JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. Informant Prem Kumar who happened to be brother-in-law (sala) of deceased set the criminal law into motion by filing complaint (Ext. Ka-2). The complaint was scribbled by one Suresh Kumar s/o Jeevan Ram. Informant Prem Kumar s/o Ghanshyam Das complained that the incident took place on 09.03.2000 at 8:30 am. Prem Kumar and his brother-in-law (jija) Nand Kumar came to market (mandi) on the said date and time. Suresh Kumar who was accountant of Nand Kumar informed him (Nand Kumar) that he (Suresh Kumar) received a telephone call. On having heard this, Nand Kumar (victim) went to talk in nearby STD booth. Pawan Kumar (accused-appellant) stopped Nand Kumar. Pawan Kumar started abusing Nand Kumar and said that he (Nand Kumar) would not be spared today. It was with great difficulty that Nand Kumar was found alone, Pawan Kumar said. Pawan Kumar had a dagger in his hand. He inflicted a blow of dagger on Nand Kumar’s head and abdomen with the intention of killing him. Nand Kumar fell on the ground in injured condition. Scribe Suresh Kumar (accountant), Prakash, Diwan Singh and Harish saved Nand Kumar and caught hold of Pawan Kumar. Nand Kumar was admitted in hospital. The incident took place at approx. 8:40 am. 2. On the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-2) of Prem Kumar, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-3) was lodged at PS Haldwani district Nainital on 09.03.2000 at 9:45 am. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 2 kilometers and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging the First Information Report, registered in connection with the offence punishable under sections 307/504 IPC. After the death of Nand Kumar and after having found offence been committed by accused -appellant Pawan Kumar a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under section 304 IPC was submitted against the accused after completion of the investigation. 3. Trial began. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant Pawan Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. Statement of accused appellant Pawan Kumar under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken. Accused appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Ist FTC, Haldwani, District Nainital held accused-appellant Pawan Kumar guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. As many as 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. Statement of accused appellant Pawan Kumar under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken. Accused appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Ist FTC, Haldwani, District Nainital held accused-appellant Pawan Kumar guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life in relation to the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC along with a fine of ‘20,000/-, in default of which he was directed to undergo six months’ further imprisonment. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order, present appeal was preferred by the accused appellant Pawan Kumar. 5. PW 1 Diwan Singh, PW 2 Prakash Chandra and PW 7 Dhangiri Goswami did not support the prosecution story. They were declared hostile. Their names figured in the complaint lodged by Prem Kumar but they denied having seen the incident. Their testimony was of no use to prosecution. 6. PW 3 Dr. K.C. Joshi was posted on 09.03.2000 as Medical Officer in S.S.Jeena Medical Hospital, Haldwani. On that day at 9:25 am he examined the victim Nand Kumar and found following injuries : i. An incised wound measuring 8 cm x 11 cm. Scalp deep with fresh bleeding on posterio lateral part right side of head 8 cm above the right ear obliquely placed. Sharp, clear cut margin. ii. An incised wound 3 cm x 15 cm x abdominal cavity present on left side of abdomen. 4 cm away from the umbilicus. This wound present obliquely margins sharp edged with fresh bleeding. 7. PW 3 Dr. K.C. Joshi said that the injuries were kept under observation. The patient was advised X-ray of abdomen, he was admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and was referred to surgeon. The injuries were fresh and were caused by sharp edged weapon. The doctor also said that the injuries were possible to have been sustained on the same day at 8:30 am. PW 3 Doctor K.C. Joshi proved the injury report (Ext. Ka-1) prepared by him. In the cross-examination, he said that the injuries were sustained within six hours of such (medical) examination. Injured was in a position to speak. The injuries were possible to have been sustained by the blow of dagger (knife). Thus, prosecution story was supported by medical evidence. 8. PW 4 Suresh Kumar (accountant) was the scribe of complaint (Ext. In the cross-examination, he said that the injuries were sustained within six hours of such (medical) examination. Injured was in a position to speak. The injuries were possible to have been sustained by the blow of dagger (knife). Thus, prosecution story was supported by medical evidence. 8. PW 4 Suresh Kumar (accountant) was the scribe of complaint (Ext. Ka-2) who proved his report. He said that on 09.03.2000 when he was sitting in mandi in the shop of Lala Nand Kumar (victim) he attended a telephone call at 8:30 am. When Lala Nand Kumar came after sometime along with Prem Kumar (complainant), he was informed about the said telephone call. When he (victim) proceeded towards STD booth, accused Pawan Kumar came to Nand Kumar and said that ‘he will not be spared today’. He started abusing. He was in search of Nand Kumar for a fairly long time. PW 4 Suresh Kumar stepped ahead in order to save Nand Kumar but in the meanwhile, Pawan Kumar inflicted blow of dagger on the abdomen and head of Nand Kumar. Accused-appellant was apprehended immediately along with dagger. Police came to the spot and took the culprit to Police Station. PW 4 Suresh Kumar and Prem Kumar took the injured to hospital. Injured was got admitted there. Complaint was scribbled by PW 4 Suresh Kumar on the dictation of Prem Kumar. Prem Kumar put his signatures on the complaint (Ext. Ka-2). 9. On being cross-examined, PW 4 Suresh Kumar said that he was an accountant with Lala Nand Kumar (victim). He reached mandi in the morning at 6:30 am. When he attended telephone call he was all alone in the shop. Nand Kumar came within 10-15 minutes of his having received such telephone call. The caller did not disclose his name. Lala Nand Kumar proceeded towards STD booth no sooner PW 4 Suresh Kumar informed him about the telephone call. PW 4 Suresh Kumar saw the marpeet from a distance of 25-30 feet. He also reached the place of incident. He went to hospital after having seen such incident. He scribbled complaint on the dictation of Prem Kumar. Accused was having dagger like (Khukhrinuma) thing in his hand. Prem Kumar was the brother-in-law (sala) of injured Nand Kumar. Nand Kumar was semi-conscious when he was taken to hospital. He remained admitted in Haldwani Hospital for 5-6 days. He went to hospital after having seen such incident. He scribbled complaint on the dictation of Prem Kumar. Accused was having dagger like (Khukhrinuma) thing in his hand. Prem Kumar was the brother-in-law (sala) of injured Nand Kumar. Nand Kumar was semi-conscious when he was taken to hospital. He remained admitted in Haldwani Hospital for 5-6 days. When this witness came back to mandi after witnessing the crime, a lot of people assembled there. He scribbled a complaint as per the dictation of Prem Kumar. Accused Pawan Kumar’s father was a fruit vendor. This witness knew accused-appellant Pawan Kumar before this incident took place. The accused-appellant was beaten by public also. He denied the suggestion that he did not see anything. 10. PW 5 Naresh Kumar was the unfortunate son of deceased Nand Kumar. He knew accused-appellant Pawan Kumar. When PW 5 Naresh Kumar was sitting in his shop on 09.03.2000 at 8:30 a.m., his father came to mandi. PW 4 Suresh Kumar (who had already arrived in the shop by then) informed Nand Kumar (victim), no sooner he came to mandi about the telephone call he had attended. (On hearing the same) victim proceeded towards the STD booth. PW5 Naresh Kumar saw that accused Pawan Kumar who had dagger like thing in his hand, inflicted a blow on the head and abdomen of his father. The injured fell down. Several people tried to rescue him. Accused-appellant was apprehended on the spot. Injured was taken to hospital. When his condition did not improve, injured was referred to Apollo Hospital, Delhi on 12.03.2000. Injured was treated at Apollo Hospital but he could not survive and succumbed to his injuries on 21.03.2000. 11. In the cross-examination, he said that he reached mandi by scooter at 7:00 am. He was a student of class XI but since there were holidays in the school therefore he reached mandi. He went to his father when accused-appellant started abusing him and he sustained injuries. Prem Kumar and Suresh Kumar went to lodge FIR. When injured was admitted in hospital, this witness (son) used to visit him regularly. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot when the occurrence took place. 12. PW 6 Head Constable Shekharanand Tiwari was a formal witness who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka – 3) and entry in G.D. (Ext. Ka-4). When injured was admitted in hospital, this witness (son) used to visit him regularly. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot when the occurrence took place. 12. PW 6 Head Constable Shekharanand Tiwari was a formal witness who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka – 3) and entry in G.D. (Ext. Ka-4). When the injured died, the case crime no. 255 / 2000 was converted into section 304 IPC and an entry was made in G.D. (Ext. Ka-5). Recovery memo of blood stained dagger (Ext. Ka-6) was also prepared by him. Dagger was deposited in malkhana. 13. When PW 8 Harikishan whose name figured in the complaint in the list of witnesses came to witness box, he supported the prosecution story. He said that on 09.03.2000 at around 8:40 am when his brother-in-law (jija) Nand Kumar was going to a PCO booth, accused-appellant Pawan Kumar started abusing him and said that he would not be spared today. Thereafter he inflicted blow of ‘a dagger like weapon’ on victim. Victim Nand Kumar sustained injuries in abdomen as well as head. Diwan Chandra, Prakash Chandra, Prem Kumar and Suresh Kumar apprehended the accused-appellant along with dagger on the spot. Police was informed on telephone. Consequently, police came to the spot. The injured was taken to Government Hospital, Haldwani wherefrom he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Delhi. Injured could not be saved and he breathed his last on 21.03.2000. 14. He was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant but nothing has come in the cross-examination of this witness so as to indicate that he was telling a lie. 15. PW 9 Dr. Anil Kumar Jain, Senior Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Delhi was posted in the same capacity in the same hospital on 12.03.2000. He operated upon the injured with the help of other medicos. He elaborated the ailments/complications developed by injured after he sustained injuries in the course of incident in question. He proved report (Ext. Ka-7) prepared by him. 16. PW 10 SI Harkanwal Singh was posted as SSI in PS Haldwani on 09.03.2000. He was the Investigating Officer of the case who proved site plan (Ext. Ka-8), statement of injured Nand Kumar (Ext. Ka-9), charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-11) and chemical examiner’s report (Ext. Ka-12), among other things. Investigating Officer also proved dagger/sword (Ext.-1) and other material exhibits. 17. 16. PW 10 SI Harkanwal Singh was posted as SSI in PS Haldwani on 09.03.2000. He was the Investigating Officer of the case who proved site plan (Ext. Ka-8), statement of injured Nand Kumar (Ext. Ka-9), charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-11) and chemical examiner’s report (Ext. Ka-12), among other things. Investigating Officer also proved dagger/sword (Ext.-1) and other material exhibits. 17. Even if PW 1 Diwan Singh, PW 2 Prakash Chandra and PW 7 Dhangiri Goswami have not supported prosecution story, still PW 4 Suresh Kumar, PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 8 Harikishan have supported the prosecution story. They were present on the spot when the occurrence took place. They tried to rescue victim. Their names figured in the complaint. Their presence on the spot could not be doubted. They were natural witnesses. These witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the accused-appellant but nothing has come in their cross-examination which might cast suspicion on the testimony of these eyewitnesses. The eyewitness account rendered by these eyewitnesses was trustworthy and inspired confidence. In no way it could be said that they were not present on the spot and they were telling a lie. No doubt some of them were related witnesses but the law nowhere says that the testimony of such witnesses should be discarded. The law only enjoins upon the court to scrutinize the evidence of such witnesses with vengeance. We have scrutinized the evidence of these eyewitnesses to the greatest possible detail but we have not come across any part of their testimony which might cast suspicion on the eyewitness account rendered by them. 18. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the informant was not produced in evidence. It does not matter really if the informant was not produced, for the scribe of the complaint appeared in the witness box as PW 4. FIR in itself is no piece of evidence. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased was not conducted. In fact, the same does not matter because it was not in dispute that the injured succumbed to his injuries. Further, death summary report (Ext. Ka-7) of deceased was given by PW 9 Dr. Anil Kumar Jain, Senior Consultant Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Delhi. He stated in para 5 of his statement that post-mortem is not conducted in Apollo Hospital. Instead, death summary report (Ext. Further, death summary report (Ext. Ka-7) of deceased was given by PW 9 Dr. Anil Kumar Jain, Senior Consultant Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Delhi. He stated in para 5 of his statement that post-mortem is not conducted in Apollo Hospital. Instead, death summary report (Ext. Ka-7) was issued on his direction and under his signatures. The said certificate was countersigned by CMO, Apollo Hospital. 20. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued that there was a difference between khukhri (dagger) and sword. Whereas khukhri has anti-clock wise curve, sword is having clock wise curve. The said argument does not do any good to the appellant. The reason is not far to seek. It has come in evidence that the appellant inflicted blow with a sharp edged weapon like dagger (khukhrinuma). The eyewitnesses were never specific that it was khukhri or dagger. They said that the same was ‘dagger like’. They did not specify the exact species of sharp edged weapon which was used in the commission of crime. 21. It was also argued on behalf of learned Amicus Curiae that there was no motive ascribed for the murder. Hon’ble Apex Court time and again has observed on so many occasions that where there is direct evidence, motive goes into oblivion. In the instant case, there is direct evidence of the fact that appellant inflicted blow of ‘dagger like weapon’ which subsequently resulted into death of the victim. Therefore the said argument of the learned Amicus Curiae does not hold ground. 22. We are therefore, inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by learned trial court. There appears to be no reason to differ. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We find no reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by learned court below. The appeal therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 23. The appeal of the accused-appellant Pawan Kumar is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellant Pawan Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC is hereby affirmed. He is in jail. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Superintendent of Jail where convict is currently serving out the sentence. The appellant Pawan Kumar shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Haldwani, District Nainital. 24. He is in jail. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Superintendent of Jail where convict is currently serving out the sentence. The appellant Pawan Kumar shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Haldwani, District Nainital. 24. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the Court concerned for compliance.