JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. Criminal Law was set into motion at the instance of complainant PW1 Dinesh Chandola s/o Govind Ballabh Chandola, resident of 240/91, Phool Bagh, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar in the instant case. The complaint (Ext. Ka-1) was written by one Mohan Chandola. Dinesh Chandola (informant) lodged an FIR in Police Outpost Pantnagar, P.S. Rudrapur, stating therein that his brother Pramod Chandola (deceased) left the house on 10.12.2003 at 4:30 p.m. without informing anyone. On 11.12.2003, Manoj and Rajesh came to their house at 5:00 a.m. They told that in the night of 10.12.2003, Pramod Chandola went to see dance (nautanki) in North Block along with Manoj, Rajesh and Vashisth alias Koyala. Vashisth left the programme. During dance programme, there was a scuffle between Rajesh and Sakender. Another scuffle took place between Pramod and Rajendra. After the marpeet, Rajendra and Sakender fled away from there. Thereafter, Pramod and Rajesh made a search for Sakender and Rajendra. When they could not trace Sakender and Rajendra, they (Manoj and Rajesh) went to sleep in the room of Kishan (appellant). At 4:30 in the morning, Rajendra, Sakender and Kishan (accused-appellant) came to the room of Kishan. Room was connected with electricity. They (Rajendra, Sakender and Kishan) inflicted blows of lathi, danda and other sharp edged weapon on Pramod, which resulted into his death on the spot. Manoj and Rajesh escaped. They rushed to the house of Pramod Chandola and informed his brother about the incident. Informant PW 1 Dinesh Chandola went to the place of incident along with Manoj and Rajesh. Pramod’s dead body was lying on the field of Narayan Biswas. His dead body was dragged from the room of Kishan to this field (by the accused). Impressions of dragging the dead body were there on the floor. Pramod was taken to Pantnagar Hospital but he was declared, ‘brought dead’. 2. On the complaint of PW1 Dinesh Chandola, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4) was lodged in Police Outpost Pantnagar, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 11.12.2003 at 6:50 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Outpost was 1½ Kms. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 1500 of 2003 under Section 302/ 34 IPC. It was well within time. 3. Ka-4) was lodged in Police Outpost Pantnagar, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 11.12.2003 at 6:50 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Outpost was 1½ Kms. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 1500 of 2003 under Section 302/ 34 IPC. It was well within time. 3. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC was submitted against the accused/appellant Kishan and two others. Trial began before Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Charges against the accused-appellant and two others were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 09 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statements of the accused persons were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They said that they have been falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, accused/appellant Kishan was convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 155 of 2004 on 27.01.2007. Accused-appellant Kishan was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of which he was directed to further undergo six months’ imprisonment for the said offence. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, accused/appellant preferred present appeal. Co-accused Sakender and Rajendra were exonerated of the charges framed against them by the trial court. 5. PW1 Dinesh Chandola was the informant who filed the complaint (Ext. Ka-1) in Police Outpost, Pantnagar. The same was scribbled by Mohan Chandola and PW 1 Dinesh Chandola put his signatures on the complaint. Informant was also a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-2). 6. PW1 Dinesh Chandola said that deceased Pramod Chandola was his brother. They used to live together. On 10.12.2003, at 4:30 p.m., his brother Pramod Chandola (deceased) left the house without informing anyone. He did not return. On 11.12.2003, Manoj and Rajesh came to his house at 5:00 a.m. They told him that in the night of 10.12.2003, Pramod Chandola went to see dance (nautanki) in North Block along with Manoj, Rajesh and Vashisth. Vashisth left the programme even before the same started. During dance programme, there was a scuffle between Rajesh and Sakender. On 11.12.2003, Manoj and Rajesh came to his house at 5:00 a.m. They told him that in the night of 10.12.2003, Pramod Chandola went to see dance (nautanki) in North Block along with Manoj, Rajesh and Vashisth. Vashisth left the programme even before the same started. During dance programme, there was a scuffle between Rajesh and Sakender. Another scuffle took place between Pramod and Rajendra. Rajendra and Sakender fled away from there. Thereafter Pramod and Rajesh made a search for Sakender and Rajendra. When they could not trace Sakender and Rajendra - Pramod, Manoj and Rajesh went to sleep in the room of Kishan (appellant). Rajendra, Sakender and Kishan came to the same place at 4:00 a.m. They inflicted blows of lathi, danda and other sharp edged weapon on Pramod, which resulted into his death. Manoj and Rajesh came to him and disclosed about the incident. Informant PW 1 Dinesh Chandola went to the place of incident along with Manoj, Rajesh and other people. The floor of the room was stained. They traced the dead body with the help of impressions of blood spots. Pramod’s dead body was lying on a field. His dead body was dragged from the room to this field. Pramod was taken to Pantnagar Hospital but he was declared, ‘brought dead’. PW1 Dinesh Chandola was not an eyewitness. 7. PW2 Rajesh was an eyewitness. He said that he knew victim as well as accused Sakender, Rajendra and accused-appellant Kishan. Narrating the PW2 Rajesh and PW3 Manoj got frightened to see the incident. 2-3 iron rods of the windows were dislocated. PW3 Manoj Kumar escaped through the window. PW2 Rajesh also escaped through the window. PW2 Rajesh and PW 3 Manoj Kumar went to Pramod Chandola’s house. Victim’s brother Dinesh Chandola met there. He was apprised with the incident. Dinesh and other residents of mohalla went to see the place where Pramod was killed. There they saw blood stains of dragging of deceased. They went to the room where the incident incident, he said that on 10.12.2003 he along with Manoj and Pramod went to see a dance programme (nautanki) in North Block. The programme was being organized in the courtyard of house of Kishan. Sakender, Rajendra and Kishan were also present. Sakender picked up of quarrel with PW 2 Rajesh. They had scuffle between them. Pramod Chandola had quarrel with Rajendra. The programme was being organized in the courtyard of house of Kishan. Sakender, Rajendra and Kishan were also present. Sakender picked up of quarrel with PW 2 Rajesh. They had scuffle between them. Pramod Chandola had quarrel with Rajendra. They also had marpeet between them. Sakender and Rajendra fled away from there. He along with Rajesh and Pramod slept in the room of Kishan. In the next morning at 4:00–4:30 (a.m.), Rajendra, Sakender and Kishan came to the room where they were sleeping. Rajendra and Sakender were having lathis (sticks) in their hands and Kishan was having a kulhari (axe). They inflicted blows on the neck of Pramod Chandola. Kishan inflicted a blow of axe (a sharp edged weapon) on the neck of Pramod Chandola took place. Pramod’s dead body was not there. They traced the dead body of victim with the help of impressions of blood on the floor / earth. His dead body was found on the field of one Narayan Biswas. When taken to hospital, the victim was declared, ‘brought dead’. 8. PW 3 Manoj Kumar was another eyewitness who corroborated the evidence of PW 2 Rajesh. He also narrated that on 10.12.2003, he along with Rajesh, Pramod Chandola and Vashisth alias Koyala went to see the dance organized in the house of Kishan in North Block. All the three accused were present. Sakender and Rajesh had scuffle between them during the programme. Likewise, victim Pramod and Rajendra had also scuffle between them. All the three accused fled away from there. The dance programme was disrupted. They made a search for the accused persons, but to no avail. Thereafter PW 2 Rajesh, PW 3 Manoj Kumar and victim Pramod came to sleep in the room of accused-appellant Kishan. The room was connected with electricity. 9. PW 3 Manoj Kumar also said that on the next morning at around 4:00 (a.m.), Kishan came with an axe in his hands. Sakender and Rajendra were having lathis in their hands. They inflicted blows on the neck of Pramod. Kishan gave a blow of axe on the neck of Pramod. PW 2 Rajesh and PW 3 Manoj Kumar (he himself) escaped through window and went to Pramod’s house straight way. Victim’s brother Dinesh Chandola was apprised with the whole incident. Thereafter, he along with Rajesh, Dinesh and other people went to Kishan’s residence where the incident took place. Kishan gave a blow of axe on the neck of Pramod. PW 2 Rajesh and PW 3 Manoj Kumar (he himself) escaped through window and went to Pramod’s house straight way. Victim’s brother Dinesh Chandola was apprised with the whole incident. Thereafter, he along with Rajesh, Dinesh and other people went to Kishan’s residence where the incident took place. They saw blood on the floor. There were impressions of dragging of the dead body. The dead body was found on a field. When Pramod was taken to hospital, he was declared, ‘brought dead’. 10. PW 2 Rajesh and PW 3 Manoj Kumar were cross-examined by learned counsel for the appellant at length, but nothing has come in their evidence which may cast suspicion on their testimony. They were the most natural witnesses, whose presence on the spot cannot be doubted. They were known to the appellant. They all went to see the dance in the house of appellant Kishan. It shows that the eyewitnesses had no enmity with appellant Kishan. Had the eyewitnesses been harbouring any grudge against the appellant, why would have they gone to appellant’s house to see nautanki ? The possibility of false implication of the appellant is completely ruled out. The eyewitness account rendered by PW 2 Rajesh and PW 3 Manoj Kumar is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material discrepancy or material contradiction in the evidence of these two most important witnesses. Subject to corroboration by medical evidence and other peripheral evidence, prosecution story is proved on the strength of the testimony of these natural eyewitnesses. 11. PW 4 Dr. Nilambar Bhatt conducted postmortem on the dead body of Pramod Chandola, aged 25 years, on 11.12.2003 at 2:30 p.m. He found the following ante-mortem injury on the dead body of the victim : An incised wound of 6.5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over right side of mastoid region and extending upto jaw (mandible). On further exploration, right temporal bone is also incised (cut fracture). Under the injury site of right mandible vessels of neck and incised (caroted vein and artery) around the skin. Right ear lobule is incised. On further exploration of membrane of skull on right side, left parieto-temporal region and fracture of base of skull and congestion of brain matter is also present. 12. PW 4 Dr. Under the injury site of right mandible vessels of neck and incised (caroted vein and artery) around the skin. Right ear lobule is incised. On further exploration of membrane of skull on right side, left parieto-temporal region and fracture of base of skull and congestion of brain matter is also present. 12. PW 4 Dr. Nilamber Bhatt proved his report (Ext. Ka-3) and said that the death of victim was possible on 11.12.2003 at 4:30 a.m. Cause of death was shock with coma due to ante-mortem injury. 10 13. In cross-examination, Doctor Nilambar Bhatt said that the death of victim was possible with sharp edged weapon with heavy weight at the back. The oral eyewitness account rendered by PW 2 Rajesh and PW 3 Manoj Kumar is thus corroborated by the medical evidence rendered by PW 4 Doctor Nilambar Bhatt. 14. PW 5 ASI Rajkumar Singh was a formal witness who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4) which was lodged on the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1). He also proved entries in G.D. (Ext. Ka-5 and Ext. Ka-6). 15. PW6 Mohan Chandola was the scribe who scribbled complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on the dictation of PW1 Dinesh Chandola. He was also a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-2), memo of taking blood soaked cloth sheet (Ext. Ka-7) and memo of taking blood stained soil/simple soil (Ext. Ka-8). 16. PW7 Constable Rajiv Kumar was the witness of recovery of incriminating article under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act. Accused-appellant Kishan made a disclosure to the Police that he can get the axe recovered, which was used in the commission of crime. An axe was recovered on the disclosure and pointing of accused-appellant Kishan and a recovery memo thereof (Ext. Ka-9) was prepared under the signatures of appellant as well as the witnesses. 17. PW 8 SI Govind Lal Sah was also a witness of recovery of axe on the disclosure and pointing of appellant Kishan. He was also a signatory to recovery memo (Ext. Ka-9). Accused-appellant Kishan confessed that he cut the neck of Pramod Chandola with the blade of said axe, which was recovered on his pointing. Although the confession made by the accused is inadmissible in evidence, but the recovery is admissible. 18. PW 9 SI Harkewal Singh proved entry of death of victim on 11.12.2003 at 6:05 a.m. in G.D. (Ext. Ka-10). The original of G.D. was Ext. Ka-11. Although the confession made by the accused is inadmissible in evidence, but the recovery is admissible. 18. PW 9 SI Harkewal Singh proved entry of death of victim on 11.12.2003 at 6:05 a.m. in G.D. (Ext. Ka-10). The original of G.D. was Ext. Ka-11. He was also a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) and other papers related thereto (Ext. Ka-12 to Ext. Ka-15). This witness also proved site plan (Ext. Ka-16), entry in G.D. (Ext. Ka-17) regarding an effort to arrest the accused, entry in G.D. regarding arrest of the accused (Ext. Ka-18), entry in G.D. regarding confession of accused-appellant Kishan (Ext. Ka-19), other entries in G.D. regarding the progress of investigation (Ext. Ka-20 and Ext. Ka-21), site plan of recovery of axe (Ext. Ka-22), report of FSL (Ext. Ka-23) and submitted charge-sheets (Ext. Ka-24 and Ext. Ka-25). He also proved cloth sheet soaked in blood (Ext. -1), blood stained soil (Ext. -2), simple soil (Ext. -3), axe (Ext. -4) and other articles (Ext. -5 to Ext. –10, wearing apparels of deceased). 19. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no motive has been assigned to the killing of victim. The plea thus forwarded by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable, inasmuch as, it is the settled law that in case of direct evidence, motive goes into oblivion. In Jarnail Singh and another vs. State of Haryana, 1992 Cr.L.J. 1656, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance’. In the instant case, there is direct evidence of two reliable eyewitnesses, who saw killing of victim by appellant with axe. The fact that the blood spots on the murder weapon (axe) were found to be disintegrated by the Forensic Science Laboratory, is of no help to the appellant. The eyewitness account rendered by two prosecution witnesses is unimpeachable. The same is duly corroborated by medical evidence, followed by recovery of weapon which was used in the commission of crime, on the disclosure and pointing of the appellant. The prosecution story stands proved. 20. Since the prosecution has been able to prove the case against accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment and order passed by learned trial court deserves to be affirmed. 21. The prosecution story stands proved. 20. Since the prosecution has been able to prove the case against accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment and order passed by learned trial court deserves to be affirmed. 21. For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order. Impugned judgment and order does not require interference by this Court. The appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the appellant Kishan and the sentence thus awarded to him are affirmed. The accused/appellant is in jail. The Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court to make the appellant (convict) serve out the sentence awarded to him. An information to this effect be also sent to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant/convict is currently serving out the sentence.