JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, Judge Appellants-convict Arjun, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 31.12.2007, passed by Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.08-ST/7 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Arjun, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 2. It is the case of prosecution that Ghanshyam (PW-1) was residing with his wife Smt. Sunita (PW-5) in the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? hutments, constructed for housing the labourers engaged by a Private Company for carrying out construction work. On 31.12.2006, at about 9 p.m., Raju (deceased) came to the hut of Ghanshyam for having meals. While Raju was having food, Accused Arjun came and from outside the hut abused Raju. When Raju went out, Arjun gave him a blow with a knife on his chest and thereafter ran away. Incident was witnessed by Ghanshyam (PW-1) and Sunita (PW-5). Hearing noise, independent witness Rajender Kumar (PW-7) also arrived at the spot and witnessed the incident. Sunita went to the houses of the neighbours and on her asking Khem Raj (PW-6) arrived at the spot. Kishore Kumar Pathak (PW-3), Incharge of construction work, was also informed. Injured was carried to the hospital by Raj Kumar (PW-2), Khem Raj (PW-6) and Jeewan Kumar, where he was declared dead. On the report of Ghanshyam (PW-1), police registered FIR No.96/06, dated 31.12.2006 (Ex. PW-1/A), under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Renukaji, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. Postmortem of dead body was conducted by Dr. A.V. Raghav, who issued report (Ex. PW-14/B). Police conducted necessary investigation on the spot and also recovered Knife (Ex. P-5). Blood stained clothes of the deceased as also accused were recovered and seized. Report (Ex.PW-15/A to Ex. PW-15/C) of the Chemical Analyst was obtained by the police. Also, report pertaining to finger prints (Ex. PW-16/J) was taken on record. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. P-5). Blood stained clothes of the deceased as also accused were recovered and seized. Report (Ex.PW-15/A to Ex. PW-15/C) of the Chemical Analyst was obtained by the police. Also, report pertaining to finger prints (Ex. PW-16/J) was taken on record. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and the statement of accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took a defence of false implication. According to him, while cutting an iron rod, deceased sustained injury with a chisel and in order to save civil and criminal liability, officials of the company falsely implicated him. Opportunity to lead evidence in defence was afforded, which he did not avail. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Identity of the deceased is not in dispute. Presence of the accused on the spot also cannot be disputed. It is his own case, as has emerged from the line of cross-examination, that it was he who carried the deceased from the spot to the hut. In fact, he admits to have reported the matter to the police at Police Station, Renukaji stating that “deceased Raju sustained injuries by chisel in an accident, while doing the job of cutting the iron rod”. 8. It be observed that no evidence in defence has been led by the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses admit, even remotely, about the factum of deceased having sustained injuries, in the manner in which the accused wants the Court to believe. In fact, medical evidence belies his defence. 9. Dr. 8. It be observed that no evidence in defence has been led by the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses admit, even remotely, about the factum of deceased having sustained injuries, in the manner in which the accused wants the Court to believe. In fact, medical evidence belies his defence. 9. Dr. A.V. Raghav (PW-14), who conducted the postmortem, on examination, found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: “Lacerated (Penetrating wound) right side of the chest below the clavicle of size 4 Cm X 2 Cm X 3 Inches, ellipitical injury margins are inverted. The clothes were blood stained and the clothes were torned at penetrated size 4 Cm X 2 Cm.” 10. According to the doctor, cause of death was cardiac respiratory failure due to Haemophemothorax and blood loss. In the opinion of the doctor, such injury was possible with a knife (Ex. P-5). Significantly, doctor has categorically deposed that “it is not possible to inflict the injury as noticed on the person of the deceased if the accused is striking the chisel with hammer and the chisel struck the deceased on his chest reason being the wound is deep penetrated about 3 inches”. He also denies the suggestion that such injury could have been caused on account of fall on a sharp iron object. 11. In the instant case, we find that there are three eye-witnesses, namely Ghanshyam (PW-1), Sunita (PW-5) and Rajender Kumar (PW-7) who saw the accused give a blow with a knife. Also, there are two witnesses, namely Raj Kumar (PW-2) and Khem Raj (PW-6) who immediately arrived on the spot and saw the accused flee away. 12. Ghanshyam (PW-1) states that on 31.12.2006, at about 9 p.m., deceased Raju came to his hut for taking meals. From outside the hut, accused started abusing Raju. Leaving his meals, Raju went outside. Hot exchanges took place between them, resulting into a quarrel. He tried to intervene. However, accused gave a blow with a knife on the chest of the deceased and ran away from the spot. When he raised hue and cry, few labourers arrived on the spot. He went to inform Pathak Babu, who alongwith Sanjeev arrived at the spot and the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. This witness categorically denies the suggestion of the deceased having sustained injuries with a cutting rod – chisel. When he raised hue and cry, few labourers arrived on the spot. He went to inform Pathak Babu, who alongwith Sanjeev arrived at the spot and the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. This witness categorically denies the suggestion of the deceased having sustained injuries with a cutting rod – chisel. He clarifies that the incident was witnessed by him, in the light outside the hut. 13. Sunita (PW-5), wife of PW-1, though in examination-in-chief does not refer to any quarrel, but otherwise unambiguously corroborates the version of her husband. In cross-examination, she admits that hot exchanges took place between the accused and the deceased. She saw the accused give blow with a knife on the chest of the deceased. She also saw the accused fled away from the spot. She categorically states that her husband went to inform Pathak Babu and she informed Mate Raj Kumar and Jeevan Singh, who immediately arrived on the spot. Even this witness has categorically denied the deceased having sustained injuries with a chisel. 14. Independently, we find that another witness, Rajender Kumar (PW-7) has corroborated their version. He states that hearing noise he immediately rushed to the spot and saw the accused give a blow with a knife. 15. Apart from these witnesses, we find that Raj Kumar (PW-2) and Khem Raj (PW-6) have corroborated the version of PW-1 and PW-2. These witnesses arrived at the spot immediately after the incident. 16. We find testimonies of the spot witnesses to be absolutely inspiring in confidence. They are reliable, trustworthy and their veracity cannot be said to be shattered in any manner. Also, we do not find any discrepancy, variation, exaggeration, embellishment or contradiction in their testimonies. 17. On the issue of link evidence, though as per report (Ex. PW-15/A) blood found on the weapon of offence was not sufficient for examination, but however as per report (Ex.PW-15/C), blood found on the clothes of deceased and the accused matched with that of the deceased. Report (Ex.PW-16/J) does not establish that weapon of offence had finger prints of the accused. It is, however, for the reason that impressions were found to be sufficiently smudged. This in any event would not falsify the prosecution case. 18. Report (Ex.PW-16/J) does not establish that weapon of offence had finger prints of the accused. It is, however, for the reason that impressions were found to be sufficiently smudged. This in any event would not falsify the prosecution case. 18. Recovery of weapon of offence from the spot stands proved through the testimony of Kishore Kumar Pathak (PW-3), as also testimony of the Investigating Officer Sucha Nand (PW-16), who also collected and seized other incriminating material from the spot and possession of the accused, including his apparels. 19. It is true that accused only gave a single blow with a knife, but viewing the circumstances, as proved on record, in our considered view, accused stands rightly convicted for having committed the charged offence. He had no reason or business to come to the hut of Ghanshyam (PW-1). He came armed fully prepared and started abusing the deceased without any reason or justifiable cause. It is into that the accused was in a drunken state. He was fully conscious of his actions. Without any cause or provocation, he started abusing the deceased. No doubt, scuffle took place and PW-1 did try to intervene, but however, relentlessly, accused gave a blow with a sharp edged weapon, i.e. knife on a vital part of body of the deceased, and thereafter fled away from the spot and took a false defence. There is nothing to suggest that he had telephonically informed the police about the incident or carried the deceased to the hospital. 20. 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 . 21. Hence, in our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the 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. 22. 21. Hence, in our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the 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. 22. 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.