have deposed that the deceased told them about the assailants whereas the deceased died instantaneously. He placed reliance in the matter of (1) Sevi and another (2) Koodakkal Karian and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, State of UP. Vs. Mushtaq Alam and State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Jangvali Singh and other;. 9. The prosecution witnesses have deposed that the deceased told them about the assailants whereas the deceased died instantaneously. He placed reliance in the matter of (1) Sevi and another (2) Koodakkal Karian and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, State of UP. Vs. Mushtaq Alam and State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Jangvali Singh and other;. 9. On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Yadav, learned counsel for the State argued in support of the impugned judgment. He further argued that there could' be some discrepancies in the statement of witnesses and also some contradictions in the evidence adduced before the trial Court and statements recorded by police under Section 161 of the code but those discrepancies and contradictions are not substantial in nature and do not go to the root of the case, therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence of those witnesses is not reliable. He also argued that seized article Knife has already been seen by the witnesses and they have stated that the appellants assaulted the deceased repeatedly. Prosecution has proved motive for commission of offence on account of some dispute relating to political party work and the appellants have committed murder of Rainish Pillai. So far as F.I.R. is concerned, according to him, F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station as Ex.P.2 and not at police chowki. F.I.R. was lodged by Sharad Pandey @ Banti Pandey on the date of incident. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, homicidal death of Rainish Pillai as a result of fatal injuries found over the body of Rainish Pillai has not been disputed on behalf of the appellants, otherwise also established by the evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Ulhas Gonnade and autopsy report Ex.P.14 and death of Rainish Pillai was homicidal in nature. 11. As regards the involvement of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of eye witnesses Sharad @ Banty Pandey P.W.2, Raman Deep Singh P.W.4, Sheikh Zuber P.W.5, Deepak Pandey P.W.6 and Vinod Tiwari P.W.20 who had witnessed the incident and took the injured Rainish Pillai (since deceased) to Dr. 11. As regards the involvement of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of eye witnesses Sharad @ Banty Pandey P.W.2, Raman Deep Singh P.W.4, Sheikh Zuber P.W.5, Deepak Pandey P.W.6 and Vinod Tiwari P.W.20 who had witnessed the incident and took the injured Rainish Pillai (since deceased) to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, where he died. After death of Rainish Pillai, one Nakul Kosre P.W.22, ward boy of the hospital, written information vide Ex.P.20 about the death of Rainish Pillai to Police Station Moudahpara. Merg was recorded vide EX.P.37. Thereafter, F.I.R. EX.P.2 was lodged by Sharad @ Banti Pandey P.W.2 and the EI.R. EX.P.2 bore his signature. According to F.I.R. the incident took place on 15.12.2002 between 10.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. A perusal of F.I.R. clearly revealed that F.I.R. was lodged after a gap of 45 minutes and the information of lodging F.I.R. was sent to concerned Magistrate, vide EX.P.50. It has come in the prosecution evidence that the incident took place at Railway Colony where marriage ceremony of Pankaj Tripathi, son of Ashok Tripathi was going on. 12. So far as argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants on the point of F.I.R. is concerned, Hariom Gupta P.W.27, investigating officer, has specifically stated in his evidence that on the basis of written report made by Banti Pandey @ Sharad, crime No. 296/02 for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was registered by him at Ganj Police Station, Raipur. The same piece of evidence has also come in the cross-examination of Banti Pandey, who has deposed that he informed the police officer of police station situate nearby the hospital. It is also clear from his evidence that he had also informed Ganj Police Station about the incident and lodged F.I.R. in that Police Station and admitted that that F.I.R. Ex.P.2 bore his signature. It has come in the evidence of Hariom Gupta P.W.27 that at the instance of Banti Pandey @ Sharad, he has recorded F.I.R. and took his signature and thereafter the same was sent to Magistrate concerned vide EX.P.50. In this manner, it is clear that F.I.R. was lodged after 45 minutes of the incident at Ganj Police Station, Raipur at the instance of Banti Pandey @ Sharad P.W.2. In this manner, it is clear that F.I.R. was lodged after 45 minutes of the incident at Ganj Police Station, Raipur at the instance of Banti Pandey @ Sharad P.W.2. It is also evident from the evidence that F.I.R. was sent to Magistrate concerned which shows that there was no chance to manipulate the report. Learned Court below has rightly dealt with the point of F.I.R. in its detailed judgment at paragraph 28 to 35 that F.I.R. was lodged immediately by Banti Pandey P.W.2 and the same was written by Hariom Gupta P.W.27. Confronted by factum of immediate transmission of intimation to Magistrate, we do not find any force in the submission of counsel for appellants. 13. In the matter of Sevi1 (supra), original FIR was suppressed by police officer and was substituted by another, even after direction by the court police officer failed to produce FIR book and general diary, in that circumstance, inference was drawn that original FIR was suppressed. In the present case, no such request has been made by the defence before the trial Court and the Court has not given any direction for production of original FIR book or general diary to exclude the possibility of previous FIR. As per case of the prosecution, when the injured was brought to the hospital he was found dead and, therefore, immediately factum of bringing dead body was intimated by the doctor through employees vide EX.P-20. On the basis of such information Ex.P-20, Moudhapara police has recorded merg intimation in zero number vide Ex.P-37. The doctor or concerned employee was not in a position to intimate the police relating to commission of offence, and therefore, it was not possible for them to lodge FIR, but within 45 minutes of incident, Sharad @ Banti Pandey (PW-2) who had brought the injured to hospital has lodged FIR vide EX.P-2. As per evidence of Sharad @ Banti Pandey (PW-2), he was present at the time of incident and he has seen the incident. In these circumstances, any discrepancy relating to any prior intimation or information would not suffice the factum of recording FIR as EX.P-2. The case of Sevi1 (supra), is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. 14. As regards place of incident where the murder of Rainish Pillai took place, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution has not proved the exact place of incident. The case of Sevi1 (supra), is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. 14. As regards place of incident where the murder of Rainish Pillai took place, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution has not proved the exact place of incident. As per prosecution witnesses, the incident took place near the gate of Pandal. It is clear from the evidence of Santi Pandey @ Sharad P.W.2 that on 15.12.2002 he was present at the reception of Pankaj Pandey situate at Railway Colony where among other invitees, Rainish Pillai (since deceased), Asif Memon, Raman Deep, Sheikh Zuber, Deepak Pandey and Vinod Tiwari were also present. He has further deposed that while he was coming towards gate after offering congratulations, the deceased was going towards gate within distance of 10 - 15 feet. At the same time, appellants were also coming from opposite side and suddenly they raised hue and cry by saying that. Thereafter, appellant Rajjak Khan took out knife and gave blows to Rainish Pillai on his neck and abdomen and caused injuries. Rainish Pillai resisted Rajjak Khan by forcibly pushing him, due to which, he fell and knife was also thrown on the land. Thereafter, appellant Mujib Khan lifted that knife and he also started assaulting Rainish Pillai with the same weapon and thereafter they fled from the scene of occurrence. Immediately after incident, witness i.e. Santi Pandey P.W.2 and other persons took the injured to hospital where he was declared dead. Witnesses Asif Memon P.W.3, Raman Deep Singh P.W.4, Sheikh Zuber P.W.5, Deepak Pandey P.W.6 and Vinod Tiwari P.W.20 present at the time of incident have witnessed the incident and have corroborated the evidence of Santi Pandey P.W.2. It has also come in their evidence that both the accused persons have assaulted Rainish Pillai by knife. There are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code but they are not substantial in nature and on the ground of some minor contradictions entire evidence cannot be discarded. Witnesses and appellants are members of same political. There was some dispute between them and they were not unknown to each other. 15. It is clear that the incident took place near Railway colony where marriage reception function of Pankaj Tripathi, son of Ashok Tripathi was going on. Witnesses and appellants are members of same political. There was some dispute between them and they were not unknown to each other. 15. It is clear that the incident took place near Railway colony where marriage reception function of Pankaj Tripathi, son of Ashok Tripathi was going on. In cross-examination of Santi Pandey P.W.2, he has stated that Rainish Pillai and the accused persons were near the gate of marriage function. He also admitted that Rainish Pillai after sustaining injuries came out of cave shaped gate and fell on the ground before the main gate. In this connection, !l perusal of evidence of other eye witnesses is also clearly revealed that the place where the marriage reception ground before the main gate. In this connection, a perusal of evidence of other eye witnesses is also clearly revealed that the place where the marriage reception of Pankaj Tripathi was going on was near the gate of Pandal. It has further come in the evidence that there was decoration of cave shaped gate meaning thereby that there were two gates, one was main entrance gate and the other gate was connected to main Pandal. Although there was no mention of distance between main entrance gate to gate connected to main Pandal, but it is clear from the evidence adduced by "the prosecution that when the incident took place in which Rainish Pillai was' assaulted by the accused I persons with Saw like knife, all the eye witnesses were present nearby and had sufficient opportunity to witness the incident may be from some distance. 16. Promptly lodged FIR Ex.P-2 reveals the place of incident as near reception gate. Bloodstained and plain soil have been recovered vide EX.P-6 near reception gate. As per evidence of Sharad @ Banti Pandey (PW -2), after offering congratulations he was going towards the reception gate (outside), he was walking 10-15 steps behind deceased Ranish Pillai and at the same time, the appellants were coming from front side. This evidence also reveals that the incident took place near the reception gate. Documentary and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution are sufficient for drawing inference that the incident took place near reception gate. This evidence also reveals that the incident took place near the reception gate. Documentary and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution are sufficient for drawing inference that the incident took place near reception gate. Even defence witnesses Shyamlal (DW-1) & Goutam Sharma (DW-2) have admitted the fact that dead body was lying near reception gate Although they have not seen the incident, but they were informed by some persons that somebody has assaulted Ranish Pillai by knife. 17. The appellants have claimed that on account, of political rivalry, they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. 18. In the present case, deceased Ranish Pillai; the appellants herein; eyewitnesses Sharad @ Banti Pandey (PW-2), Aasif Memon (PW-3), Raman Deep Singh (PW-4), Sheikh Juber (PW-5) and Deepak Pandey (PW-6) are members of one political party, there may be internal dispute in their party, even there may be rivalry between the appellants & the deceased, but only on account of enmity, evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded. While dealing with the question of evidentiary value of interested witnesses and need of deep scrutiny, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramanand Yadav Vs. Prabhu Nath Jha and others4, has 'observed in para 15 that "But at the same time if the relatives or interested witnesses are examined, the Court has a duty to analyze the evidence with deeper scrutiny and then come to a conclusion as to whether it has a ring of truth or there is reason for holding that the evidence was biased. Whenever a plea is taken that the witness is partisan or had any hostility towards the accused foundation for the same has to be laid. If the materials show that there is partisan approach, as indicated above the court has to analyze the evidence with care and caution." 19. While dealing with same question in the light of relationship, the Supreme' Court in the matter of Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab, has held in para 13 that "A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an 'interested witness'. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because had some animus with the accused or for some other reason." 20. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because had some animus with the accused or for some other reason." 20. While dealing with same question the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, has held that relationship per se does not affect credibility of witness; merely because witness happens to be a relative of victim of crime, he/she cannot be characterized as "interested" witness. The Supreme Court has observed in para 7 as follows:" . .. .. . ..even otherwise it will be erroneous to lay down as a rule of universal application that non-examination of a public witness by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the persecution or that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which is otherwise credit-worthy, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses. Insofar as the question of credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well settled that though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term "interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused• is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive." 21. In the matter of Sandeep Vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court has held that in case where victim and accused are known to witness, his evidence would be material and cannot be criticized on ground that as witness was knowing the father of the accused, he is interested witness. 22. In case of interested or inimical witnesses the Court js required to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. 23. In the light of aforesaid touchstone of law, the Court is required to examine the evidence of aforesaid witnesses with great care and caution. 22. In case of interested or inimical witnesses the Court js required to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. 23. In the light of aforesaid touchstone of law, the Court is required to examine the evidence of aforesaid witnesses with great care and caution. Sharad @ Banti Pandey (PW-2), Aasif Memon (PW-3), Raman Deep Singh (PW4), Sheikh Juber (PW-5) and Deepak Pandey (PW-6) have, in their detailed evidence, categorically and specifically deposed that the appellants were the persons who have caused fatal injuries to Ranish Pillai resulting in his death. There is some discrepancy, contradiction and omission, but same are not vital and substantial in nature. On the ground of minor contradictions and omissions evidence of the above witnesses cannot be out rightly rejected. 24. Statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code is statement recorded by police officer during the course of investigation without testing its reliability, but at the time of evidence in the Court opportunity of cross-examination is always available to defence to ensure its truthfulness and interestedness. It is not necessary to record statement of the witness by police officer under Section 161 of the Code relating to expected contradiction and omission which may subsequently appear at the time of cross-examination. Therefore, contradiction and omission would normally be possible in Court evidence and statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code, but only on the ground of contradiction and omission, evidence of witness cannot be discarded. 25. The prosecution has also examined another set of evidence relating to recovery of articles on the basis of discloser of facts, same is not substantive piece of evidence and that may be used to corroborate the evidence of eyewitnesses. 26. As regards memorandum and seizure of weapon of offence, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.14 P.K.S. Thakur that EX.P.21 was seizure, according to which, one Saw like knife was seized at the instance of appellant Rajjak Khan and that EX.P.21 also bore the signature of P.K.S.Thakur. Satish Pillai P. W. 18 also admitted his signature on Ex.P.21. He also admitted that one pair of black shoe was also seized at the instance of Rajjak Khan. He has deposed that he identified Rajjak Khan in Court and has further deposed in his cross-examination about the weapon of offence i.e. Saw like knife. Satish Pillai P. W. 18 also admitted his signature on Ex.P.21. He also admitted that one pair of black shoe was also seized at the instance of Rajjak Khan. He has deposed that he identified Rajjak Khan in Court and has further deposed in his cross-examination about the weapon of offence i.e. Saw like knife. Hariom Gupta P.W.27 has stated that memorandum was taken by him from Mujib and Rajjak Khan and seized that knife, according to Ex.P.21. He also admitted that EX.P.21 also bore his signature. In this way, it is clear that at the instance of Rajjak Khan weapon of offence i.e. Saw like knife was seized. Hariom Gupta P.W.27 has also stated that he has also taken the discovery memorandum of Mujib Khan, according to which, he seized shirt and pant stained with blood and that is EX.P.35. 27. In sum and substance, if-the evidence adduced by the prosecution eye witnesses is taken into consideration, then an inference can easily be drawn against the accused persons that they were the only persons who committed the murder of Rainish Pillai with Saw like knife and none other persons committed such heinous offence. It could be one of the reasons that due to politically rivalry, the accused persons committed such heinous offence. 28. In Mushtaq Alam’s case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that evidence of alleged eye witness unnatural and contrary to medical evidence, inconsistency in evidence and injury found over body of the deceased make presence of so called eye witness doubtful. In the present case, as per evidence of eye witnesses both the appellants have assaulted the deceased by knife. As per evidence of Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW -10) and autopsy report Ex.P-14, injuries found over body of the deceased were stab/incised wounds which can be caused by sharp edged weapon like knife. In the present case, there is no inconsistency in medical evidence and evidence of eyewitnesses, their evidence is not unnatural and their presence at the time of incident to attend reception function of their friend's family was also not unnatural. Evidence of aforesaid eyewitnesses reveal that they were not having any grave enmity with the appellants. Virtually, these witnesses are known to the deceased & the appellants as members of same political party. They were present at the time of incident and have witnessed the incident. Evidence of aforesaid eyewitnesses reveal that they were not having any grave enmity with the appellants. Virtually, these witnesses are known to the deceased & the appellants as members of same political party. They were present at the time of incident and have witnessed the incident. They have not spared the real culprit and have not falsely implicated the appellants. Their evidence inspire confidence, their evidence is trustworthy and safe to rely. 29. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 30. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality in the judgment impugned. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.