JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Appellant Mohan Singh has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in S.T. Nos.36/2006 and 37/2006, both titled as ‘State Vs. Mohan Singh’. The judgment was rendered on 1/5.06.2010 holding the appellant guilty for the offences under section 302, 394/511, 436 IPC and one u/s 4/25 of the Arms Act. For all the offences, he was appropriately sentenced. 2. Facts of the case are that on 25.05.2006 at about 6:15 AM, Ramesh Chand Kabadwal (brother of deceased’s husband), noticed the fire emanating from the house of his brother Kailash Chand Kabadwal. He, accordingly, reached that place with one Mohan Ram and called his sister-in-law Smt. Champa Devi. When the call was not responded to, then they subsequently called her daughter Km. Pooja, who then came out weeping along with her two younger brothers. She disclosed that on the previous day, the accused was grazing goats in the agricultural field and while doing so, he came to quench his thirst on the water tap installed in the courtyard of the house. In the night, selfsame Mohan Singh came and asked her mother to handover her gold chain. On refusal, he caught the head of her mother. Her mother (Smt. Champa) shouted on which the accused gave blows of knife on her body. On being frightened, Km. Pooja, with her two brothers, could save themselves by hiding beneath a cot. Subsequent thereto, the accused ran away setting afire the inside rooms of house. Km. Pooja kept on weeping and shouting for rescue but none came forward because it was the nighttime. 3. The above-facts were communicated by Ramesh Chandra to PW4 Deewan Singh, Pradhan of the village on the same day at about 7:30 AM. On enquiry made by PW4, it was revealed that when one Ratan Giri, R/o of the same village came out of his house to make water at about 10 PM of 24.5.2006, he noticed the accused Mohan Singh going towards the place of incident. Besides, another villager Dhan Giri disclosed that at about 11:30 PM of the said day, when he was returning his home, he saw the accused Mohan Singh coming from the place of incident while stepping ahead with fast paces. Besides, another villager Dhan Giri disclosed that at about 11:30 PM of the said day, when he was returning his home, he saw the accused Mohan Singh coming from the place of incident while stepping ahead with fast paces. It was further disclosed in the FIR that since Kailash Chand Kabadwal (deceased’s husband) does some job somewhere outside the village, he was not available in his house at the relevant point of time. With the above averments, the First information report (Ex.Ka.1) was lodged by PW4 Diwan Singh, Gram Pradhan on 25.5.2006 at 10:30 AM at P.S. Someshwar, District Almora. Chick report thereof is Ex.Ka-3. 4. On 25.5.2006 itself, the inquest report (Ex.Ka-16) was prepared which entails the extension of telephonic information by Gram Pradhan to the police in the very morning of the same day. All the members of inquest opined for conducting the post-mortem since the death was caused due to stab wounds visible on the body of deceased. Accordingly, the autopsy (Ex.Ka-19) over the dead body was done on 26.05.2006 at 1:45 PM by PW7 Dr. Vipin Pant at Community Health Center, Dwarahat, Almora, who found the following ante-mortem injuries: - 1. “Chest wall stained with blood. 2. Spindle shaped wound of size 2½ x 2 cm, oblique in direction, margins clear-cut, everted. Direction from Axilla towards Xiphisternum. Wounds Fat is protruded out from wound, wound is 11 cm downward from tip of shoulder and 9 cm from nipple upward on left side. Edges of wound are reddish. 3. In Dissection- Depth of wound is 13 cm extending from skin, sub-cut tissues, fat, muscles, pleura, lungs, left atrium. 4. Haemotoma of size 10 x 10 cm seen over muscles on left side of chest. 5. Spindle shaped wound of 2½ x 2 cm seen over left lung, upper lobe, lung collapsed. 6. Left Atrium Wound- Spindle shaped wound of size 2 x 0.5 cm seen over left atrium which extends up to its cavity, margins clear-cut, everted. 7. Right Atrium- Spindle shaped wound of size 0.5 x 0.3 cm seen over right atrium wall. 8. Pericardium- filled with blood clots. Cause of death was opined as shock and haemhorrage as a result of ante-mortem injuries, as described above.” 5. On 26.5.2006, appellant/accused Mohan Singh could be arrested. Memo of his arrest is Ex.Ka-6. 7. Right Atrium- Spindle shaped wound of size 0.5 x 0.3 cm seen over right atrium wall. 8. Pericardium- filled with blood clots. Cause of death was opined as shock and haemhorrage as a result of ante-mortem injuries, as described above.” 5. On 26.5.2006, appellant/accused Mohan Singh could be arrested. Memo of his arrest is Ex.Ka-6. At his instance, the bloodstained knife, used in crime, was recovered on the same day. Its memo is Ex.Ka-2. The police also took into possession the blood-smeared jacket of accused. Memo of that recovery is Ex.Ka-5. Ex.Ka-11 and Ka-12 are the memos of respective recovery of plain and bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence, whereas Ex.Ka-13 is the memo regarding recovery of ashes and burnt pieces of clothes from the spot. The police culminated the investigation into submission of two chargesheet(s) Ex.Ka-33 (u/s 302/394/436 IPC) and Ex.Ka-23 (u/s 4/25 Arms Act). 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Almora, accordingly, framed charges against the appellant/accused, to which he abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in this case, who are PW1 Km. Pooja Kabadwal (deceased’s daughter), PW2 Ratan Giri, PW3 Dhan Giri (villagers), PW4 Diwan Singh (informant), PW5 S.I. Kunwar Singh (who started investigation), PW6 Kailash Chand Kabadwal (husband of deceased), PW7 Dr. Vipin Pant (who conducted autopsy), PW8 Ramesh Chandra (brother of deceased’s husband), PW9 S.I. Bhupendra Singh (I.O. of case u/s 4/25 Arms Act) and PW10 Inspector Ganga Singh (who concluded the investigation). 8. Thereafter the statement of the appellant/accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He has simply denied all the charges levelled against him. However, no oral or documentary evidence was led in defence. 9. Learned Sessions Judge concluded the trial after recording the conviction and sentence of the accused as afore-mentioned. 10. We have heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant as also learned State counsel nay perused the entire prosecution evidence available on record. 11. PW1 is Km. Pooja Kabadwal, aged about 7 years, who was examined in the court almost after six months of occurrence. She has been found capable to understand the truth and depose before the Court. So, she was permitted to be examined by the prosecution. This child witness has categorically proved her acquaintance with the appellant/ accused since he used to graze goats nearby. She has been found capable to understand the truth and depose before the Court. So, she was permitted to be examined by the prosecution. This child witness has categorically proved her acquaintance with the appellant/ accused since he used to graze goats nearby. She has further stated that on the day of occurrence, accused had come to quench his thirst. On previous occasions also, he used to come in her house for the same purpose. It has further been deposed by her that accused came in the same night and demanded gold chain from her mother. On being refused, accused caught the hair of her mother and gave blows of knife. For this injury, blood oozed out from her mother’s body. Feeling scared, she along with her two-infant/minor brothers, could save themselves by hiding under a cot. She had identified the accused in the light of kerosene lamp. The accused then set ablaze their house. It has further been stated by her that at the time of incident, accused Mohan was wearing a jacket. Next day, she narrated the entire incident to Ramesh Chand Kabadwal (uncle). 12. PW2 is Ratan Giri, who has proved the fact of seeing the appellant/accused on the fateful night at about 10.30– 11 PM while proceeding towards the place of occurrence. During the course of deposition, he has identified the accused standing in the court. The witness was well in acquaintance with the accused/appellant ever-since the childhood because the village of the appellant is around one kilometer away from the place of incident. 13. PW3 is Dan Giri @ Dhan Giri who on the fateful night of 24.5.2006 at about 11:30 PM, saw the appellant/ accused coming downwards from the house of Kailash Chand. He could identify the accused focusing his torch on the face of accused. The evidence of this witness regarding identification of the appellant is believable for the reason that he was well in acquaintance with the appellant, inasmuch as, both hail from the same village. The witness also accompanied Gram Pradhan in the morning going towards the deceased’s house. This way the evidence of PW3 is quite believable. 14. PW4 Diwan Singh is the informant who has proved the contents of the FIR as well as the recovery of knife at the instance of the accused. He has proved his signature upon the recovery memo (Ex.Ka-2). 15. This way the evidence of PW3 is quite believable. 14. PW4 Diwan Singh is the informant who has proved the contents of the FIR as well as the recovery of knife at the instance of the accused. He has proved his signature upon the recovery memo (Ex.Ka-2). 15. PW5 S.I. Kuwer Singh Rawat and PW10 Inspector Ganga Singh are the police officers, who have made the investigation and prepared various recovery memos in the crime and submitted the chargesheet(s). They have proved the documents, which were prepared by them during the course of investigation. 16. PW6 Kailash Chand Kabadwal is the husband of deceased, who has proved his absence on the fateful night of incident, as he was in Haryana for the purpose of his job. Hearing the incident, he rushed to his house. He has proved the absence of sundry items of jewellery from the house. Although nothing was recovered from the custody or at the instance of the accused, but the fact remains that PW6 has proved the fact of missing of valuable items from his house. 17. PW7 is Dr. Vipin Rawat who has conducted the autopsy and proved the various injuries on the dead body, as aforementioned. 18. PW8 is Ramesh Chand Kabadwal, who is the real brother of deceased’s husband. He has proved that in the morning of 25.5.2006 at about 6:15 AM, he noticed the smoke emanating from the house of his brother. He took Mohan Ram (another villager) to the place of incident and came to know about the entire incident from Km. Pooja. Then he informed about the occurrence to the Village Pradhan, who reduced the same in writing and set the criminal law into motion. 19. PW9 is S.I. Bhupendra Singh who has conducted the investigation u/s 4/25 of the Arms Act and submitted the chargesheet on culmination of the same. 20. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant contended that PW1 Km. Pooja did not disclose the name of accused at the first instance while narrating the entire incident to her uncle Ramesh Chand Kabadwal. This argument, in no manner, helps the appellant for the reason that other formidable evidence is also available on the record which clearly points out towards the culpability of the appellant/accused in commission of crime. Besides, no such question was asked from this witness while she was cross-examined at the hands of defence counsel. This argument, in no manner, helps the appellant for the reason that other formidable evidence is also available on the record which clearly points out towards the culpability of the appellant/accused in commission of crime. Besides, no such question was asked from this witness while she was cross-examined at the hands of defence counsel. That apart, considering the age of PW1 as 6½ years at the time of incident, it was very natural for her to remain under great fear by the horrifying scene, so created, as also the occurrence done by the appellant on the spot. In these circumstances, no benefit of the same can be extended to the appellant. 21. The next submission made on behalf of appellant is that PW2, in his cross-examination, has deposed to have seen the appellant from behind at a distance of 10-15 meters. In these circumstances, it was not possible for PW2 to identify the appellant while going towards the place of occurrence. This contention does not hold water for the reason that the appellant/accused, who was in acquaintance with PW2, right from the childhood itself, could well be identified in the battery-operated torch even from behind. It was thus, at all not improbable for PW2 to identify the appellant on the spot at the relevant point of time. More so, it has been further proved by PW2 that after easing out, when he went inside his house and shut his door, the accused returned and kicked the door of his house. PW2 opened the window after switching on the light and found that the appellant was demanding a liquor bottle from him. Then he (PW2) scolded the accused and made him to escape from the spot. Subsequently thereafter, the appellant proceeded towards the place of crime. 22. It can also significantly be mentioned here that the appellant/accused Mohan Singh, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., did not deny his signature on the recovery memo (Ex.Ka-2). Then he (PW2) scolded the accused and made him to escape from the spot. Subsequently thereafter, the appellant proceeded towards the place of crime. 22. It can also significantly be mentioned here that the appellant/accused Mohan Singh, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., did not deny his signature on the recovery memo (Ex.Ka-2). That apart, the jacket, which the accused was wearing at the time of incident, was also taken into possession by the police; the recovery memo thereof also bears the signature of appellant, which he has not denied u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the more, when the jacket as well as the weapon of assault i.e. ‘knife’ were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the report whereof is Ex.Ka-28, both the items were found stained with human blood. 23. Our attention was drawn about the time mentioned as 6:45 A.M. when the inquest was conducted. It has been argued that PW4 Diwan Singh (Pradhan of village) has deposed to reach at the spot at 7:30 A.M., then it was not possible to conduct the inquest at 6:45 AM. We feel this incongruity is due to the slackness of meticulous care in mentioning the time or a sheer oversight while looking to the watch or even a slip of pen. Further, no cross-examination have been made on this point from PW2 Ratan Giri or PW4 Diwan Singh who were also the members of inquest. Hence, no benefit can be extended to the appellant/accused on this score alone. 24. Thus, on a considerate analysis of the entire evidence available on record, we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the offences under section 302, 394/511, 436 IPC as well as u/s 4/25 of Arms Act. We find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial court for reaching such a conclusion. The appeal lacks merit which is liable to be dismissed. 25. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence so awarded by the trial court. 26. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the court concerned for compliance. The appellant/accused be informed about the fate of his appeal through the Superintendent of the jail concerned.