JUDGMENT [Per : Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.] A First Information Report was lodged by the informant Kundan Singh on 28.10.2007 alleging that on 28.10.2007 at 7:30 pm when he was in the Vyasi market, he heard noise of mar-peet. He was about to approach the place from where he heard the noise, but in the meanwhile saw that one Govind Singh son of Gabbar Singh, resident of village Vyasi was holding the hands of informant’s brother Udai Singh son of Gabbar Singh and was carrying him towards the shop of Jaman Singh. Informant saw that blood was oozing out from the left hand and neck of Udai Singh. Udai Singh told him that appellant Shyam Singh son of Ganesh Singh inflicted blow of knife with the intention of killing him (victim). Informant Kundan Singh, Bhagat Singh, Swaroop Singh, Manwar Singh and Bachan Singh took the injured to Thalisain Hospital, where the doctors attended on him. 2. On the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1) of informant Kundan Singh, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-6) was lodged at PS Choprakot- 1 within sub district Thalisain of district Pauri Garhwal on 28.10.2007 at 10:30 pm. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 10 kilometers and hence, there appeared to be no delay in lodging the First Information Report, registered under Sections 307, 324 and 325 IPC. 3. After the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant Shyam Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Trial began. As many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined. Statement of accused appellant Shyam Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken. Accused appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, Pauri held accused Shyam Singh guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was awarded imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of which the accused appellant was required to further undergo two years’ simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, present appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Shyam Singh. 5. PW 1 Govind Singh was the real brother of deceased Udai Singh. He said in his examination-in-chief that deceased Udai Singh was his younger brother. Informant Kundan Singh was also his real brother. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, present appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Shyam Singh. 5. PW 1 Govind Singh was the real brother of deceased Udai Singh. He said in his examination-in-chief that deceased Udai Singh was his younger brother. Informant Kundan Singh was also his real brother. On 28th October, 2007, he was preparing the counter of shop of accused appellant Shyam Singh which was situated in Vyasi market. PW 1 Govind Singh was a carpenter. He finished his work at 4:15 pm that day and kept his tools in the shop itself. He came out of the shop after finishing his work. One Hoshiyar Singh was also with him. At 6-6:15 pm his brother Udai Singh came there from village Maroda. Udai Singh went to the shop of Shyam Singh. They started speaking loudly. On hearing their oral exchanges PW 1 Govind Singh went there, pulled the hand of Udai Singh and asked him to come home. Udai Singh asked PW 1 Govind Singh that he will come after a while. Udai Singh went to Shyam Singh’s shop. Udai Singh and Shyam Singh started assaulting each other. When Shyam Singh was beating Udai Singh, PW 1 Govind Singh ran in order to save him. In the meanwhile, Udai Singh shouted that Shyam Singh has given him a blow of knife. This witness went to his brother only to find out that Udai Singh received a blow of knife and he was bleeding. PW 1 Govind Singh gave support to his injured brother and carried him to Jaman Singh’s shop. Kundan Singh also met him there. Accused appellant Shyam Singh had fled away. Victim’s clothes were soaked in blood. Udai Singh told Kundan Singh that Shyam Singh inflicted blow of knife. Udai Singh asked to call his wife as he was about to die. Udai Singh’s wife reached there who was informed by Udai Singh that Shyam Singh had given him blow of knife and he was about to die. Udai Singh was taken to hospital and was referred to hospital at Pauri. The next day Udai Singh died. 6. According to PW 1 Govind Singh, Police prepared inquest report of deceased Udai Singh. Thereafter, his postmortem was conducted and his last rites were performed on 29.10.2007. Accused appellant was arrested by Patwari on 30.10.2007. Udai Singh was taken to hospital and was referred to hospital at Pauri. The next day Udai Singh died. 6. According to PW 1 Govind Singh, Police prepared inquest report of deceased Udai Singh. Thereafter, his postmortem was conducted and his last rites were performed on 29.10.2007. Accused appellant was arrested by Patwari on 30.10.2007. PW 1 Govind Singh was cross-examined on behalf of accused appellant at length. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that Patwari recovered ‘nyan’ and not ‘chaku’ (knife). Learned Amicus Curiae also pointed out that knife is thinner than ‘nyan’. Nothing has come out in the cross-examination of PW 1 Govind Singh which may render the testimony of PW1 Govind Singh useful for the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae also could not point out any anomaly worth substance in the cross-examination of PW1 Govind Singh except the fact that ‘nyan’ is thicker in size than knife. In our opinion, this argument of learned Amicus Curiae does not hold water, in as much as, ‘chaku’ and ‘nyan’ both are sharp edged weapons. Their nomenclature may be different in local dialect but the fact remains that chaku (knife)/nyan is a sharp edged weapon. One may call it by any name, yet the fact remains that both are capable of inflicting similar blow on the victim. Judging from the point of view of a prudent person, this discrepancy does not create any material difference. PW1 Govind Singh was a natural witness and not a chance witness. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that victim Udai Singh had taken liquor in excess and his death occurred because he fell on the ground. There is no substance in this argument because the same is bereft of evidence. 8. PW 2 Kundan Singh was the informant as well as real brother of deceased. He proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1) which was given to Patti Patwari. Said report was got scribbled by PW 2 Kundan Singh from a person sitting outside the hospital. He said that victim Udai Singh was his brother. On the fateful day, PW 2 Kundan Singh was working in Maroda village. Victim Udai Singh was also working in Maroda village. PW 1 Govind Singh was a carpenter working in the shop of appellant Shyam Singh. He said that victim Udai Singh was his brother. On the fateful day, PW 2 Kundan Singh was working in Maroda village. Victim Udai Singh was also working in Maroda village. PW 1 Govind Singh was a carpenter working in the shop of appellant Shyam Singh. On 28.10.2007 when he (along with Udai Singh) was coming back from Maroda and reached Vyasi market at 6:00 pm, he sat in the shop of Dalip Singh. PW 1 Govind Singh, PW 2 Kundan Singh and victim Udai Singh were to reach their village from Maroda via Vyasi. Udai Singh went to shop of Shyam Singh. PW 2 Kundan Singh heard the noise and accordingly, he was approaching the shop of Shyam Singh. In the meantime, Govind Singh and Hoshiyar Singh were taking Udai Sngh to Jaman Singh’s shop. Injured Udai Singh was bleeding profusely. He had injuries on his body including neck. When this witness enquired from Udai Singh, the injured replied that Shyam Singh had given him blow of knife. Udai Singh desired this witness to call his wife and accordingly, PW 2 Kundan Singh went to inform Udai Singh’s wife. When he came back along with the wife of Udai Singh, Udai Singh handed over a packet of biscuits / toffees for children to his wife and asked her to go back to village. PW 2 Kundan Singh took Udai Singh to Thalisain Hospital whereupon glucose was administered to him. Then PW 2 Kundan Singh lodged First Information Report. Patti Patwari and Naib Tehsildar came to Thalisain Hospital and took the statement of injured Udai Singh. Doctor referred the injured to Pauri Hospital. Injured died at Pauri. In the cross-examination, PW 2 Kundan Singh admitted that injured used to take liquor. Patwari recovered ‘nyan’ and not knife (‘nyan’ is used for cutting of woods, ‘nyan’ and ‘chaku’ both are sharp edged weapons). 9. This witness PW 2 Kundan Singh was subjected to a brief cross-examination which does not help the accused appellant at all. Both PW 1 Govind Singh and PW 2 Kundan Singh were eyewitnesses. They were natural witnesses. Their presence on the spot was probable. The apprehension of their being chance witness was completely ruled out. 10. Conceding that PW 1 Govind Singh, PW 2 Kundan Singh and injured Udai Singh were real brothers, this act alone does not discredit prosecution witnesses. Both PW 1 Govind Singh and PW 2 Kundan Singh were eyewitnesses. They were natural witnesses. Their presence on the spot was probable. The apprehension of their being chance witness was completely ruled out. 10. Conceding that PW 1 Govind Singh, PW 2 Kundan Singh and injured Udai Singh were real brothers, this act alone does not discredit prosecution witnesses. The law only enjoins that the courts are required to examine oral testimony of related witnesses very carefully. Judging by this yardstick nothing has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses which may render any assistance to appellant’s version, even on a close scrutiny of their ocular testimony. Nothing has come out in favour of accused appellant from the cross-examination of PW1 Govind Singh and PW 2 Kundan Singh. Both have supported prosecution story. They were not chance witnesses, as both of them had gone to earn their wages in Maroda village. Testimony of PW 1 Govind Singh and PW 2 Kundan Singh could not be discredited. 11. PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh also supported prosecution version when he said that on 28.10.2007 at 6:00 pm Udai Singh and his brother Kundan Singh met him at Vyasi market. PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh had gone to Vyasi market at 4:00 pm for marketing. PW 2 Kundan Singh went to the shop of Dalip Singh. Udai Singh went to the shop of Shyam Singh. When PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh was about to go to his village, one Jaman Singh asked him to stay with him (because Jaman Singh was all alone). PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh stayed with Jaman Singh. Both were working in Jaman Singh’s kitchen. They heard the noise at the shop of Shyam Singh. PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh went to the shop of Shyam Singh and saw that Udai Singh and Shyam Singh were quarrelling with each other. Accused appellant inflicted blow of knife on injured Udai Singh. PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh and PW 1 Govind Singh had gone there to intervene. Udai Singh sustained injuries on the neck /trachea and in axilla. Accused Shyam Singh fled away from the spot after inflicting blow. PW 1 Govind Singh and PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh took Udai Singh to Jaman Singh’s shop where PW 2 Kundan Singh also met them. Victim was saying that appellant has caused him injuries. Udai Singh sustained injuries on the neck /trachea and in axilla. Accused Shyam Singh fled away from the spot after inflicting blow. PW 1 Govind Singh and PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh took Udai Singh to Jaman Singh’s shop where PW 2 Kundan Singh also met them. Victim was saying that appellant has caused him injuries. Victim also said that he will not be able to survive and asked the witnesses to call his wife. When Udai Singh’s wife came, victim told her that Shyam Singh has given him a blow of knife and chances of his survival were not there. Victim was taken to Thalisain Hospital. The next day PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh came to know that Udai Singh was no more. 12. Apart from others, a suggestion was put to PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh (to which PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh denied) that there was a dispute of land between him and Ganesh Singh, father of appellant. A wrong suggestion was given to PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh. If a case was pending between him and Ganesh Singh, a documentary proof of the same could have been produced by defence and in the absence of the same, it cannot be inferred that PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh gave the statement on account of enmity with accused appellant. Mere suggestion will not do. In the cross-examination many a questions were asked to PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh. He remained undisturbed. Although he did not see appellant giving a blow on injured, yet he saw the other components of the incident in question. 13. PW 4 Jaman Singh was an independent witness who supported the prosecution story in its entirety. He has corroborated the testimony of PW 1 Govind Singh, PW 2 Kundan Singh and PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh. Victim informed PW 4 Jaman Singh that appellant has caused injuries to him. He was subjected to a brief cross-examination whereupon he admitted that he did not see quarrel between Udai Singh and Shyam Singh but said that Udai Singh and Hoshiyar Singh came to his shop. Udai Singh was injured and said that Shyam Singh caused him injuries. 14. PW 5 Doctor Mahesh Khetan, who was posted as Incharge Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Thalisain on 28.10.2007 proved Ext. Udai Singh was injured and said that Shyam Singh caused him injuries. 14. PW 5 Doctor Mahesh Khetan, who was posted as Incharge Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Thalisain on 28.10.2007 proved Ext. Ka-2 which is an information given to Patwari Chowki informing that one case of attempt to murder was admitted at CHC, Thalisain and the injured was capable of giving statement. 15. PW 6 Doctor D.K.Jain, Senior Radiologist in District Hospital, Thalisain conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Udai Singh on 29.10.2007 and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his dead body: 1. Incised wound in front of neck 3 cm below and right lateral to notch of thyroid cartilage, size 5 x 3 cm into trachea deep. Margins are clean-cut and inverted. It is directed medially. Tailing is present at lower end of wound. On dissection-trachea is cut anteriorly and laterally on both sides in the wound. Post wall of trachea is intact. One stitch is present in right lateral wall of trachea. There is cut in anterior wall of right internal vein of size 3mm x 1mm. Blood is coming out from the cut of right internal vein. Soft tissues and muscles are also cut in the wound. 2. Stitched wound of size 3 cm long in left axilla. Number of stitches present are two. Doctor proved the postmortem repot (Ext. Ka-3) and said that cause of death of victim was shock due to haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury no.1 which was caused by a sharp edged cutting weapon. 16. Thus the oral testimony of the witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. 17. PW 7 Dayal Mistri, retired Naib Tehsildar recorded dying declaration Ext. Ka-4 of the victim. Naib Tehsildar also identified the signatures of victim on the dying declaration and signatures of doctor as well. The said declaration was kept in a sealed cover and handed over to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In his brief cross-examination, PW 7 Dayal Mistri said that injured told about the incident which took place around 8:00 pm and said that assailant assaulted him with knife. 18. PW 8 Chhagad Singh reached Vyasi market on 28.10.2007 at around 7:30 pm on coming to know that Shyam Singh has inflicted blow of knife on Udai Singh. Udai Singh confirmed the fact to this witness that Ganesh Singh’s son Shyam Singh caused him injuries. 18. PW 8 Chhagad Singh reached Vyasi market on 28.10.2007 at around 7:30 pm on coming to know that Shyam Singh has inflicted blow of knife on Udai Singh. Udai Singh confirmed the fact to this witness that Ganesh Singh’s son Shyam Singh caused him injuries. In Thalisain Hospital the doctor did not entertain the case and informed Naib Tehsildar. On 30.10.2007 the assailant was arrested by Patwari. A nyan/chaku (knife) was recovered and a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared. A memo regarding blood stained soil and simple soil (Ext. Ka-5) was also prepared. PW 8 Chhagad Singh identified his signatures on both the memos. He also proved material exhibits from exhibit -1 to exhibit -9. 19. PW 9 Shesh Singh Negi, Patwari proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-6) on the basis of written report (Ext. Ka- 1), GD (Ext. Ka-7), Site Plan (Ext. Ka-8), memo of affecting arrest of accused (Ext. Ka-9), memo of recovery of material-exhibit 1 as exhibit Ka-4 and memo of collecting simple soil/blood stained soil as exhibit Ka-5. He conducted investigation of the case at some length. The rest of investigation was conducted by PW10 Dinesh Prakash Dobhal, Patwari who took the statements of witnesses and finally submitted charge sheet (Ext.Ka-11). 20. PW 11 Doctor Sanjiv Kumar Jain proved admission slip (Ext. Ka- 12) in the hospital and memo (Ext. Ka-13). Although not unconscious, the condition of patient was serious, as he was bleeding profusely. Patient ultimately breathed his last at 1:15 pm on 30.10.2007 at Pauri District Hospital. Doctor Jain also proved certain other papers like bed head ticket etc. (from exhibit Ka-14 to exhibit Ka- 16). 21. PW 12 SI Gajendra Singh was a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-17). In the cross-examination PW 12 SI Gajendra Singh affirmed that the witnesses (panches) told that the injury to victim was caused by sharp edged weapon. 22. Why should the court not believe the testimony of PW1 Govind Singh, PW 2 Kundan Singh, PW 3 Hoshiyar Singh and PW 4 Jaman Singh? Accused appellant had a dagger/knife/nyan (by whatever name it is called, but definitely a sharp edged weapon). Appellant gave a fatal blow to victim. One blow was inflicted to kill him. Medical evidence has confirmed that injured received incised wound. The dying declaration was also there. Accused appellant had a dagger/knife/nyan (by whatever name it is called, but definitely a sharp edged weapon). Appellant gave a fatal blow to victim. One blow was inflicted to kill him. Medical evidence has confirmed that injured received incised wound. The dying declaration was also there. But even if the dying declaration of the victim is not relied upon, the ocular testimony of four witnesses coupled with medical evidence is more than sufficient to bring home guilt to the accused-appellant. It is a case of direct evidence. Eye witnesses have tendered most reliable eye witness account. Their testimony was unimpeachable. The same was corroborated by medical evidence. Even if dying declaration was not taken into account, direct evidence alone as tendered by prosecution duly supported by medical evidence was sufficient and more than satisfactory to bring home guilt to the accused/appellant. Quality of evidence tendered by prosecution leaves no doubt in the mind of a prudent person that accused killed victim. 23. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued that it was a case of sudden provocation. We do not accept the said contention of the appellant as the same is bereft of record. So far as the motive to commit crime is concerned, it has come on record that victim opposed illegal sale of liquor by appellant, which was not liked by the latter. Appellant got irked over the remarks of the victim. An altercation took place. Appellant inflicted blow of knife on victim. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove motive to commit the crime where direct evidence is available. Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, emphasized that where direct evidence is available, the question of motive goes into oblivion. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that victim was under intoxication. Even if we concede for the sake of argument that victim had consumed liquor that does not mean that the world at large has a right to kill him on this pretext. Prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Thus, there is no escape for the appellant in as much as prosecution has been able to make home the guilt of murder against the accused appellant to the hilt. 25. Impugned judgment, therefore, does not warrant any interference. The appeal of the appellant Shyam Singh is thus dismissed. 24. Thus, there is no escape for the appellant in as much as prosecution has been able to make home the guilt of murder against the accused appellant to the hilt. 25. Impugned judgment, therefore, does not warrant any interference. The appeal of the appellant Shyam Singh is thus dismissed. The judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri while holding Camp Court at Kotdwar on 21.12.2010 is accordingly affirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial court is also affirmed. Accused appellant Shyam Singh is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of sentence awarded to him by the trial court and thus affirmed by this Court. An information to this effect be given to Superintendent of Jail where appellant Shyam Singh is currently serving out the sentence. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the Court concerned for compliance.