JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - Two appeals bearing Crl. Appeal No.173-DB of 2010 titled as “Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. The State of Punjab” and Crl. Appeal No.251-DB of 2010 titled as “Mohinder @ Minder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab”, arising out of order of the trial Court dated 11.1.2010, convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302/307/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing them on 16.1.2010 as under: Mohinder Pal Singh: U/s 302 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 397 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Mohinder @ Minder Kumar: U/s 302 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 397 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The complaint (Ex.PA) was lodged by Harmit Singh (PW1) on 24.8.2003, on the basis thereof formal FIR No.206 (Ex.PA/1) at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana, was registered, which reads as under: - “I am residing at above address and am doing the business of polythene bags at Industrial Area. We are six brothers. We all are residing separately. Youngest of all of us is Manjit Singh who along with his family is residing at Kothi No.255-L, Model Town and parents are also residing with him. My house is near to the house of Manjit Singh. Due to which, I, my friend Kuldeep Singh s/o S.Sher Singh, caste Arora, r/o 413/2, Model Town along with my brother Manjit Singh go for a walk in the morning. My house is near to the house of Manjit Singh. Due to which, I, my friend Kuldeep Singh s/o S.Sher Singh, caste Arora, r/o 413/2, Model Town along with my brother Manjit Singh go for a walk in the morning. As usual today I and my friend Kuldeep Singh went take Manjit Singh for morning walk at his kothi No.255-L, then it was about 5 O’clock morning. When we entered that kothi, there was a great noise and the light was on. In our presence three persons picked up one purse, mobile telephone and watch of my brother from the back of the bed and fled away, whom we can identify on coming face to face. My brother Manjit Singh and his wife Devinder Kaur were profusely bleeding and Manjit Singh had caught hold of one clean shaven person, who was holding one blood stained knife in his hand, who was apprehended by me and my friend Kuldeep Singh at the spot and knife was snatched from him. On our asking, he disclosed his name as Ashwani Kumar s/o Amarjit, r/o Gali No.13, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana and he disclosed the names of the persons fleeing away as (1) Vicky @ Minta s/o Vinod Kumar, Mohinder s/o Chhotu Ram, r/o Gali No.1, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Ludhiana and Mohinder Pal s/o Mohan Singh r/o House No.6442, New Janta Nagar. After arranging the vehicle, we have sent my brother Manjit Singh and his wife Devidner Kaur to the hospital for treatment. I have come to know that my sister-in-law has died. You have reached the spot. Accused Ashwani Kumar and the knife snatched from him have been produced before you.” 3. Investigation was carried out by S.I. Harbinder Singh (PW14), who recovered spring actuated knife vide memo (Ex.PB), prepared sketch of spring actuated knife vide memo (Ex.PC), recovered blood stained earth from the place of occurrence vide memo (Ex.PD), recovered one blood stained bed sheet vide memo (Ex.PE) and one wrist watch, Mobile set & tobacoo pouch of jarda vide memo (Ex.PF). According to FSL report (Ex.PV), parcel ‘A’ containing Chaku , parcel ‘B’ containing Chhurra , parcel ‘C’ containing Soil , parcel ‘D’ containing Chadder, were found stained with human blood. 4. The postmortem on the dead body of Devinder Kaur was conducted by Dr.G.P. Mangla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhaina (PW4), on 24.8.2003 and found the following injuries: “1. According to FSL report (Ex.PV), parcel ‘A’ containing Chaku , parcel ‘B’ containing Chhurra , parcel ‘C’ containing Soil , parcel ‘D’ containing Chadder, were found stained with human blood. 4. The postmortem on the dead body of Devinder Kaur was conducted by Dr.G.P. Mangla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhaina (PW4), on 24.8.2003 and found the following injuries: “1. Three incised wound on the little aspect of left upper arm on the upper 1/3rd measuring 1¼ x ¼” into bone deep and two of them penetrating on the medical aspect of left upper arm. 2. Incised wound 1" x ½” x ? deep on the lateral aspect of left side of the chest, one inch below the anterior axillaryline. 3. Incised wound 1" x ½” x ? deep on the front and little aspect of left side of the chest, 1" below the injury No.2. 4. Incised wound 1¼ “ x ½” x ? deep on the left scapular region on the lower region. 5. Incised wound ½ “ x ¼” x skin deep on the left side of back 3" below the injury No.4. 6. Incised wound ½” x ¼” x skin deep just behind the pinna of the left ear. 7. Incised wound 1 ½ “ x ¼” x bone deep on the left side of the occipital region.” 5. He opined that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock because of multiple injuries to the vital organs and the probable time within the death and postmortem was within 12 hours. 6. Manjit Singh/Injured (PW2) was also medico-legally examined by Dr.Sweety Mahajan (PW13) on 24.8.2003 at Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib Charitable Hospital. She found the following injuries: “1. Deep cut injury 6 x 2 cms. Right chest wall near the sterno costal region. Depath was not known. Radiological opinion (Chest X- ray) PA view, complainant chest surgical op inion was advised. 2. Cut injury (sharp) 3 cms x ½ cms on the left hypochondrium anterior axillary line. Depth was not known. 3 Cut injury 2 cms x 1 cms on supraclavicular region on the left side. Chest X-ray was advised. Depth was not known. 4. Cut injuries near elbow joint on the left arm: one 1 x 1 cms and second 2 cms x 1 cm. Apprehend view and last view X-ray of left elbow joint was advised.” 7. 3 Cut injury 2 cms x 1 cms on supraclavicular region on the left side. Chest X-ray was advised. Depth was not known. 4. Cut injuries near elbow joint on the left arm: one 1 x 1 cms and second 2 cms x 1 cm. Apprehend view and last view X-ray of left elbow joint was advised.” 7. She declared injuries No.1 & 2 to be dangerous to life as per report (Ex.PQ) and injuries No.3 & 4 as simple. 8. Prosecution examined Harmit Singh (PW1), Manjit Singh (PW2), Ajit Singh (PW3), Dr.G.P. Mangla (PW4), Amarjit Singh (PW5), Kuldip Singh (PW6), HC Ram Saran (PW7), HC Jasbir Singh (PW8), Constable Santokh Singh (PW9), HC Mukhtiar Singh (PW10), HC Harmit Singh (PW11), SI Bhagat Ram (PW12), Dr.Sweety Mahajan (PW13) and SI Harbinder Singh (PW14). 9. The incriminating evidence was brought to the notice of the accused/appellants while their statements under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) were recorded, who pleaded innocence but did not lead any evidence in defence. 10. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants in both the cases is about their identification. It is submitted that neither PW1 or PW6 knew about the appellants earlier nor any identification parade was held despite the fact that prosecution had ample time to find out their identity. 11. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is a case where one person amongst the accused, namely, Ashwani Kumar (nonappellant) was apprehended at the spot with a knife, who had caused injuries to Devinder Kaur (deceased) and Manjit Singh (PW2/injured). Manjit Singh (PW2) had stated that all the four accused used to visit his driver Agya Ram, when he was in service with him and were familiar to him. Their names and addresses have been given in detail in the FIR itself, therefore, their identification was not a matter of suspicion. It is submitted that since all the assailants were known, therefore, there was hardly any need for identification test parade as their identification was not in doubt at any point of time. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and have perused the record with their able assistance and are of the view that both the appeals are without any merit and deserves dismissal. 13. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and have perused the record with their able assistance and are of the view that both the appeals are without any merit and deserves dismissal. 13. It is a case where Ashwani Kumar (non-appellant) was apprehended in the act of committing dacoity with murder in the house of the injured and the deceased. The injured PW2 has categorically stated that all the four persons were familiar to him as they used to visit his driver Agya Ram, when he was in service with him. Their identities have been thoroughly disclosed in the First Information Report. All the appellants suffered disclosure statement and got effected recoveries. The appellant Mohinder Pal Singh got recovered purse with currency notes of Rs.5000/- of denomination of Rs.500/- each, in which there was photograph of Manjit Singh (PW2). Appellant Mohinder @ Minder Kumar got recovered from his house, one mobile phone and one dagger stained with blood. The incised wound on the body of the deceased as well was the injured connect the appellants who had been armed with knife and dagger. 14. No other point has been raised. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed and conviction and sentence of both the appellants is hereby upheld.