Judgment : Sanjay Karol, Judge Appellant-convict Uttam Chand, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 17.1.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.23 of 2008, titled as State of H.P. v. Uttam Chand and others, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 6.3.2008, in village Kutwad, marriage of Des Raj son of Lokia was being celebrated. As a part of marriage celebrations, band was being played. Accused Uttam Chand and his co-accused Puran Chand, Chandu, Diwan Chand and Jeewan Singh were dancing. Since religious ceremony was to be performed, Lokia Ram asked the band party to stop playing the band, to which Puran Chand objected, saying that they had come to participate in the marriage function and not mourn death. When Surinder Kumar (PW-1) and his brother Rajinder Kumar (deceased) went in a room of the house, accused Uttam Chand (appellant herein) gave a blow with a knife (Ex. P-1) on the left side of chest of Rajinder Kumar, as a result of which he sustained injury and fell down. Coaccused Puran Chand, Chandu, Diwan Chand and Jeewan Singh pelted stones inside the room. While fleeing, accused Uttam Chand also gave a blow with a knife on the head of Vipan Kumar (not examined). The incident was witnessed by Jagdish (PW-2). Bittu (PW-3), Ward Member of the Panchayat, telephonically informed the police. The following morning at about 5, SHO Kanwar Singh Guleria (PW-13) alongwith police party reached the village. On the basis of statement (Ex.PW-1/A) of Surinder Kumar (PW-1), recorded under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, FIR No.19 dated 7.3.2008 (Ex.PW-12/A) was registered at Police Station, Kheri, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, by ASI Kuldeep Kumar (PW-12). SHO conducted proceedings on the spot. He took into possession, knife (Ex. P-1), vide memo (Ex. PW-4/B), in the presence of independent witnesses Raj Kumar (PW-4) and Bihari Lal (not examined). Other incriminating material was also collected from the spot. SHO conducted proceedings on the spot. He took into possession, knife (Ex. P-1), vide memo (Ex. PW-4/B), in the presence of independent witnesses Raj Kumar (PW-4) and Bihari Lal (not examined). Other incriminating material was also collected from the spot. As a result of knife blow, Rajinder Kumar died, and as such, his dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Vijay Sharma (PW-10), who submitted postmortem report (Ex. PW-10/A). Vipan Kumar was also got medically examined from Dr. Shalinder Minhas (PW-11) at the Primary Health Centre, Brangal, who issued MLC (Ex.PW-11/B). Report (Ex. PW- 13/G) of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) was obtained, which revealed that the weapon of offence, clothes and other articles seized by the police contained human blood. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused Uttam Chand was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 147, 324 read with Section 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code; and accused Puran Chand, Chandu, Diwan Chand and Jeewan Singh were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 147, 324 read with Section 149, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and statements of the accused persons, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were also recorded, in which they all took plea of innocence and false implication. Accused Uttam Chand (appellant herein) also took up the following defence: “After serving meal in the marriage, I went into the Hall and there were more than 200-250 persons. Surinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were heavily drunk and Surinder Kumar fell on me and 3-4 persons including Jagdish started beating him and my sister Kunta Devi intervened to rescue him, but she was also stabbed by some one and then I became unconscious. This case has been fabricated against me. I am innocent.” He examined three witnesses in his defence. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted accused Uttam Chand of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. This case has been fabricated against me. I am innocent.” He examined three witnesses in his defence. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted accused Uttam Chand of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, present appeal by the accused. 6. Other accused persons, i.e. Puran Chand, Chandu, Diwan Chand and Jeewan Singh stand acquitted by the trial Court with respect to all charges. Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Additional Advocate General clarifies that no appeal against the judgment of acquittal stands filed by the State. 7. We have ourselves examined the record and do not find the findings of fact with regard to acquittal of these persons to be illegal, erroneous or perverse in any manner. Role ascribed to these accused persons is limited, i.e. pelting of stones, to which effect we find there is no conclusive evidence on record. It is a settled proposition of law with judgment of acquittal, a vested right accrues in favour of the accused and we see no reason to, of our own, issue notice to them and reverse such findings. 8. That Rajinder Kumar (deceased) died as a result of a knife blow injury cannot be disputed. In any event, such fact stands established through the testimony of Dr. Vijay Sharma (PW-10), who opined that “deceased died of penetrating wound of left chest by sharp cutting weapon passing through the substance of left lung and traversing the left chamber of heart leading to massive and fatal internal bleeding and shock leading to cardiopulmonary arrest and death”. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased, which, according to him, were possible to have been inflicted with knife (Ex. P-1): “One penetrating wound on left side of chest in 5th intercostal space on mid axillary line, 2.3. cms. X 0.8 cms. Cutting whole thoracic wall, spindle shaped on skin surface, edges, cleancut passing through the substance of lower lobe of left lung and traversed the left ventricle of heart 4.5 cms above its apex. Depth of wound 8 cm. obliquely placed, direction of wound-medially, anteriorily and slightly upward. Ribs and cartilages-were normal. Pleura has been cut. Thoracic cavity was full of fluid blood. Larynx and trachea and right lung, were normal. Depth of wound 8 cm. obliquely placed, direction of wound-medially, anteriorily and slightly upward. Ribs and cartilages-were normal. Pleura has been cut. Thoracic cavity was full of fluid blood. Larynx and trachea and right lung, were normal. Left lung-there was cut in lower lobe of left lung corresponding with the external wound on chest wall. Pericardium, heart and large vessels-cut in pericardium, penetrating wound on left ventricle of heart 4.5 cms. Above its apex. Heart chambers were empty, large vessels were normal.” 9. Crucially, accused does not dispute his presence on the spot. However, his defence cannot be said to have been probablized. There is nothing to even remotely suggest that Surinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were heavily drunk. Undisputedly, incident took place in the night of 6.3.2008 at about 10 p.m. Kunto Devi (DW-1), sister of the accused, was got medically examined at Primary Health Centre, Salwan. This was so done on 7.3.2008 at 1.15 p.m., as is evident from the testimony of Dr. Manoj Thakur (DW-3). Significantly, Kunto Devi was examined by Dr. Anita Thakur and not by DW-3. Be that at it may, MLC (Ex.DW-3/A) so proved on record, reveals that injury sustained by Kunto Devi is superficial in nature. We find that in Court, Kunto Devi (DW-1) does not explain the reason of delay in lodging the report with the police. HC Sanjiv Kumar (DW-2) has proved Daily Diary Register (Ex.DW-2/A), which reveals that report was lodged by her on 7.3.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., whereas the incident took place on 6.3.2008 at about 10 p.m. Also, police had reached the spot on 7.3.2008 at 5 a.m. Significantly, this witness admits that prior to lodging of her complaint, FIR No.19 (instant case), under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, already stood registered. 10. We notice that on the basis of telephonic information to the effect that accused Uttam Chand had stabbed Rajinder Kumar, on 6.3.2008, at about 11.30 p.m., based on which, as is borne out from the testimony of Investigating Officer (PW-13), police party left for the village and recorded statement (Ex. PW-1/A) of Surinder Kumar at 5.15 in the morning of 7.3.2008. Thereafter, FIR (Ex. PW-1/A) of Surinder Kumar at 5.15 in the morning of 7.3.2008. Thereafter, FIR (Ex. PW- 12/A) was registered at Police Station, Khera at 7.30 a.m. Now, if police party was already on the spot, then why is it that Kunto Devi (DW-1) did not lodge the complaint with them there and then. Also, being a victim, she could have telephonically informed the police about the incident, which she did not do. This fact, in our considered view, renders the testimony of DW-1 to be shaky and not reliable at all. It is not the case of the defence that police was siding with the accused or she had any apprehension of false implication. Be that as it may, in Court, DW-1 states that Rajinder Kumar and Jagdish were drunk, but significantly, there is nothing on record to establish such fact. She further states that her brother Uttam Chand (accused) was inside the room with the deceased, Surinder Kumar (PW-1) and Jagdish (PW-2). There he was given beatings and when she intervened, both Surinder and Jagdish gave a blow with a knife and she suffered an injury on her left arm. Soon her daughter came and took her inside the house. Her daughter has not been examined. As such for all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find such version of hers to be inspiring in confidence. She does not state that accused Uttam Chand had become unconscious after he was allegedly beaten up by the complainant party. Undisputedly, incident took place at the time when marriage celebrations were going on. None from the village have come forward to support the victim. It is not that co-villagers had refused to testify or that they were harbouring any malice or animosity against the accused. 11. Significantly, what happened to the accused after he fell unconscious, has not come on record. Who carried him from the spot? When did he regain consciousness? To whom he narrated the events which he witnessed? has not been explained by anyone. Hence, the defence cannot be said to have been probablized. 12. On the other hand, we find the prosecution case to have been established, beyond reasonable doubt, by the witnesses present on the spot. Jagdish (PW-2) has categorically deposed that accused participated in the marriage celebrations and was dancing. has not been explained by anyone. Hence, the defence cannot be said to have been probablized. 12. On the other hand, we find the prosecution case to have been established, beyond reasonable doubt, by the witnesses present on the spot. Jagdish (PW-2) has categorically deposed that accused participated in the marriage celebrations and was dancing. At about 10 p.m., Lokia Ram asked the band party to stop playing the band as “Shiv Pooja” was to be performed. Puran Chand objected, saying that they had come to attend the marriage and not mourn death. Commotion broke out and Surinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar went inside the room. Accused Uttam Chand followed them and inside the room gave a blow with a knife to Rajinder Kumar. Even Vipan, who was inside the room, was also given a blow by Uttam Chand. He also gave a blow to his sister Kunto Devi (DW-1). Police was telephonically informed. In cross-examination, we do not find testimony of this witness to have been shattered in any manner. Version of this witness, in fact, stands corroborated by Surinder Kumar (PW-1) on all counts. In fact, in his unrebutted testimony, he has deposed that accused Uttam Chand was nursing a grudge against the complainant party, for the reason that Rajinder had indulged in a witchcraft, harming his son. While, fleeing, accused Uttam Chand hit the electricity server wire, as a result of which light went off. No doubt, there is slight improvement in his testimony, with regard to disruption of electricity supply, but however, this fact stands materially proved by Bittu (PW-3), who despite being declared as a hostile witness, in his unrebutted testimony has deposed that “when I reached the house of Lokia Ram, all the accused persons fled away after disrupting the electricity supply”. 13. On the issue of accused inflicting blow on the victim, we otherwise find that there is sufficient material on record. Though Vipan Kumar was not examined in Court, his MLC (Ex.PW-11/B), so proved by Dr. Shalinder Minhas (PW-11), is on record. 14. Bittu (PW-3) corroborates the version of both PW-1 and PW-2 that Lokia Ram had asked the band party to stop playing the band, which was objected to by the accused. Though, the witness was declared hostile but only on the question of having witnessed the occurrence of the incident. Shalinder Minhas (PW-11), is on record. 14. Bittu (PW-3) corroborates the version of both PW-1 and PW-2 that Lokia Ram had asked the band party to stop playing the band, which was objected to by the accused. Though, the witness was declared hostile but only on the question of having witnessed the occurrence of the incident. His testimony that he had heard Jagdish Kumar shouting that accused Uttam Chand had killed Rajinder Kumar may be in the nature of hearsay, but what is important is his admission that Kunta Devi also sustained knife blows. 15. We find that the prosecution has been able to prove the link evidence. Weapon of offence (Ex. P-1) was taken into possession by the police, vide recovery Memo (Ex. PW-4/B). The same was deposited in the Malkhana with MHC Sanjeev Kumar (PW-6). It was neither tampered with nor were the seals of the parcel broken. Sealed parcel was sent for chemical examination and report (Ex. PW-13/G), so proved on record by SI Kanwar Singh Guleria (PW-13) clearly establishes that human blood of Group ‘B’ was detected on the knife and the clothes of the deceased. 16. Vehemently, it is argued that despite the fact that complainant party was drunk, yet no viscera were preserved. Learned counsel invites our attention to the testimony of Dr. Vijay Sharma (PW-10). There is no evidence that the deceased or the complainant party were drunk. Be that as it may, absence of viscera cannot be a ground to acquit the accused, in the teeth of otherwise overwhelming evidence on record, evidently proving the guilt of the accused. 17. Submission made, in the alternate, by the learned counsel for the accused, that case of the prosecution does not fall under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but Section 304(first part), only merits rejection. No doubt, deceased Rajinder Kumar died of a single blow, but then blow was given on a vital part of the body. That apart, he fled away from the spot, after giving a blow with a knife to Vipan Kumar. Hence, in our considered view, it is a case of culpable homicide and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 18. That apart, he fled away from the spot, after giving a blow with a knife to Vipan Kumar. Hence, in our considered view, it is a case of culpable homicide and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 18. We do not find the case to fall within the exceptions, as discussed by the apex Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434; Khachar Dipu alias Dilipbhai Nakubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 4 SCC 322 ; Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 289 ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another, (1976) 4 SCC 382 ; Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874 ; Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 ; and Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 . 19. We find the following decisions, referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his contention, to have been delivered in a particular fact situation, which is not similar to the one in hand. Ranjitham v. Basavaraj and others, (2012) 1 SCC 414 ; Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 15 SCC 560; Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 15 SCC 585; and Bunnilal Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2006) 10 SCC 639 . 20. It is not that the doctor sided with the complainant party or that on the asking of the police, he deliberately chose not to preserve the viscera. 21. The apex Court in Bhupendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 106 , while dealing with the case where viscera was not sent to the laboratory, held that the default of breach of duty on the part of the prosecution would not necessarily render the prosecution case to be doubtful. 22. To the similar effect is the decision rendered by the apex Court in Dayal Singh and others v. State of Uttranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 . 23. Thus, in our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, not only ocular but also corroborative in the shape of recovery of weapon of offence. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.