Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1086 (HP)

Moti Ram v. State of H. P.

2014-08-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the accused, against the impugned judgment, rendered on, 02.05.2013, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions trial No.68 of 2012, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees ten thousand and in default thereof both the accused were sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for their having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). 2. The brief facts of the case are that Bir Singh had invited two deities on 24.2.2012 in his house and on that day, many persons had assembled in his house. On the evening of 25.4.2013, some persons were busy in preparing meal and some persons sitting in front of the house of accused Moti Ram were performing ‘Kirtan’. At about 11 p.m. Bir Singh went to serve meal to the devotees, namely, Bhag Chand, Beli Ram, Vijay Kumar, Dola Ram, Ram Saran and others, who were performing ‘Kirtan’. Accused Man Singh came there and threatened them to stop the ‘Kirtan’, otherwise he will commit murder. Accused Man Singh left the room and came after about five minutes and had an altercation with Beli Ram. In the meantime, accused Moti Ram came there having a knife in his hand and stabbed Beli Ram in the chest, who fell on the floor. Belir Ram Died on the way to hostpital and taken to the house of his brother Sabja chand. Thereafter, the dead body was kept in the house of Sabja Chand and the police was informed by PW-1 Bir Singh. The police visited the spot and recorded the statement of PW-1 Bir Singh under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, comprised in Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW9/A was registered in the police station. The police conducted the investigation in the case. 3. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused were charged, for, theirs having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, by the learned trial Court, to, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused were charged, for, theirs having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, by the learned trial Court, to, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded, in, which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, the accused have examined three witnesses in defence. 6. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused. 7. The accused/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court, against him. The learned Legal Aid Counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended, that, the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, are, not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, she, contends that the findings of conviction, be, reversed by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, be replaced by findings of acquittal. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Court below, are, based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record, and, do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 9. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1, Bir Singh. He deposes that on 24.4.2012, he had invited deities in his house. He further deposes that two deities had come to his house and many persons had also come along with deities to his house. On 25.4.2012, in the evening, the congregation was busy in preparing meal and some of the devotees were sitting in his house in front of the house of Moti Ram and performing ‘Kirtan’. He deposes that some persons were preparing meat in the corner of verandah. He continues to depose that at about 11 p.m. Moti Ram, Bhag Chand, Beli Ram, Vijay Kumar, Dola Ram, Ram Saran and others were performing ‘Kitran’. He deposes that some persons were preparing meat in the corner of verandah. He continues to depose that at about 11 p.m. Moti Ram, Bhag Chand, Beli Ram, Vijay Kumar, Dola Ram, Ram Saran and others were performing ‘Kitran’. When this witness proceeded to serve meal to the persons sitting in the room of the house of Moti Ram, in the meantime, Man Singh son of Radhu came there and warned to stop Kirtan, and threatened that otherwise, he would commit murder. PW-1 further deposes that thereafter he left the room and after about five minutes again entered in the room and entered into an argument and altercation with Beli Ram. In the meantime, Moti Ram also arrived there and had an altercation with Beli Ram. Both of them have been deposed to have dragged Beli Ram out of the room. He deposes that he along with others followed them. Thereafter Moti Ram, who was having a knife in his right hand stabbed Beli Ram in his chest. Beli Ram has been deposed by this witness to have told him that he had been stabbed by Moti Ram and thereafter he fell on the floor. Subsequently, blood started oozing out from the chest of Beli Ram and when they were shifting Beli Ram to the hospital, accused Man Singh has been deposed to have threatened that he will kill every one with ‘Behli’. It has been stated by this witness that when they were taking Beli Ram to hospital, the house of Sabja Chand falls in between, hence, he was taken to the house of Sabja Chand, where Beli Ram was found dead. Thereafter, the dead body of Beli Ram was kept in the house of Sabja Chand. Man Singh and Moti Ram has been deposed by this witness to have committed murder of Beli Ram in furtherance of their common intention. He further deposes that he had reported the matter to the police. His statement Ex.PW1/A has been deposed by this witnesses to have been recorded by the police. He continue to depose that on 26.4.2012, the police had come to the spot and took into possession, knife, blood stained jacket, blood, blood stained soil, controlled sample vide memo Ex.PW1/B in his presence and in the presence of Bhag Chand. His statement Ex.PW1/A has been deposed by this witnesses to have been recorded by the police. He continue to depose that on 26.4.2012, the police had come to the spot and took into possession, knife, blood stained jacket, blood, blood stained soil, controlled sample vide memo Ex.PW1/B in his presence and in the presence of Bhag Chand. The articles have been deposed by this witness to have been kept in parcels and the parcels have been deposed to have been sealed with seal S. Sample of seal ‘S” has been deposed by this witness to have been drawn on a piece of cloth Ex.PW1/C, which has been deposed to be bearing his signature as well as the signatures of Bhag Chand. He further deposes that the seal after use was handed over to him. The inquest papers Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E have been deposed by this witness to have been prepared by the police. He had identified the accused in the Court to be the same. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not served any liquor. However, he deposes that he cannot say as to whether from where the devotees had brought liquor. He denied that devotees were consuming liquor in the room. He also deposes in his cross-examination that after conclusion of the altercation, all the persons come out including the accused and the deceased. He has stated in his deposition comprised in his cross-examination that at the relevant time Raj Kumar was also there. 10-15 persons have been deposed by this witness to have assembled on the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposes that Moti Ram was already having a knife in his hand and that Moti Ram stabbed Beli Ram in his presence. 10. PW-2, Bhag Chand in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 25.4.2012, a religious function was organized in the house of Bir Singh and some of the devotees were performing ‘Kritan’. At about 11.00 p.m., Bir Singh has been deposed by this witness to have come to serve food to the congregation. In the meantime, accused Man Singh has been deposed to have entered in the room and threatened either to stop the ‘kirtan’, otherwise, he would commit murder and after meeting threats he left the room. After five minutes, Man Singh has been deposed by this witness to have again entered the room. In the meantime, accused Man Singh has been deposed to have entered in the room and threatened either to stop the ‘kirtan’, otherwise, he would commit murder and after meeting threats he left the room. After five minutes, Man Singh has been deposed by this witness to have again entered the room. Man Singh and Moti Ram, both of whom this witness has identified in the Court, have been further deposed by this witness to have dragged Beli Ram out of the room. In the verandah, accused Man Singh has been deposed by this witness to have caught hold of Beli Ram and Moti Ram stabbed Beli Ram in his chest with knife which he was carrying in his left hand. Thereafter, he deposes that blood started oozing out of the wound and that Beli Ram told him that he was stabbed by Moti Ram and he fell down on the floor. He continues to depose that they carried Beli Ram for treatment towards Neoli and when they reached at Neoli, Sabja Chand, brother of Beli Ram, after checking him, found him dead. He further deposes that the dead body of Beli Ram was kept in one room in the house of Sabja Chand. The police has been deposed by this witness to have came the next morning. He along with Bir Singh have been deposed by him to have remained associated in the investigation conducted by the police. He further deposes that on 26.4.2012, the police took into possession various articles vide memo Ex.PW1/B in his presence and in the presence of Bir Singh. The articles have been deposed by this witness to have been sealed with seal ‘S’ in cloth parcels. Sample of seal has been deposed by this witness to have been drawn on a piece of cloth, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/C when have been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signature as well as the signatures of Bir Singh. The parcels Ex.P-1 to Ex. P-5 have been deposed by this witness to be the same. They have been deposed by this witness to have been prepared and sealed at the spot. Articles Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-11 have been identified by this witness to be the same, which were sealed by the police in his presence. Seal after its use has been deposed by this witness to have been handed over to PW-1 Bir Singh. They have been deposed by this witness to have been prepared and sealed at the spot. Articles Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-11 have been identified by this witness to be the same, which were sealed by the police in his presence. Seal after its use has been deposed by this witness to have been handed over to PW-1 Bir Singh. In his cross-examination, he deposed that they noticed knife in the hand of Moti Ram. He deposes that 40-40 persons were present on the spot. He continues to depose that before felling on the floor, Beli Ram told that he was stabbed by Moti Ram. He has also deposed in his cross-examination that knife was thrown by the accused on the side of verandah and was recovered from that place. 11. PW-3 Vijay Kumar deposes that on 24.4.2012, hehad gone with his wife to the house of Beli Ram, who is maternal uncle of his wife at Village Satesh. He deposes that Beli Ram, father of PW-1 had invited two deities and on 25.4.2012, there was also religious function in the house of PW-1. At about 11 p.m., he along with Ram Saran, Dola Ram, Moti Ram, Belu Ram, Beli Ram, Bhag Chand etc., were sitting in the room of the house of Moti Ram and were performing ‘Kritan’. At about 11 p.m. accused Man Singh entered the room and threatened not to make noise, otherwise, he would commit murder. He further deposes that, thereafter he left the room and returned after five minutes and had a scuffle with Beli Ram. He further deposes that, subsequently, they came out of the room in the verandah and followed them. In the verandah, Man Singh caught hold of Beli Ram and Moti Ram stabbed Beli Ram with knife in his chest. Both the accused have been identified by this witness in the Court to be the same. He has also deposed that Beli Ram told them that he has been stabbed by Moti Ram and thereafter, he fell down on the floor. He continue to depose that blood started coming out from the wound. He deposes that thereafter they lifted Beli Ram for his treatment and brought him to Neoli. Wen they reached near the house of Sabja Chand, brother of Beli Ram, Subja Chand was called and he found Beli Ram to be dead. He continue to depose that blood started coming out from the wound. He deposes that thereafter they lifted Beli Ram for his treatment and brought him to Neoli. Wen they reached near the house of Sabja Chand, brother of Beli Ram, Subja Chand was called and he found Beli Ram to be dead. Thereafter, the dead body of Beli Ram was kept in one room of the house of Sabja Chand. Knife Ex.P-7 has been deposed by this witness to be the same. In his cross-examination, he deposes that he heard Beli Ram saying that he was given knife blow by Moti Ram. 12. PW-4 Dr. M.L. Bandhu, has proved on record post mortem report Ex.PW4/C. He deposes that he along with Dr. Ashok Rana conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased. On examination of the dead body, they noticed:- “EXTERNAL APPEARANCE:- Moderately built body measuring 5x2” rigor mortis present. No decomposition was seen. The person was wearing leg trouser, white shirt and blue underwear. We noticed two injuries on the dead body, on over right chest 3 cm from right nipple measuring 2 cm and wound gaping was present. Another wound was found on posterior aspect of right thigh measuring 3 cm and wound was gaping exposing underline muscle. CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD : Normal. THORAX A stab wound 3cm medial to right nipple measuring 2 cm. was seen and a probe could be passed up to the depth of 5 cm. There was extra vasation on blood in intercostal muscles and pectralis major and punctured. Extra vasation approximately 6x7 cm in size. Right lung showed punctured wound present in middle lobe and the lung was collapsed Frank blood approx. 300-350 ml was present on right thoracic cavity. The rest of the findings were normal.” He deposes that on the basis of the findings given above, they opined that the person died owing to haemorrhage (intra thoracic) causing severe respiratory distress and cardio respiratory collapse. Viscera has been deposed by this witness to have been sent for chemical examination. He further deposes that as per report Ex.PW4/b, no alcohol/poison could be detected in the contents of the parcel sent for analysis. Post mortem report Ex.PW4/C has been deposed by this to be bearing his signature as well as the signatures of Dr. Ashok Rana. Viscera has been deposed by this witness to have been sent for chemical examination. He further deposes that as per report Ex.PW4/b, no alcohol/poison could be detected in the contents of the parcel sent for analysis. Post mortem report Ex.PW4/C has been deposed by this to be bearing his signature as well as the signatures of Dr. Ashok Rana. He further deposes that stab injury sustained by deceased is possible with the help of knife Ex.P-7, shown to this witness in Court. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that injury sustained by the deceased can possibly be caused by fall on hard surface. 13. PW-5, HHC Laxman Dass deposes that on 4.5.2012, MHC Tara Chand, P.S. Bhunter had handed over to him six parcels duly sealed with seals along with sample seals vide R.C. No.46/12 and he deposited the same at RFSL, Gutkar and thereafter handed over the receipt to MHC. 14. PW-6 M.C. Ved Vayas, proved Ex.PW4/A, copy of report No.4, dated 26.4.2012 which has been deposed by this witness to be the true and correct copy of the original brought by him in the Court. 15. PW-7 Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Director, Physics and Ballistics, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mandi deposes that two sealed parcels were received in the laboratory on 4.5.2012 through C, Luxman Dass and on their examination, he issued report Ex.PW7/A. Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 have been deposed by this witness to be the same parcels which bears his signatures. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the case property was not received for chemical examination. 16. PW-8 SI-SHO, Lal Chand deposes that after completion of investigation and receipt of reports of chemical examiner, he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 17. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the case property was not received for chemical examination. 16. PW-8 SI-SHO, Lal Chand deposes that after completion of investigation and receipt of reports of chemical examiner, he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 17. PW-9 H.C. Tara Chand deposes that on 26.4.2012, he was officiating SHO of P.S. Bhunter and on receipt of statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. recorded by SI-SHO, Asho Sain, he recorded FIR Ex.PW9/A. He further deposes that on 26.4.2012, SI-SHO Ashok Kumar deposed with him a parcel sealed with 8 seals of seal ‘S’ stated to be containing blood stained jacket of deceased Beli Ram, another parcel, sealed with six seals of seal S, stated to be containing knife, third parcel, sealed with four seals of seal S, stated to be contained soil, fourth parcel sealed with 4 seals of seal S, stated to be containing a blood sample in a matchbox and fifth parcel sealed with 4 seals of seal S, stated to be containing controlled sample of soil and sand along with sample seal. Entry at serial No.69 of the Register No.19 has been made by him. He further deposes that on the same day C. Bhupinder Singh deposited viscera of deceased with him qua which he made an entry at Sr. No. 70 of 2012 in the register. He further deposed that on the same day, C. Bhupinder Singh deposited with him a parcel sealed with 4 seals of seal CH, stated to be containing clothes of the deceased which were entered by him at serial No. 71 of the register. He continues to depose that aforesaid articles were sent to RFSL, Gutkar through HHC Luxman Dass No.154 vide R.C. No. 46, who after depositing the case property handed over the R.C and receipt to him. He proved Ex.PW9/B, copy of abstract of Malkahan register and Ex.PW9/C, copy of R.C.. Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C have been deposed by this witness to be true and correct copies of the original brought by him in Court. 18. PW-10 S.I. Ashok Kumar deposes that he had partly investigated the case. He deposes that on 26.4.2012, at about 4.15 a.m., he received information from Pradhan, G.P. Deori Dhar and report Ex.PW6/A was recorded in the daily diary register. Thereafter, he visited the spot along with other members of the police party. 18. PW-10 S.I. Ashok Kumar deposes that he had partly investigated the case. He deposes that on 26.4.2012, at about 4.15 a.m., he received information from Pradhan, G.P. Deori Dhar and report Ex.PW6/A was recorded in the daily diary register. Thereafter, he visited the spot along with other members of the police party. He deposes that when, he reached Neoli, he recorded the statement of Bir Singh under Section 154, Cr.P.C., Ex.PW1/A, which was sent to police station for registration of the FIR. He further deposes that he took into possession the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest papers Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. He further deposes that thereafter he went to the spot along with complainant Bir Singh and prepared the spot map Ex.PW10/A. He further deposes that he took into possession blood along with controlled sample lying in the verandah of Moti Ram’s house, knife, the blood stained jacket, which was worn by Beli Ram, vide memo Ex.PW1/B in the presence of witnesses. These articles have been deposed by this witness to have been sealed in separate parcels with seal S and the sample of the seal impression was drawn on separate piece of cloth Ex.PW1/C. The accused have been deposed by this witness to have been arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E. He further deposes that in his investigation, it had come that two deities were invited by PW-1 Bir Singh in his house and ‘Devloos’ of deity were performing ‘kirtan’ and that accused persons attacked deceased Beli Ram. Accused Moti Ram stabbed Beli Ram and accused Man Singh caught hold of deceased. In cross-examination, he deposes that when they reached Neoli, many people had assembled on the spot and the proceeding at Neoli took about 1 or 2 hours. He further deposes that the knife was taken into possession from the spot. He has admitted the suggestion that knife is not in a banded condition in photograph Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-6. He deposes that the knife may have bend when the same was kept in jar. He denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the case properly. It has been denied by this witness that no recoveries were made from the spot and that the case property was tampered with. He has also denied the suggestion that the finger prints found on the knife were not intentionally taken by the police party. He denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the case properly. It has been denied by this witness that no recoveries were made from the spot and that the case property was tampered with. He has also denied the suggestion that the finger prints found on the knife were not intentionally taken by the police party. He has further denied the suggestion that a false case has been registered against accused persons at the instance of the complainant party. 19. The learned trial Court construed the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 qua the incident to be imbued with veracity. The reason as put forth by the learned trial Court in imputing/imbuing credibility to the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW-3 qua the incident was founded on the fact of theirs being eye witnesses or theirs having rendered an inspiring vivid ocular version qua the occurrence, besides their testimonies while being bereft of inter se and intra se contradictions, were, hence, construed to be inspiring confidence. Consequently, the learned trial Court had found it safe and fit, on the strength on their testimonies to record findings of conviction against the accused. Moreover, the learned trial Court also relied upon the testimony of PW-4 Dr. M.L. Bandhu, who proved post mortem report Ex.PW4/C and had unequivocally deposed qua the fact of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased being sustainable or causable by knife, Ex. P-7, deposed by the purported eye witnesses to the incident to have been used by accused Moti Ram. 20. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with discerning care and circumspection, delved into the entire evidence on record. 21. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, not only the testimonies of the purported eye witnesses to the occurrence are gripped with the vice of severe and blatant interse and intra se contradictions, hence rendering them unworthy of credence, as also the probative value of knife, Ex.P-7 recovered under recovery memo Ex.PW1/B in its purportedly connecting the accused in the commission of offence alleged against them, looses vigour and potency. Consequently, this Court would also not imbue/impute any evidentiary value to the post mortem report, Ex.PW4/C proved by PW-4, in which he has disclosed that the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased were causable or sustainable by the user of knife, Ex. P-7. 22. Consequently, this Court would also not imbue/impute any evidentiary value to the post mortem report, Ex.PW4/C proved by PW-4, in which he has disclosed that the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased were causable or sustainable by the user of knife, Ex. P-7. 22. Initially, the testimony of PW-1 is to be adverted to. On its close and incisive reading, it, emanates that though he has deposed in his examination-in-chief, qua the factum of Man Singh accused having arrived at the site of occurrence and his having meted out threats against the ‘kirtan’, organized in the house of PW-1, being continued, in absence, whereof, he threatened that he would commit murder. However, subsequently on his departure from the place of occurrence, he has been deposed to have re-entered the room and to have had an altercation with Beli Ram, in which altercation with Beli Ram, the accused Man Singh was joined by accused Moti Ram. Both have been deposed to have dragged Moti Ram out of the room in the verandah. However, he has deposed that Moti Ram, who was having a knife in his right hand, stabbed Beli Ram in his chest. Enigmatically, there is no role attributed to accused Maan Singh, who, had arrived at the site of occurrence and protested against the ‘Kirtan’ being organized there and had meted out threats to stop the ‘Kirtan’, and in case, it is not stopped, he would commit murder. Enigmatically, also it has emerged, in the examination-in-chief of PW-1 that Beli Ram before falling on the floor had communicated to him that he had been stabbed by Moti Ram. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that at the relevant time Raj Kumar was also there. However, Raj Kumar was not joined as witness. Surprisingly, also when he concedes to the fact that 10-15 persons had assembled on the spot, none interceded to halt the scuffle which ensued between Beli Ram and both the accused. Moreover, he tacitly concedes to the fact that the devotees were consuming liquor in the room which tacit admission qua the said fact arising in his cross-examination, in as much, as, when he feigns ignorance as to wherefrom the devotees had brought liquor conveys that the entire congregation was inebriated. Moreover, he tacitly concedes to the fact that the devotees were consuming liquor in the room which tacit admission qua the said fact arising in his cross-examination, in as much, as, when he feigns ignorance as to wherefrom the devotees had brought liquor conveys that the entire congregation was inebriated. Even, though, accused Maan Singh was the initiator of the scuffle, inasmuch, as, he had meted out threats to the congregation, to stop the ‘kirtan’ which threats in case remained un-complied with, he would commit murder. However, for reiteration, he did not deliver the purported stab blow in the chest of deceased Beli Ram, rather the purported stab blow in the chest of the deceased Beli Ram was allegedly delivered by accused Moti Ram. It is both unnatural, as well, as, enigmatic that a person, whose tempers were frayed, and who had advanced threats to the congregation performing ‘kirtan’ at the house of PW-1, hence portrayed his nourishing a vendetta against the congregation performing ‘kitran’, in the house of PW-1, in as much, as, he had threatened against the performance of kirtan and in absence, whereof, he threatened to commit murder, did not ultimately purportedly commit the act. Hence, when the penal act was purportedly consummated rather by accused Moti Ram, who, however, has been omitted to be displayed in the testimonies of eye witnesses to be nourishing any frayed tempers against the congregation, the attribution of an incriminatory role to him as the principal offender and omission of attribution of the role of principal offender to Man Singh, is, itself seeped in pervasive mystery, which would not have come about in case an incriminatory role, as, a principal aggressor or as a principal offender had been attributed to accused Man Singh. Omission to attribute such a role to him by the prosecution naturally surges forth the concomitant inference that the entire prosecution story, is, also ingrained with prevarication arising from unnaturalness. Even though, PW-1, the purported eye witness to the occurrence, deposed that, he saw accused Moti Ram to be delivering fatal stab blow in the chest of Beli Ram. Nonetheless, the said fact appears to be wholly a prevarication in the face of the further fact existing in his examination-in-chief, wherein he has deposed that the deceased Beli Ram had, before falling on the floor, told him that he has been stabbed by Moti Ram. Nonetheless, the said fact appears to be wholly a prevarication in the face of the further fact existing in his examination-in-chief, wherein he has deposed that the deceased Beli Ram had, before falling on the floor, told him that he has been stabbed by Moti Ram. The aforesaid fact as deposed by PW-1 in his examination in chief has also been consistently deposed by PW-2 and PW-3. The existence of the aforesaid fact in the examinations-inchief of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 impinging upon the revelation qua the genesis of the occurrence having been made by the deceased to them whereby the deceased before falling on the floor disclosed to them of Moti Ram having stabbed him, nails and clinches the inference that, its, existence, hence, portrays the fact of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 having not witnessed the occurrence, rather, they were apprised by the deceased Beli Ram of accused Moti Ram having delivered a stab blow on his chest at a time when on his receiving the purported knife blow on his chest, he fell on the floor. Consequently, it, appears that only the purported dying declaration qua the occurrence was made by Beli Ram to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. However, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have twisted and concocted the genesis of the occurrence so as to ingeniously project that they had witnessed the occurrence, whereas, they did not, for in case they did, there was no occasion for them to unravel in their respective testimonies of any disclosure qua the genesis of the occurrence having been made to them by deceased Beli Ram, before he fell on the floor, after his having received the purported knife blow. Even the fact of the purported dying declaration as made by deceased Beli Ram to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be believed nor does it constitute any evidence of probative value, especially when the genesis of the prosecution story, is, not anvilled upon the purported dying declaration made by the deceased Beli Ram to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 rather, is, anvilled upon the eye witness account qua the incident, manifested in the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, whose depositions are, however, incredible having the tinge of unnaturalness. 23. PW-2 has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 qua the incident. However, PW-2 has contradicted and improved upon the testimony of PW-1. 23. PW-2 has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 qua the incident. However, PW-2 has contradicted and improved upon the testimony of PW-1. Though, PW-1 has not attributed any role to coaccused Man Singh in the incident, yet in his deposition in his examination-in-chief, PW-2, has deposed of both Moti Ram and Man Singh having dragged the deceased Beli Ram out of the Room and brought him to the verandah and in the verandah accused Man Singh is alleged to have caught hold of Beli Ram and Moti Ram is deposed to have stabbed Beli Ram in his chest with knife which he was carrying in his left hand. The said improvement is dire and wide. It has immense ramifications, inasmuch, as it belies the veracity of the depositions of both PW-1 and PW-2, in as much, as, both omit to depose in harmony and consistency with each other, qua the fact of the role of co-accused Man Singh, in, the occurrence, as such, they are to be construed to have not simultaneously witnessed the occurrence or rather a conclusion can also be formed that as a matter of fact, none witnessed the occurrence and that they are rendering a prevaricated and untruthful account qua the occurrence. 24. The above inference is accentuated by the factum of none in the congregation having interceded in the purported scuffle, which ensued interse the accused and the deceased, which lack of intervention by any member of the congregation renders open an inference that the incident did not take place in the manner as projected by the prosecution. Further, fortification to the conclusion aforesaid, as a natural concomitant, is garnered by the factum of, though Raj Kumar having been deposed both by PW-1 and PW-2 to have come to the site of occurrence, yet his omission to be joined as a witness, succors the conclusion that his omission was goaded by the investigator, leaning towards rendering a concocted account qua the occurrence, through PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, rather projecting a truthful and impartisan version qua it. Even PW-3, though has deposed in tandem with PW-2 qua the occurrence, inasmuch, as alike/akin too, PW-2, he has attributed the role, to, co-accused Man Singh of the latter having caught hold of deceased Beli Ram and accused Moti Ram having delivered the fatal stab blow on his chest. Even PW-3, though has deposed in tandem with PW-2 qua the occurrence, inasmuch, as alike/akin too, PW-2, he has attributed the role, to, co-accused Man Singh of the latter having caught hold of deceased Beli Ram and accused Moti Ram having delivered the fatal stab blow on his chest. Consequently, with his rendering a version in tandem with PW-2 and in contradiction and contra distinction to PW-1, his, alike testimony to PW-2, hence, being ingrained with inter se and intra se contradictions qua the occurrence with the testimony of PW-1, too, renders his testimony to be unebelievable. Moreover, though both PW-1 and PW-2 depose that at the apposite and relevant time, they had witnessed accused Moti Ram to be holding and wielding a knife in his left hand with which he delivered a blow on the chest of Beli Ram. However, in the narration qua the incident preceding to the fact as unfolded by them in the later part of their respective examinations-in-chief, of theirs having witnessed accused Moti Ram to be holding or wielding a knife with which he delivered a stab blow on the chest of the deceased, there, is no narration or articulation by both PW-1 and PW-2, of, theirs having noticed accused Moti Ram holding or wielding a knife, hence the abrupt communication by them in the later part of their examinations-in-chief, of theirs having witnessed accused Moti Ram to be wielding or holding a knife with which he purportedly delivered a stab blow on the chest of the deceased Beli Ram, as such, appears to be an afterthought, as well, as an ingeniously engineered move on their part to connect accused Moti Ram and Man Singh in the commission of the offence of murder of Beli Ram. Such ingenuity reeks of untruth and is to be discarded. 25. Such ingenuity reeks of untruth and is to be discarded. 25. Even, PW-3 in his entire examination-in-chief omitted to disclose the fact that in the entire train of events preceding the delivery of the purported knife blow by accused Moti Ram, on, the chest of the deceased Beli Ram, he had ever noticed the accused Moti Ram to be holding or wielding a knife, hence, when even in the scuffle inter se the accused and the deceased which occurred inside the room of Moti Ram, none of the witnesses, plain speakingly voice the fact of theirs having noticed accused Moti Ram to be holding or wielding a knife, hence, the sudden and abrupt disclosure by PW1, PW-2 and PW-3, of theirs having noticed or witnessed the accused Moti Ram to be holding or wielding a knife with which he delivered the fatal stab blow on the chest of the deceased Beli Ram, is, a fact which tellingly denudes the prosecution version of its veracity, as also, renders the fact of PW-1, PW-2 and PW- 3 having witnessed the occurrence, to be bereft of any truth. In aftermath, the reliance placed upon the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 by the learned trial Court was ill thought as also, in-sagacious. 26. Even, in the manner in which knife Ex.P-7 was recovered pervasively corrodes the efficacy of its recovery and consequent user by accused Moti Ram. The simple reason is that it was taken into possession by the police under memo Ex.PW1/B in the presence of PW- 1 and PW-2. However, given the fact as imminent from the reading of the testimony of Investigation Officer, PW-10, that at the time of recovery of knife, it was straight yet when it was produced in the Court it was bent, renders its purported recovery and user to be susceptible to doubt. The reason as afforded by the learned trial Court to imbue veracity to it and its constituting an efficacious piece of evidence, was untenably based upon an implausible explanation rendered by the IO, that on its having come to be inserted and placed inside a jar of a size smaller then it, it came to acquire a bend. The reason as afforded by the learned trial Court to imbue veracity to it and its constituting an efficacious piece of evidence, was untenably based upon an implausible explanation rendered by the IO, that on its having come to be inserted and placed inside a jar of a size smaller then it, it came to acquire a bend. The said reason was unacceptable, more so, when other items as were taken into possession simultaneously with Ext.P-7 were sealed in cloth parcels, obviously, when knife Ex.P-7 could well have also been, alongwith other items, for preparation of parcels whereof cloth was available, hence alike them, placed inside a cloth parcel, yet, it, having come to be placed inside a jar of a size smaller than it, conveys, that it was not recovered in the presence of the witnesses to it, rather was recovered at a time, subsequent to the recovery of other items effected under memo Ex.PW1/B. It appears, hence, that the IO at his own instance concocted the recovery of the knife, Ex.P-7, to, falsely implicate the accused. Consequently, the findings as recorded by the learned trial Court below are wholly anchored upon gross mis-appreciation of evidence on record and deserve interference by this Court. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is set-aside qua accused Moti Ram. Accused Moti Ram is acquitted of the offences charged. He be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused, be refunded to him. Records be sent back.