JUDGMENT 1. - Appalled by the impugned judgment dated 11th of August 2005 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur (trial Court), in Sessions Case No. 70/2004, the accused appellant has laid this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment indicted the appellant for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. For offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned trial Court has handed down sentence of transportation of life to the appellant with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. With respect to offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced for one year's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 7th of June 2004, complainant lodged a written report (Ex.P-22) with Police Station, Dhanmandi, Udaipur, alleging therein that at 9 PM he was standing at Navrang Medical Store, Hathi Pol with Jaiprakash Khatik and Omprakash. Omprakash (deceased) was standing with his scooter. As per the version of the complainant, accused Dayalal Khatik came at the site and inflicted several blows of knife to the deceased and a serious blow on his stomach. The stabbing injuries perplexed Omprakash and he fell down from the scooter. Immediately thereafter, according to the complainant, he accompanied by Jaiprakash, took injured Omprakash to hospital on scooter in a very critical condition. 3. On the basis of report of the complainant, FIR (Ex.P-26) was registered against the accused-appellant under Section 307 IPC and police started investigation. During investigation, on the information received from the accused, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered. During the course of treatment, Omprakash succumbed to the injuries, and therefore, offences under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act were added, and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court. The competent Court, thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and the accused appellant was tried for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 4. The competent Court, thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and the accused appellant was tried for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 4. During trial, to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. The learned trial Court, after thrashing out the matter and examining the evidence and other materials available on record, found that offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act are proved against the accused appellant. The trial Court, while relying on the testimony of PW-13 Rajkumar, PW-6 Jaiprakash, PW-7 Om Prakash and the factum of recovery of the weapon of offence, on an information divulged by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, has found the appellant guilty of the offences. In order to bring the offence of the accused appellant within the four corners of Section 302 IPC, i.e. murder, the learned trial Court has also placed reliance on the medical testimony i.e. statement of PW-12 Dr. Kishan Dhanak and PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Rathore, who have supported the prosecution story. PW-12 Dr. Kishan Dhanak has also opined in clear and unequivocal terms that injury No. 5 & 10 were clearly dangerous to life. The learned trial Court, in its impugned verdict, has noticed that the eye witnesses have supported the FIR and apparently there is no reason to disbelieve and brush aside their testimony. 5. Emphasising the gravity and magnitude of Injury No. 1 to 5, which were incised wounds, the learned trial Court has also dilated on injury No. 7 & 8, which were also incised wounds. The learned trial Court has concluded in clear and unequivocal terms that Injuries No. 5 & 10 were dangerous to life and were inflicted with intent to cause death. Taking note of some of the pitfalls in the investigation, the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has concluded that some discrepancies in the investigation cannot dwindle the prosecution story so as to bring home guilt against the accused appellant, which is thoroughly supported by ocular testimony of three witnesses and the requisite medical evidence. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the accused appellant, Mr. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the accused appellant, Mr. Shaitan Singh, would urge that there is serious doubt about presence of the two witnesses at site and therefore by placing reliance on the testimony of these two witnesses; viz., PW-6 Jaiprakash and PW-13 Rajkumar, the learned trial Court has seriously erred in recording finding of guilt against the appellant. Mr. Shaitan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that presence of these two eye witnesses at the place of occurrence of alleged offence is per-se under serious clouds for the reason that none of them have made any attempt to put any resistance against the commission of offence, or to make any effort to rescue the victim by intervening. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if they were present at the site, why they remained silent spectator and allowed the appellant to accomplish his mission of commission of offence, was a contentious issue on which the learned trial Court has not addressed, and therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Making scathing attack on the reliability of the testimony of both these eye witnesses, Mr. Shaitan Singh has submitted that both these witnesses and the victim were members of a gang and therefore they are interested witnesses, and conviction based on sole testimony of these interested witnesses cannot be sustained. Relying on the testimony of defence witnesses, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the victim and both these eye witnesses are known bad characters and were historysheeters, their testimony cannot be treated as evidence of credibility to bring home guilt against the appellant-accused. Impeaching the finding of the learned trial Court on the said issue, the learned counsel for the appellant would urge that from the tenor of the verdict of the learned trial Court, it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has taken their testimony as Gospel truth without there being any corroboration by an independent witness of credibility. Impeaching the finding of the learned trial Court on the said issue, the learned counsel for the appellant would urge that from the tenor of the verdict of the learned trial Court, it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has taken their testimony as Gospel truth without there being any corroboration by an independent witness of credibility. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there were many defects in the investigation inasmuch as the samples of blood stains were not taken and even the blood stained clothes were not seized and despite inadequacy of light at the place of occurrence of offence, Site Plan was prepared and even the alleged eye witness Omprakash was not named in the FIR, are sufficient to demolish the prosecution story but the learned trial Court has not examined these vital issues while recording the finding of guilt against the appellant and sentencing him. Buttressing his submissions to challenge the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that there was no iota of evidence to establish any motive on the part of the appellant for commission of the offence and the learned trial Court while thrashing out the matter has not cared to examine this vital issue and same has vitiated the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. 7. Lastly, in the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that assuming it without admitting the same that the alleged incident has occurred, then too, the same cannot be categorized as an offence of murder. According to submission of learned counsel for the appellant, at the most even if prosecution story is to be believed, the offence attributed to the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 300 Part-I of IPC, i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the sentence of transportation of life is liable to be interfered with by substituting the same with minimum punishment warranted for such offence. 8. E converso, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, while supporting the impugned judgment has urged that the judgment is based on sound appreciation of evidence and other materials on record warranting no interference. Mr. 8. E converso, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, while supporting the impugned judgment has urged that the judgment is based on sound appreciation of evidence and other materials on record warranting no interference. Mr. Bishnoi would contend that the learned trial Court has thrashed out the matter in its entirety while construing the incriminating material available on record to arrive at a finding of guilt against the accused-appellant for offence of murder, which is neither infirm, nor perverse. Laying great emphasis on the ocular testimony of PW-7 Omprakash and PW-13 Rajkumar, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that statements of both these witnesses fully endorse the prosecution story and the learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance on it. Countering the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that presence of both these witnesses at the place of occurrence of offence is under serious clouds, Mr. Bishnoi has submitted with emphasis that factum of accompanying deceased to hospital by both of them for his treatment and lodging FIR by PW-13 Rajkumar at 9:45 PM on the same day itself is sufficient to establish their presence at the site. Learned Public Prosecutor, while placing reliance on autopsy report (Ex.P-20), coupled with testimony of PW-12 Dr. Kishan Dhanak, has submitted that on the basis of postmortem report and evidence of doctor, there remains no room of doubt that the blow of knife in the stomach of the victim was dangerous to life and has ultimately taken away his life. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor at length, perused the impugned judgment and scanned the materials available on record. 10. A close scrutiny of the prosecution case, ipso facto, reveal that the entire edifice of the prosecution story hinges on the ocular testimony of complainant PW-13 Rajkumar and PW-6 Jaiprakash, who were present at the time of occurrence of offence at the site. Narration of sequence of events by PW-13 Rajkumar in his statements, with clarity and precision indicates that accused appellant has given serious blow of knife to the deceased on his hand and stomach with intent to cause death and the fact that immediately thereafter complainant Rajkumar with Jaiprakash rushed to hospital with the deceased for his treatment, is a clinching evidence to prove the prosecution story. During his cross examination also, the complainant remained unruffled and there is nothing on record to show that the defence has been able to impeach his testimony. Arrival of police sleuths at the hospital and lodging of FIR at 9:45 PM, i.e. within a span of less than an hour of the occurrence of offence, further substantiates the culpability of the appellant-accused. The testimony of complainant PW-13 Rajkumar is fully endorsed by the other eye witness Jaiprakash (PW-6) and he too has narrated the entire episode with material particulars including the aggressive posture of the accused-appellant and his gruesome act of stabbing the deceased by a knife causing six incised wounds. His presence at the hospital, when the deceased was under convalescence, also supported the prosecution story. That apart, statements of PW-7 Omprakash s/o Mohanlal are also vital, wherein he has indicted the appellantaccused for commission of the offence. As per the version of PW-7, he was standing nearby the place of occurrence of the offence, i.e. outside Krishna Juice Centre, and he has witnessed that appellant has given blows of knife to the deceased ruthlessly. In his deposition, Omprakash has also supported the version of complainant PW-13 and PW-6 that deceased was taken to hospital by both of them for his treatment. The testimony of PW-12 Dr. Kishan Dhanak is also very vital wherein he has opined that Injury No. 5 & 10 were dangerous to life. He has further deposed that injury No. 1 to 6 & 10 were by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 11 was by a blunt weapon. In totality, the testimony of PW-12 Dr. Kishan Dhanak has proved the autopsy report (Ex.P-20) wherein the injuries caused to the deceased are mentioned. The full description of the injuries, as incorporated in Ex.P-20, is as under: 1. Incised wound 7.0cm x 2.0cm muscle deep over lateral surface of upper part right forearm obliquely placed with clear-cut margin and dotted blood present. 2. Incised wound 4.0cm x 2.0cm muscle deep over lateral surface of upper part of right forearm with gap from injury No. 1 is 1.0cm, obliquely placed. 3. Incised wound 5.0cm x 2.0cm muscle deep over medial aspect of lower part of right arm obliquely placed. 4. Incised wound 3.0cm x 1.5cm muscle deep over medial surface of lower part of right arm with gap of 1.5cm, obliquely placed. 5. 3. Incised wound 5.0cm x 2.0cm muscle deep over medial aspect of lower part of right arm obliquely placed. 4. Incised wound 3.0cm x 1.5cm muscle deep over medial surface of lower part of right arm with gap of 1.5cm, obliquely placed. 5. Stitched incised wound 10.0cm with 5 interrupted stitches present over anterior medial aspect of lower part of right arm to upper part of right forearm. 6. Incised wound 5.0cm x 2.0cm, muscle deep over lateral surface of right elbow obliquely placed. 7. Stitched incised wound 6.0cm over upper part medial surface of right arm near axilla vertically placed. 8. Stitched operated wound 16.0cm with 18 stitches present over right side of umbilicus over abdomen vertically. 9. Stitched incised wound 1.0cm x 1.0cm with stitched present over one side margin of wound for drainage tube. 10. Stitched incised wound of size 3.5cm over right side of abdomen, 36.0cm below right nipple & 10.0cm below & downward and lateral to umbilicus, 2.0cm above right anterior superior iliac spine with corrugated drainage tube present on one side of wound. 11. Abrasion 3cm. Number of size 2.0cm x 1.0cm, 1.0cm x 0.5cm, 0.5cm x 0.5cm over left leg middle ⅓ anterior aspect. 11. The witness PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Rathore, has attended the deceased when he was admitted in M.B. Hospital, Udaipur and has prepared the injury report (Ex.P-18). The recovery of weapon on the information of the appellant-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, seizure memo of knife (Ex.P-3) and FSL report (Ex.P-28) are some of the incriminating materials, which are supporting the prosecution story to the hilt. From FSL Report Ex.P-28, it is crystal clear that on serological examination the blood stains on the weapon were found, which were of human origin. Thus, the ocular evidence, supported by medical evidence and recovery of weapon of offence on disclosure of accused, constitutes umpteen materials to prove an act of intentional homicide within the four corners of Section 300 IPC. 12. True it is, all medical evidence cannot be construed as substantive evidence but the same can be accepted as a corroborative evidence for the reason that knowledge of medicine and human body is a matter of science and as such expert medical opinion is to be given due credence. 12. True it is, all medical evidence cannot be construed as substantive evidence but the same can be accepted as a corroborative evidence for the reason that knowledge of medicine and human body is a matter of science and as such expert medical opinion is to be given due credence. There cannot be two opinions that penetrating wounds on abdomen are, as a rule, dangerous and may cause death immediately from shock or internal hemorrhage or subsequently from septic peritonitis. The autopsy report (Ex.P-20) has also confirmed in its final conclusion that death is due to shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to right upper limbs, vessels and muscle injury to caecum. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to doubt the presence of witnesses PW-13 and PW-7 at the place of occurrence of the offence appears to be quite attractive but on overall marshaling of the facts and record of the case makes it crystal clear that their presence at the site is beyond any shadow of doubt and the learned trial Court has thus rightly relied on their testimony for recording finding of guilt against the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant to discredit testimony of these two witnesses on the anvil that they were the interested witnesses is also per-se not convincing because even if it is presumed that the deceased and both these individuals were close friends having affinity, their reliability as competent witness cannot be doubted. The defence evidence tendered by the accused-appellant in this behalf is more or less harping on the close proximity between these two witnesses and the deceased and their so called background, but that by itself is not sufficient to impeach their testimony so as to discredit the same in the given circumstances. The learned trial Court has thus appropriately construed the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence putforth by the appellant-accused which in our considered opinion cannot be faulted. Merely because the deceased and these two ocular witnesses were friendly, it is not possible to categorize them as interested witnesses to underplay their testimony. The so called defects in the investigation and certain discrepancies in the procedure are also of no credence whatsoever to help the case of the appellant. Merely because the deceased and these two ocular witnesses were friendly, it is not possible to categorize them as interested witnesses to underplay their testimony. The so called defects in the investigation and certain discrepancies in the procedure are also of no credence whatsoever to help the case of the appellant. The lack of motive or any semblance of doubt about the same also cannot outwit the clinching evidence available against the appellant so as to upset the impugned judgment. The alternative argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence at the most can be culpable homicide not amounting to murder within the four corners of Section 300 Part I IPC, per-se appears to be quite alluring but in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case and availability of incriminating material, there remains no doubt that the appellant has given knife blow to the deceased with intent to cause death. Moreover, attacking the deceased, who was unarmed and helpless, with stabbing injuries by a sharp edged weapon, causing eight wounds and fatal injury in the stomach, clearly indicates that the sole intention of the accused was to liquidate the deceased. There is no semblance of proof about sudden provocation of the appellant, and his presence at the site with sharp-edged weapon, for all practical purposes vanishes and rules out the hypothetical theory of sudden provocation for a man of normal prudency. The gruesome and dreaded act of stabbing the victim with a knife causing multiple injuries and also causing a serious injury, which is dangerous to life, cannot be overlooked to mitigate the offence of the appellant by converting it as an offence under Section 300 Part I IPC. The learned trial Court has, in fact, examined the matter threadbare and thereafter has recorded a finding of guilt for offence of murder against the appellant-accused, which in our considered opinion is based on objective analysis of the evidence and other incriminating material available on record. 14. In view of the fact that there is no iota of suspicion in the reliability of the prosecution evidence, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned court below against the appellant-accused for offence of murder is a just conclusion, warranting no interference by this Court. 14. In view of the fact that there is no iota of suspicion in the reliability of the prosecution evidence, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned court below against the appellant-accused for offence of murder is a just conclusion, warranting no interference by this Court. Thus, in totality, on objective analysis of the entire fact scenario, we fully concur with the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and find no merit in this appeal.For the forgoing conclusions, the present appeal sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******