JUDGMENT Per : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this appeal, appellants Ganga Ram and Chait Ram have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.7.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 1/2008 pertaining to Crime No. 58/2007, PS Kalagarh. By the said impugned judgment and order, accused appellants have been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and they have been appropriately sentenced to. 2. Prosecution story, as emerges out from the papers on record, is that an FIR Ex. Ka-1 was lodged by Dharm Singh, real brother of the deceased. The complainant alleged in the FIR that on 4.9.2007, when he and his brother Uday Raj (deceased) were selling guavas on their handcart in New Colony, Kalagarh, at that very time, Ganga Ram, related to them as cousin brother and belonging to the same village, and Chait Ram, resident of another village, both came in Kalagarh Market, and Ganga Ram killed his brother Uday Raj with the knife at 1.30 O’clock in the noon. Thereafter both of them fled away. This FIR was lodged at 2.20 PM on the date of incident itself. Police station was situated at a distance of half a kilometre from the place of occurrence. On the basis of this report, chick report Ex. Ka-18 was prepared. Police swung into action. Inquest report Ex. Ka-11 was prepared on the same day at 5.10 PM in Ram Ganga Bandh Hospital, Kalagarh. The Panches opined that due to excessive bleeding, the deceased succumbed to his injury inflicted in his thigh by the knife. 3. Autopsy on the person of the deceased was conducted on 5.9.2007 at 3 PM by Dr. JC Dhyani (PW4). Following ante mortem injuries were found during the course of post-mortem examination: (1) An elliptical shaped incised wound of the size 8 cm length x 4 cm width at 3 cm depth over middle part of front of left thigh, about 15 cm above left knee, the wound is reddish in colour, clotted blood present underling soft tissues, muscles and great vascular blood are injured. (2) Another incised wound, elliptical shaped, of size 5 cm length x 1 cm width over back of the left elbow, the wound is superficial deep only. 4. (2) Another incised wound, elliptical shaped, of size 5 cm length x 1 cm width over back of the left elbow, the wound is superficial deep only. 4. As per the opinion of the doctor, the deceased Uday Raj, who was a boy of 18 years, died of shock and haemorrhage because of excessive bleeding as a result of ante mortem injury no. (1). It was also opined that he died about 24 hours prior to conducting the post-mortem examination, and the said time matches with the time mentioned in the FIR. 5. During the course of investigation, police recovered the knife on 16.10.2007 on the pointing out of the accused Ganga Ram. Recovery memo thereof is Ex. Ka-5. Investigation culminated in the submission of the chargesheet Ex. Ka-10 against the accused appellants. 6. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. PW1 Dharm Singh is the complainant and an eyewitness of the incident; PW2 Banwari Lal and PW3 Balwant had seen the accused while they were fleeing away; PW4 is Dr. JC Dhyani, who conducted the autopsy; PW5 Sohan Singh is father and PW6 Roop Chander is uncle of the deceased and they have proved the enmity between the family of deceased and the accused; PW7 Mohan Lal is the witness of recovery of the weapon used in the commission of crime; PW8 SI DS Bagwa and PW9 SI Rajendra Singh are the formal witnesses, who were involved in the investigation of the case and other related formalities. 7. After prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Prosecution evidence was put to them in the form of questions to elicit the answers. Accused persons denied their involvement in the alleged incident and stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. 8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for the State and have perused the evidence available on record and the impugned judgment and order as well. 9. PW1 Dharm Singh, who has lodged the report, is the star eyewitness of the prosecution. He has stated that he is brother of deceased Uday Raj. Accused appellant Ganga Ram is his real cousin, while accused appellant Chait Ram is brother-in-law of Ganga Ram. 9. PW1 Dharm Singh, who has lodged the report, is the star eyewitness of the prosecution. He has stated that he is brother of deceased Uday Raj. Accused appellant Ganga Ram is his real cousin, while accused appellant Chait Ram is brother-in-law of Ganga Ram. Chait Ram had come and was staying in the house of Ganga Ram since 10-12 days prior to the incident. On the date of incident, he had gone to Kalagarh from his village Modiwala. Distance between these two places is four kilometers. His brother Uday Raj was selling guavas alongside the road, while he was selling the same on other side of the road. At about half past one in the day, when he was coming near his brother, he saw that accused persons had surrounded his brother. Chait Ram asked to kill him, and Ganga Ram gave the blows of knife to Uday Raj. Accused appellant Chait Ram had caught hold of Uday Raj. The witness has further stated that on seeing this, when he ran towards the accused persons, they fled away towards Kalagarh Colony. Uday Raj became injured and fell down on the earth. His left thigh was profusely bleeding. Many people had assembled at the spot. Police also came at the place of occurrence. The injured was removed to the hospital, but he died in his way to the hospital. Thereafter he lodged the report of this incident. This witness has further stated that Ganga Ram wanted to grab his property and, therefore, he was keeping animus with his family. He has also stated that two days prior to the incident, Ganga Ram had stolen guavas from the orchard of this witness, and his father Sohan Singh and cousin brother Balwant Singh had seen him while doing so. When the villagers tried to make Ganga Ram understand, he started quarrelling. He has further stated that his father had also given information of this incident in the police station. This witness has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, but learned defence counsel failed to elicit anything, which may shatter his testimony. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that PW2 Banwari Lal and PW3 Balwant have not seen the occurrence, when the accused allegedly gave the blow of knife to the deceased Uday Raj. This witness has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, but learned defence counsel failed to elicit anything, which may shatter his testimony. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that PW2 Banwari Lal and PW3 Balwant have not seen the occurrence, when the accused allegedly gave the blow of knife to the deceased Uday Raj. They have deposed that they saw two persons were running in the market, and out of them, one was Ganga Ram and the other was Chait Ram, to whom they identified in the dock of the Court at the time of their deposition. On perusal of the testimony of PW2 Banwari Lal, we gather that he has stated in his examination-in-chief that as he heard the screams of Uday Raj made after his receiving the blow of knife, then he came at the spot and saw that Dharm Singh, brother of the deceased, was present there. Dharm Singh lifted his injured brother and took him to the hospital. He also accompanied him. However, Uday Raj died in the way while he was being shifted to the hospital. PW3 Balwant has also stated that he had seen the accused appellants on 4.9.2007 at about 1.35 PM while they were fleeing away. Thus, we find from the depositions of PW2 and PW3 that though they have not witnessed the incident with their own eyes, yet they have not totally exonerated the accused persons as they have stated that they saw the accused persons while fleeing away just after the incident. 11. PW5 Sohan Singh is father of the deceased. He has stated that accused Ganga Ram is the son of his brother Rampal, and he was not on talking terms with Ganga Ram and Rampal. He has further stated that Ganga Ram was quarrelsome person. This witness has stated that he was having an orchard of mango and guava. These people wanted to grab his land and used to damage his orchard. When he raised the objection, they started quarrelling. This witness has also stated that one day prior to this incident in which his son was murdered, Ganga Ram and Rampal had come at his house in the evening. They hurled abuses. They had come with intention to assault. Ganga Ram held out a threat that on the next day he would kill one of his family members. This witness has also stated that one day prior to this incident in which his son was murdered, Ganga Ram and Rampal had come at his house in the evening. They hurled abuses. They had come with intention to assault. Ganga Ram held out a threat that on the next day he would kill one of his family members. This witness has stated that after this incident, he and Rampal, both were challaned by the police. Subsequently, he received the information that his son was murdered. He has also stated that Chait Ram had also come in his village on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and he was staying there along with Ganga Ram. 12. PW6 Roopchand is the real brother of Sohan Singh and Rampal (father of Ganga Ram). This witness has deposed in line with Sohan Singh. 13. PW7 Mohan Lal is the witness of recovery of the knife, which was used in the commission of crime. He has stated that on 16.10.2007, at about 12.30 PM, police had recovered the said knife in his presence, which was hidden in the bushes. This witness has proved the recovery memo thereof Ex. Ka-5. 14. PW8 SI DS Bajwa is a formal witness. He has proved copy of the G.D. Ex. Ka-6 & Ka-7, site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. Ka-8, recovery memo of bloodstained pant Ex. Ka-3, site plan Ex. Ka-9 pertaining to the place of recovery of knife and the chargesheet Ex. Ka-10. PW9 SI Rajendra Singh Dangi is also a formal witness, who has proved the inquest report Ex. Ka-11 and other related papers. 15. Thus, we find from the evidence, discussed above, that prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, inasmuch as PW1 Dharm Singh has given an eyewitness account of the incident, which finds corroboration from the medical evidence in the form of post-mortem report Ex. Ka-4 and the testimony of PW4 Dr. JC Dhyani. The motive behind the incident is also established from the evidence adduced by PW1 Dharm Singh, PW5 Sohan Singh and PW6 Roopchand. Knife, used in the commission of crime, has also been recovered on the disclosure of the accused Ganga Ram in his statement recorded by the Investigation Officer on 16.10.2007. Ka-4 and the testimony of PW4 Dr. JC Dhyani. The motive behind the incident is also established from the evidence adduced by PW1 Dharm Singh, PW5 Sohan Singh and PW6 Roopchand. Knife, used in the commission of crime, has also been recovered on the disclosure of the accused Ganga Ram in his statement recorded by the Investigation Officer on 16.10.2007. When he was asked under Section 313 CrPC as to the veracity of his disclosure regarding the place of concealment of knife, his reply was evading one. As such, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order. 16. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that though the place of occurrence was a busy market area, yet no independent eyewitness has been examined by the prosecution. The only eyewitness account is of PW1 Dharm Singh, who is the brother of the deceased. We are not inclined to accept the argument put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the reason that even if such type of incident is seen by many passersby and local people, they do not at all remain interested and willing to become a witness in the Court proceedings in order to avoid hassles of coming and going to the Courts for the deposition and inviting animosity of the accused as well. This view has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of verdicts. Moreover, there was no reason for Dharm Singh to falsely implicate the accused persons, and spare the real culprits. It is also the settled principle of law that the witness related to the deceased is no ground to reject his/her testimony, if the same is cogent, free from discrepancy and inspire the confidence. As we have observed hereinabove, the testimony of PW1 Dharm Singh does not have any incongruity or discrepancy, and the same is believable and inspires the confidence. As such, we are of the definite opinion that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that eyewitness PW1 Dharm Singh happens to be the brother of deceased Uday Raj. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that when autopsy was conducted on the next day i.e. on 5.9.2007, a blood-soaked bandage was found on the middle part of left thigh of the deceased, while another bandage was found on his left elbow. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that when autopsy was conducted on the next day i.e. on 5.9.2007, a blood-soaked bandage was found on the middle part of left thigh of the deceased, while another bandage was found on his left elbow. Thus, it was argued that if the deceased died while being taken to the hospital, then there was neither any reason nor any occasion for the doctors to apply these bandages on the wounds of the deceased. We do not find any substance in this argument, firstly, for the reason that there is no specific medical evidence that the deceased died in the way while being removed to the hospital and that he was brought dead there and, secondly, even if he was brought dead in the hospital, then it is generally seen that in such type of cases, it always remains the endeavour of the doctors to immediately give the first-aid to the victim. In the present case, as has been discussed, there was excessive bleeding from the injuries of the deceased and the entire occurrence, right from the assault with knife till death, happened within less than an hour, so it was but natural for the doctors to try prevent the profuse bleeding from the wounds first and then to proceed further. So, if the bandages were found on the wounds of the deceased, it does not help the accused persons in any way. We also find that while cross-examining PW4 Dr. JC Dhyani, who conducted the autopsy, no question in this regard was put to him by the defence counsel so that the truth behind applying the bandages on the wounds of the deceased may have clarified. 18. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants raised a question of law to the effect that even if the alleged act is attributed to the accused appellants, then looking to the nature of injuries and part of the body where the same have been inflicted, at most, the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out against the accused persons, as is envisaged under Section 299 read with Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. In support of her. In that case, injuries were inflicted on the thigh of the victim (who died subsequently). In support of her. In that case, injuries were inflicted on the thigh of the victim (who died subsequently). So, looking to the facts of the case and the nature of injuries, the Hon’ble Apex Court converted the conviction of the accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to the offence under Section 299 read with Section 304 Part I IPC. However, a careful perusal of the referred to verdict makes it amply clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court converted the offence, as mentioned above, because the injuries, which were inflicted on the thigh of the deceased, were not serious or fatal and the deceased died after eight days of the incident on account of cumulative effect of the injuries. However, in the case in hand, fatal injury of 8 cm long x 4 cm wide x 3 cm deep was inflicted on the deceased, who succumbed to it within an hour of the incident on account of excessive bleeding from the said injury. As such, the facts of the referred to case do not apply in the instant case. Our view is further fortified from the fact that the knife, which was used in the commission of crime and was recovered on the disclosure of the accused Ganga Ram, had almost 6-7 inches long blade and about 8 inches long handle. So, it was a big dagger, and all these facts are enough to cull out that the assault with knife was made on the deceased with intention to kill him and to cause him such bodily injury so that he ultimately die in all probabilities. argument, reliance has been placed on the case of Baldev Singh & Another v. State of Punjab, reported in Crimes X-1995(4). 19. Furthermore, the number of days, after which a victim succumbs to his/her injuries subsequent to the occurrence and the ailment, developed later on due to which he/she dies, may not always be significant, as has been opined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh & Others, reported in AIR 2011 SC 3380 . In that case, the deceased died after thirty-five days of the incident due to septicemia, but considering the medical evidence that deceased sustained 7 gunshot injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course, it was held that the death of the deceased undoubtedly falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC. 20. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel also placed her reliance on a judgment of Division of this Court rendered on 24.2.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2002. On perusal of the same, we find that the facts thereof are not attracted in the instant case, inasmuch as in the referred to case, the offence was converted from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to that of Section 299 read with Section 304 Part I IPC for the reason that the prosecution failed to establish on record any pre-meditation on the part of the assailants, and the injuries, too, were not sufficient to cause death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature. However, as we have already discussed above, in the instant case such a grave injury was inflicted on the deceased that he succumbed to it within an hour of suffering the said injury. That apart, as has been mentioned hereinabove, premeditation on the part of the accused persons is abundantly proved in the evidence. 21. We also gather from the evidence on record that it has nowhere been suggested either in the cross-examination or explained in the statements under Section 313 CrPC, much less by producing any defence witness, that the injuries, suffered by the deceased, were caused in a sudden fight and that the knife was used by the accused in the heat of passion. Rather, we find that both accused persons have taken the plea of alibi, but has not produced any testimony to substantiate the same. So, mere making the assertion in the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not sufficient until it is proved by adducing cogent and admissible evidence. 22. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the same and uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants vide the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 1/2008. Accused appellant Ganga Ram is already in jail. He is to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Consequently, we dismiss the same and uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants vide the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 1/2008. Accused appellant Ganga Ram is already in jail. He is to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Accused appellant Chait Ram is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. A copy of this judgment and order, along with LCR, be sent to the court below for compliance.