JUDGMENT DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. CHALLENGE in these appeals is to the judgment dated 8.12.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No. 20- N/7 of 2007, convicting and sentencing thereby the appellant (in Cr. Appeal No.40/2009), hereinafter referred to as accused No.1, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year; whereas acquitting the respondent (in Cr. Appeal No. 290 of 2009), hereinafter referred to as accused No.2, of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 IPC, by giving him benefit of doubt. 2. THE occurrence having taken place on 23.7.2007 in broad daylight around 3.30 p.m. in village Sawana, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, has taken away a precious and valuable human life as the victim, Naresh Kumar succumbed to stab injuries he received on vital part of his body in the said occurrence, most probably on the way to hospital as he was declared brought dead by the doctor on duty. The incident leading to these proceedings is of village Swana, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur. The place of occurrence is house of one Pyar Chand, a school teacher, who had arranged feast for his relatives and fellow villagers on 27.3.2007 on the occasion of his retirement from service. Complainant party and accused persons had also come there to have meals, being residents of the same village. 3. ACCUSED No.1 Manjeet Kumar, allegedly was inimical to deceased Naresh Kumar on account of unanimous election of the latter as President of Forest Development Committee, constituted by the inhabitants of village Sawana. Said accused and his aunt Smt. Saroj were also present at the time of election of the Committee, however, accused No.1 Manjeet Kumar walked out immediately on the election of deceased Naresh Kumar as President of the Committee. In order to wreck vengeance, the said accused assaulted the deceased with knife Ext.P2 on vital parts (chest and ribs) of his body repeatedly with intention to kill him in the courtyard of Pyar Chand aforesaid at such a time, when everybody had taken their meals and gossiping. The deceased fell down and injuries started profusely bleeding. In order to wreck vengeance, the said accused assaulted the deceased with knife Ext.P2 on vital parts (chest and ribs) of his body repeatedly with intention to kill him in the courtyard of Pyar Chand aforesaid at such a time, when everybody had taken their meals and gossiping. The deceased fell down and injuries started profusely bleeding. The occurrence was witnessed by PW-1 Dev Raj, the real brother of deceased, PW-2 another Dev Raj and PW-3 Parmod Kumar. On seeing that the milk offered to the deceased and swallowed by him came out through wounds in his stomach, he was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Rajgarh in a vehicle being driven by DW-3 Sudesh Kumar. His brother PW-1 Dev Raj etc. also rushed to the hospital in a separate vehicle. In the hospital, the deceased was declared 'brought dead'. 4. DR. B.P. Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rajgarh, had informed the police of Police Station, Rajgarh over telephone about this incident. The information so received was entered in Rapat Rojnamcha vide Rapat No.23 Ext.PW16/E and immediately thereafter PW-19 ASI Mahinder Kumar accompanied by Constable Rajinder Kumar left for Civil Hospital Rajgarh. In the hospital PW-19 ASI Mahinder Kumar recorded the statement Ext. PW1/A of PW-1 Dev Raj under Section 154 Cr. P.C. and it was sent to Police Station through PW-14 Constable Rajinder Kumar for registration of the case. Consequently, FIR Ext.PW18/A came to be registered in the Police Station by PW-18 HC Som Dutt. PW-19 ASI Mahinder Kumar had arranged to get the dead body photographed from PW-8 Sewan @ Shibu vide photographs Ext.PW8/A-1 to PW8/A-8 and also prepared the inquest report Ext.PW19/A. He made an application Ext.PW19/B to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rajgarh, requesting thereby to conduct the postmortem of the dead body of Naresh Kumar. Autopsy, however, could not be conducted at Rajgarh and as such the dead body was brought to Indira Gandhi Medical College/Hospital, Shimla, where PW-19 ASI Mahinder Singh had made an application Ext.PW19/C, requesting thereby the Forensic Science Department of IGMC, Shimla to conduct postmortem of the dead body of deceased Naresh Kumar. Postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors comprising PW-9 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW-1 Dr. (Mrs) Sanjeet Dhillon, who after conducting the postmortem issued the report Ext. PW9/A. Pw-20 SI Shyam Lal had arrested accused No.1 Manjeet Kumar on 27.3.2007 itself with the help of Constable Pritam Singh. Postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors comprising PW-9 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW-1 Dr. (Mrs) Sanjeet Dhillon, who after conducting the postmortem issued the report Ext. PW9/A. Pw-20 SI Shyam Lal had arrested accused No.1 Manjeet Kumar on 27.3.2007 itself with the help of Constable Pritam Singh. On that very day, Pw-22 Lekh Raj, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajgarh, visited the spot and preserved the place of occurrence in order to ensure that no one could destroy the evidence available there. On the next day, after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Pw-2 Dev Raj, brother of deceased, for cremation. 5. PW-20 SI Shyam Lal prepared the map Ext.PW20/A and also collected the blood stained earth and stones from the spot and had taken the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ext.PW6/A. PW-20 ASI Shayam Lal had also arrested accused No.2 Mam Raj on 28.3.2007 at such a time when the said accused had come to lodge report in the Police Station. 6. ON 29.3.2007, accused No.1 Manjeet Singh, during the course of investigation, made the disclosure statement Ext.PW2/A before PW-22 Lekh Ram, SHO, PS, Rajgarh, in the presence of PW-2 Dev Raj and PW-7 Jabbar Singh to the effect that he had concealed the weapon of offence (knife Ext.P2) in Kadiyuth Forest in the bushes and could get the same recovered. Consequently, knife Ext.P2 was traced out at the instance of the said accused and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ext. PW2/D, after getting the sketch Ext.PW2/B thereof prepared. Spot map Ext.PW22/A of the place of recovery of knife Ext.P2 was also prepared. The blood stained clothes of both the accused were obtained from the Medical Officer, Rajgarh and sealed in a parcel. PW-4 Sudhir Attri, Additional Assistant Engineer during the course of investigation prepared the location plan Ext.PW4/A of the house of Payar Chand, where the occurrence had taken place. PW-5 Parmeshwar Dutt, Patwari Halqua, supplied the copies of Aks Shajra Ext.PW5/A and Tatima Ext.PW5/B. The wearing apparels of both the accused persons, that of deceased, knife, blood stained earth and stones etc. taken into possession from the spot and sealed in a parcel were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for analysis. PW-5 Parmeshwar Dutt, Patwari Halqua, supplied the copies of Aks Shajra Ext.PW5/A and Tatima Ext.PW5/B. The wearing apparels of both the accused persons, that of deceased, knife, blood stained earth and stones etc. taken into possession from the spot and sealed in a parcel were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for analysis. On the receipt of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and finding the evidence to sustain a case against the accused persons, final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed against each of them in the Court of leaned Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, who after going through the same and also hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as the accused, finding a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC having been made out against them, committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan for trial. 7. LEARNED Sessions Judge, Nahan on hearing learned Public Prosecutor and also learned defence counsel, prima-facie finding that it is the accused persons, who in furtherance of their common intention had assaulted deceased Naresh Kumar with knife Ext.P1 intentionally and knowing fully well that the injuries likely to be caused shall cause his death, charge sheeted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 8. IN order to sustain charge against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined as many as 22 witnesses and also placed reliance on various documents pertaining to investigation conducted in the case. The accused persons, on the other hand, besides their respective statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C., have also produced three witnesses in their defence. After holding full trial and affording the parties due opportunity of being heard, learned trial Court has concluded as under:- "62. Therefore, on perusal of the material on record in the light of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, the only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that the deceased was killed by accused Manjeet Kumar at the material time by inflicting blows of 'knife' on the various parts of the body of the deceased. 63. It is on record that inflicting of blows of knife upon the various parts of the body of the deceased by accused Manjeet Kumar at the material time has resulted into his death. 63. It is on record that inflicting of blows of knife upon the various parts of the body of the deceased by accused Manjeet Kumar at the material time has resulted into his death. The intention/knowledge on the part of the accused Manjeet Kumar that stabbing the deceased with knife on the various parts of the body including vital parts of the body was likely to cause death of the deceased can be safely presumed as every person is presumed to be knowing consequences of his act unless there is something on record from which contrary intention can be inferred. It is on record that accused Manjeet Kumar has firstly inflicted a blow on the left side of the chest of the deceased due to which the deceased fell down and thereafter accused Manjeet Kumar again attacked the deceased with a knife and inflicted 5 blows upon his person and the deceased died within few minutes after sustaining blows of knife on his body. Thus, the fact that accused Manjeet Kumar even after when the deceased had fallen on the ground after sustaining of blow of knife on the left side of the chest again attacked the deceased with knife and repeatedly inflicted five more blows upon the deceased on the various parts of the body including vital parts of the body of the deceased such as chest and abdomen itself is sufficient to prove the intention on the part of accused Manjeet Kumar of not only causing injuries on the body of the deceased, but he also can be safely held to be having knowledge that such act was likely to cause death of the deceased. Hence, the accused Manjeet Kumar can be safely held to have intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Naresh Kumar at the relevant time. 64. I accordingly hold that the guilt of accused Manjeet Kumar for having caused death of Naresh Kumar intentionally or knowingly at the relevant date and time stands established on record beyond reasonable doubt and as such accused Manjeet Kumar is held guilty of the charge framed against him for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 65. 65. on the basis of evidence as discussed above by me it is clear that it was only accused Manjeet Kumar who has inflicted stab injuries upon the deceased with a knife repeatedly which resulted into his death and it is admitted case of the prosecution that accused Mam Raj has not inflicted any injury whatsoever upon the deceased. It is also not the case of the prosecution nor there is any evidence on record to establish that accused Man Raj gave any beatings to the deceased and the allegations of the prosecution against accused Mam Raj is that he was sharing a common intention with accused Manjeet Kumar in inflicting stab injuries upon the deceased and as such he is also guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code." Therefore, while extending the benefit of doubt in favour accused No.2 Mam Raj, he has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, whereas, the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC framed against accused No.1 Manjeet Kumar has been found to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner as pointed out at the outset. 9. ACCUSED No.1 has assailed the findings of conviction and the order of sentence on several grounds, however, mainly on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the present is a case of homicidal death for want of cogent and reliable evidence available on record to infer that it is the said accused alone who had stabbed the deceased with such intention or knowledge that thereby his death is likely to be caused. Also that the prosecution case on account of improvements, concoction and fabrication suffers from infirmities and the same should have not been relied upon to record the findings of conviction against him. The contradictions and improvements in the statement of material prosecution witnesses, who are none else, but the fellow villagers/relatives of the deceased, allegedly go to the very root of the prosecution case. Therefore, according to accused No.1, such type of evidence should have not been made the basis for recording findings of conviction against him. The contradictions and improvements in the statement of material prosecution witnesses, who are none else, but the fellow villagers/relatives of the deceased, allegedly go to the very root of the prosecution case. Therefore, according to accused No.1, such type of evidence should have not been made the basis for recording findings of conviction against him. Further that the investigation, which allegedly has been conducted in an unfair and illegal manner, has resulted into miscarriage of justice to him and also that neither all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put in the evidence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. nor the evidence available on record has been appreciated in its right perspective and this has vitiated the entire proceedings. It has been further submitted that at the most a case under Section 323 or 325 IPC or in the alternative under Section 324 or 325 or 326 IPC can be said to be made out against him and not under 302 IPC and if it is held so, he is entitled to be released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, being not a previous convict nor is there any criminal history to his credit. 10. ON the other hand, the challenge to the acquittal of accused No.2 in the appeal preferred by the State is on the grounds, inter alia, that the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of the prosecution witnesses should have not been discarded in the absence of any proof of their enmity with the said accused. While making a reference to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it has been submitted that the factum of accused No.2 having caught hold the deceased from arm facilitating thereby his co-accused i.e. accused No.1 to assault the deceased with knife is satisfactorily proved on record, however, the same has been erroneously brushed aside. Even the said accused has himself admitted during the course of cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 that hot exchanges between him and the deceased resulted in scuffle and that it is in this process, the deceased sustained injuries from the knife Ext.P1, which the deceased himself was carrying. The role of accused No.2 Mam Raj is thus stated to be very much established from the evidence available on record, however, the same is alleged to be not appreciated in its right perspective. The role of accused No.2 Mam Raj is thus stated to be very much established from the evidence available on record, however, the same is alleged to be not appreciated in its right perspective. Shri Anup Chitkara, Advocate, learned defence counsel has not denied the occurrence, however, raised a plea that on seeing the deceased grappling with his father accused No.2 Mam Raj and even brandishing knife at him, accused No.1 lost power of self control on account of grave and sudden provocation and when intervened to save his father Mam Raj from the clutches of the deceased, grappled with him and they both fell down and it is in that process, the deceased received injuries on his person with knife, which he himself was carrying. Learned defence counsel has thus made an effort to bring this case within the ambit of Exception 1 below Section 300 of Indian Penal Code and urged that accused No.1 had no intention or knowledge to kill the deceased. However, it is in the spur of moment, they scuffled with each other and the injuries leading to death of deceased Naresh Kumar came to be inflicted on his person. 11. LEARNED defence counsel has also pointed out certain improvements and paddings in the prosecution case and also some contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Our attention has also been invited to the evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of hostile witnesses and also the witnesses the accused examined in their defence. It has thus been emphasized that no finding of conviction could have been recorded against accused No.1 and as regards accused No.2, according to learned defence counsel, he has been rightly acquitted of the charge. 12. ON the other hand, Shri D.C. Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General, while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused persons and inviting our attention to the statements of accused persons, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., has argued that the manner in which the deceased was assaulted on vital part of his body repeatedly with a deadly weapon i.e. knife Ext.P2, the intention to kill him is writ large on the face of the record. P.C., has argued that the manner in which the deceased was assaulted on vital part of his body repeatedly with a deadly weapon i.e. knife Ext.P2, the intention to kill him is writ large on the face of the record. Prosecution evidence supported by the medical evidence has been pressed into service to impress this Court not to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded against accused No.1 and to record findings of conviction against accused No.2 also. Having gone through the record and giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we find that the occurrence is not disputed and rather it is the admitted case of the parties that the deceased sustained injuries in a scuffle with none else but accused No.1 and succumbed to the same on the way to hospital as he was declared 'brought dead' by the Medical Officer on duty. The evidence qua this aspect of the matter, as has come on record by way of testimony of complainant PW1 Dev Raj, who is real brother of deceased, PW-2 another Dev Raj and PW-3 Promod Kumar, has been rightly appreciated by learned trial Court. The witnesses belong to the same village. True it is that PW-1 Dev Raj is the brother of deceased but not PW-2 and PW-3. If they are the co-villagers of the deceased, the accused persons being of the same village are also their fellow villagers. No enmity of such a nature so as to infer that the witnesses have deposed falsely against the accused is also established on the record. 13. THE own statement of accused No.1 under Section 313 Cr. P.C. makes it crystal clear that he was present at the spot at the time of occurrence, as according to him he had gone to the house of Pyar Chand alongwith his father accused No.2 Mam Raj. He has also not denied the deceased having sustained stab injuries, leading to his death at the relevant date and time. P.C. makes it crystal clear that he was present at the spot at the time of occurrence, as according to him he had gone to the house of Pyar Chand alongwith his father accused No.2 Mam Raj. He has also not denied the deceased having sustained stab injuries, leading to his death at the relevant date and time. Accused No.1 has also explained the manner in which the deceased had sustained stab injuries on his person, as according to him, on seeing that the deceased was scuffling with his father and brandishing knife at him, he rushed to the spot and in a bid to save his father from the deceased, caught hold of him and when the deceased pointed out knife at him also, they scuffled with each other and both of them fell down and it is in that process, the deceased sustained injuries. Even the statement of accused No.1 Mam Raj under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also reveals that the deceased, who had consumed liquor, started abusing him and when he objected to it, the deceased started beating him and pointed out knife at him. He ran away to save his life but the deceased caught hold of him and stabbed with knife. He further states that his son intervened and other persons also came there and with their intervention he could save his life. 14. IN this view of the matter, the genesis of the occurrence stand satisfactorily established and need no further proof. The only million dollar question, which arises for consideration of this Court, however, is to find out that the accused persons had no intention to kill the deceased and rather he had received injuries in a scuffle, which sparked off in a spur of moment between him and accused No.2 Mam Raj and subsequently between him and accused No.1 Manjeet Singh, with knife which allegedly he himself was carrying with him and also that the injuries were not inflicted by accused No.1 Manjeet Singh with knife Ext.P2 nor the deceased was ever caught hold of his arms by accused No.2 Mam Raj. 15. IT is established on record that the deceased had consumed liquor, as in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ext.PW11/A, quantity of ethyl alcohol in his blood analyzed in the laboratory was found the extent of 270.0 gm%. 15. IT is established on record that the deceased had consumed liquor, as in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ext.PW11/A, quantity of ethyl alcohol in his blood analyzed in the laboratory was found the extent of 270.0 gm%. It can, therefore, be reasonably believed that he was under the influence of liquor. The testimony of his brother PW-1 Dev Raj that the deceased had not consumed liquor no doubt seems to be not correct. A person under the influence of liquor may start abusing anyone and sometime without any cause or motive or provocation also and even may grapple also with someone else, however, threat of serious nature at the hands of the person under the influence of liquor is caused thereby to the person manhandled, is highly doubtful. Since the deceased was under the influence of liquor, therefore, the possibility of hot exchanges having taken place between the deceased and accused Mam Raj resulting in scuffle and the perpetrator of such scuffle being accused Mam Raj himself, cannot be ruled out. There is no iota of evidence to infer that it is the deceased himself who was carrying knife Ext.P2 with him. The knife rather was in possession of accused No.1 Manjeet Singh as has come on record by way of the testimony of complainant PW-1 Dev Raj, PW-2 another Dev Raj and PW-3 Promod Kumar. The story that the deceased had stabbed accused Mam Raj with knife hardly inspires confidence as no such injury was found to be there on his person by PW-13 Dr. (Mrs.) Namita Thakur, who had examined him when brought to the hospital by the police in custody. She no doubt explains that injuries No.1 to 3 noticed on his person could be sustained in scuffle and injury No.4 could not be said to be self- inflicted. She has not stated that injury No.4 cannot be sustained in scuffle. Therefore, it seems that injury No.4 was also received by accused No.2 in scuffle with deceased. Therefore, the plea raised by the accused in their defence that the deceased had knife in his hand and stabbed accused No.2 therewith, is palpably false. 16. She has not stated that injury No.4 cannot be sustained in scuffle. Therefore, it seems that injury No.4 was also received by accused No.2 in scuffle with deceased. Therefore, the plea raised by the accused in their defence that the deceased had knife in his hand and stabbed accused No.2 therewith, is palpably false. 16. DW -3 Sudesh Sharma, who has been examined by the accused in their defence, has categorically stated that he saved accused Mam Raj from the clutches of deceased Naresh Kumar and brought him aside from that place and also made him sit on a chair. Meaning thereby that at the intervention of DW-3 Sudesh Sharma the scuffle was over as he had got the deceased and accused Mam Raj separated. Therefore, there was no occasion for accused Manjeet Singh to have witnessed deceased Naresh Kumar grappling with his father accused Mam Raj and brandishing knife at him, even if it is presumed that the deceased had entered into hot exchanges with the said accused and ultimately grappled with him. It seems that accused Manjeet Singh on seeing or coming to know that the deceased had quarreled with his father accused Mam Raj, appeared at the scene of occurrence with knife at such a stage, when his father and deceased were already separated by the people gathered there, including DW-3 Sudesh Sharma, and stabbed the deceased with knife on his chest and ribs repeatedly. He had chosen vital part of the body of deceased for causing stab injuries. Accused No.1 had thus not only intended to kill the deceased, but also had the knowledge that the injuries he inflicted on his person, shall cause his death. The present, therefore, is a case of culpable homicide which amounts to murder within the meaning of Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 302 IPC. Accused No.1 had thus not only intended to kill the deceased, but also had the knowledge that the injuries he inflicted on his person, shall cause his death. The present, therefore, is a case of culpable homicide which amounts to murder within the meaning of Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 302 IPC. No doubt, learned defence counsel has made an effort to bring this case within the ambit of Explanation 1 below Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, while submitting that accused No.1, on seeing the deceased having knife in his hand and grappling with his father, lost self control on account of grave and sudden provocation and in a bid to save his father from the clutches of the deceased, they both fell down and it is in that process, the deceased sustained injuries from the knife which he himself was carrying, however, unsuccessfully for the reason, firstly that there was no knife with the deceased, secondly that no danger or threat to the life of the father of accused No.1 could have been there at the hands of the deceased who was under the influence of liquor and thirdly as per the evidence, the accused themselves produced in their defence, accused No.2 and the deceased were got separated by DW-3 Sudesh Sharma and accused No.2 even was brought aside by the said witness and made to sit on a chair. Accused No.1 Manjeet Kumar, therefore, had no occasion to see the deceased grappling with his father. He seems to have appeared at the scene of occurrence later on with knife as in normal course he had no occasion to have taken the knife with him to the place of occurrence, where he had gone to attend a function arranged by Shri Pyar Chand on the eve of his retirement from service. Therefore, the time gap between the scuffle having taken place between his father and deceased Naresh Kumar and the assault causing death of the latter renders Exception 1 below Section 300 IPC inapplicable in this case. Such a plea is only available if it is established on record that the offender whilist deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation caused death of the person who gave the provocation. 17. Such a plea is only available if it is established on record that the offender whilist deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation caused death of the person who gave the provocation. 17. AS a matter of fact, bare reading of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC amply demonstrates that if a person gives the provocation himself, he cannot claim any benefit thereunder. The provocation, which prevents the offence from the mischief of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is a question of fact which needs cogent and reliable evidence for its proof. Provocation given must be sudden as well as grave. Whether provocation was enough to be an extenuation for the offence, depends upon the nature of the provocation, its effects upon the person provoked and, in short, upon the probability of its producing a similar effect upon other person. Therefore, such characteristics of the plea of grave and sudden provocation, need proof, which in the present case, is lacking. The present is rather a case where there is nothing to suggest that it is on account of sudden and grave provocation, accused No.1 Manjeet Singh had lost self control and as a result thereof inflicted injuries with knife on the person of the deceased. The manner in which he inflicted injuries on vital part of the body of deceased rather leads to the only conclusion that he had every intention and knowledge to kill him. 18. THE ocular version as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 even finds credence from the medical evidence. In the postmortem report Ext.PW9/A, the following injuries were found to be there on the person of the deceased: "1. transverse stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm elliptical in shape in right side of chest entering into pleural cavity in mid auxiliary line 51.5 cm from top of head 27 cm from mid line, margins clean cut. 2) Oblique stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm, pleural cavity and mediastinum deep 52 cm from top and 3.5 cm from midline in right side of chest. Both these injuries (injury No.1 and 2) are penetrating wound 3) Oblique stab wound 3 cm x.5cm rectus sheath deep over right side of abdomen 74.5 cm from top of head and 7 cm from umbilicus right side. Both these injuries (injury No.1 and 2) are penetrating wound 3) Oblique stab wound 3 cm x.5cm rectus sheath deep over right side of abdomen 74.5 cm from top of head and 7 cm from umbilicus right side. 4) Vertical stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep over left side of chest 62 cm from top of head and 19.5 cm from midline. 5) Pear stabbed wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm 56 cm from top of head and 25 cm from midline, muscle deep. 6) Vertical stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep 26 cm from midline left side 63.5 cm from top. 7) Abraded contusion 4 cm x 5 cm transfers 36 cm from sternal notch redish brown in colour. 8) Abrasion reddish in colour 22 cm in length curved over left side of chest starting from left nipple." In the opinion of PW-9 Dr. H.S. Sekhon, the deceased died due to acute haemorrhagic shock as a result of rupture of heart due to stab injury. There is no cross-examination of this witness regarding cause of death and also the injuries he noticed on the dead body. Therefore, it is satisfactorily proved that out of eight injuries on the person of the deceased, six were stab injuries and he died as a result of bleeding due to rupture of heart. 19. TRUE it is that the recovery of knife Ext.P2 pursuant to disclosure statement Ext.PW2/A is not satisfactorily proved for the reason that neither PW-2 Dev Raj nor PW-7 Jabbar Singh, the marginal witnesses of memo. Ext.PW2/D, had supported the prosecution case qua the manner in which the recovery thereof has been shown to be made at the instance of the accused. The fact, however, remains that the knife when analyzed in the Forensic Science Laboratory, was found to have stained with human blood. Meaning thereby that the same was used for inflicting stab injuries. Report Ext. PW15/A of Forensic Science Laboratory further reveals that on the knife Ext.P2, pants of accused Manjeet Kumar, trousers of accused Mam Raj, pants and shirt of deceased Naresh Kumar and in the sample of blood of deceased, human blood of group 'A' was found available. This report connects the knife Ext.P2 with the commission of offence. This knife was with accused Manjeet Kumar alone and not with the deceased. This report connects the knife Ext.P2 with the commission of offence. This knife was with accused Manjeet Kumar alone and not with the deceased. The prosecution has thus proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Manjeet Kumar had assaulted the deceased with knife Ext.P2 intentionally and knowing fully well that the injuries likely to be caused by him would result in the death of the deceased and thereby committed an offence of murder. 20. LEARNED trial Court has not committed any irregularity and illegality while acquitting accused Mam Raj of the charge for the reason that no cogent and reliable evidence has been produced by the prosecution in support of its case that it is the said accused, who had caught hold of the deceased from arm when he was being stabbed by his co-accused Manjeet Singh. True it is that PW-1 and PW-2 and for that matter PW-3 Promod Kumar have stated so while in the witness box, however, as per version of DW-3 Sudesh Sharma, who admittedly was present at the place of occurrence and cited as witness by the prosecution itself but given up allegedly being won over by the accused, accused Mam Raj and deceased were got separated and the said accused brought aside and made to sit over a chair and after that when he went to the place of occurrence, the deceased was found lying on the ground and blood oozing out of his body. The story that the deceased was caught hold of by accused Mam Raj seems to be not genuine and rather germane of the mind of Investigating Agency. However, on this score we see no infirmity or irregularity leading to render the entire prosecution case unbelievable. No doubt, as per the statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ext.PW1/A, the occurrence had taken place at such a time when everybody had taken the meals, whereas as per the statement of PW-1 while in the witness box at such a stage when they were going to have meals on the lintel of the house of Pyar Chand, however, since the prosecution has been able to bring the guilt home to the accused with the help of other evidence available on record coupled with the own admission of the accused persons as discussed hereinabove, such contradiction is hardly of any consequence in this case. Otherwise also, investigation of the case was not within the control of the complainant or for that matter in that of the persons associated during investigation and rather in the control of the Investigating Agency. It is well settled that the faulty investigation conducted by the investigating agency is hardly of any help to the accused, if his guilt is otherwise established on record. 21. IN view of the re-appraisal of the evidence and also the discussion hereinabove, we are not inclined to take a view of the matter that no case against accused No.1 is also made out as urged by learned defence counsel during the course of arguments. There is again no substance in his submission that the material prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case and rather turned hostile for the reason that even the hostile witnesses have also supported the prosecution case on all material aspects. 22. JUDGMENT of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagriti Devi vs. State of H.P., (2009) 14 SCC 771 , is not applicable in the case in hand being distinguishable on facts. Accused No.1 is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. Learned trial Court, therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity nor misconstrued or misread the evidence available on record. Accused No.1 Manjeet Singh has rather been rightly convicted and sentenced whereas accused No.2 acquitted after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The crux, therefore, would be that the impugned judgment needs no interference by this Court in these appeals and the same rather deserves to be upheld. 23. FOR all the reasons hereinabove, both the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of accused No.2, if any, shall stand cancelled and surety discharged.