JUDGMENT (Per:V.K. Bist, J.) By the judgment under appeal, the appellant Narendra @ Naru @ Pratap Singh Pundir has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant has further been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. It was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Prem Singh (PW-1) lodged a report (Ext.-A1) with the police station Muni-ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal with the assertion that he owns one shop as well as one hotel at Byasi Market. He had two servants, namely, Gopal Singh (deceased) and Raju-Nepali (injured). Gopal Singh intended for leave on 17th and 18th December, 2011 to attend a marriage, hence the complainant directed Gopal Singh to arrange an alternative, so that service may not get affected. In the evening of 06.12.2011, Gopal Singh brought two persons, namely Narendra (appellant herein) and Jaibeer in the hotel. In the morning of 07.12.2011, Karn Bahadur-Nepali informed the complainant that both his servants, soaked in the pool of blood, are lying in unconscious state. Both the injured were taken to hospital with the help of 108 Ambulance, where Gopal Singh succumbed to his injuries. Since, Raju-Nepali was unconscious, he was referred to Doon Hospital, Dehradun. The complainant apprehended that the appellant, togetherwith Jaibeer, quarreled with the victims, which resulted into the death of Gopal Singh and injuries to Raju-Nepali. 3. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR (Ext.-A4) was registered. After the inquest was prepared, autopsy was conducted and following ante-mortem injuries were found by PW4 Dr. J.P. Nautiyal on the person of Gopal Singh. 1. Lacerated wound measuring 3.5 x 1.0 cm. placed vertically 2.5 cm. above medieval angle of eyebrow. 2. Lacerated wound measuring 2.8 cm. x 1.2 cm., placed obliquely over forehead 1.0 cm. above right eyebrow. Alongwith these lacerated wounds, there were multiple abrasions on the forehead. There was large depressed fracture of frontal bone of forehead in the centre measuring about 4.5 x 3.4 cm. The fracture was extending over left temporal region measuring 10.5 cm. in length. The brain was lacerated. Heart chambers were filled with blood. 200-ml. semi-digested food was found in the stomach. There was large depressed fracture of frontal bone of forehead in the centre measuring about 4.5 x 3.4 cm. The fracture was extending over left temporal region measuring 10.5 cm. in length. The brain was lacerated. Heart chambers were filled with blood. 200-ml. semi-digested food was found in the stomach. Semi digested food was present in the small intestine. Large intestine was filled with faecal mater and foul smell gases. Cause of death was syncope as a result of ante-mortem injuries. According to the doctor, the death could have been caused 12 to 24 hrs. before conducting postmortem and the death could have been caused by inflicting some hard and blunt object. 4. PW-5 Dr. Uttam Kharola, medically examined the injured-Raju on 07.12.2011 at 8:45 a.m. and following injuries were found on his person: 1. Lacerated would on the forehead on right side 1.5 cm. x 4 cm. x 1 mm. With irregular margins. Fresh bleeding. 2. Contusion on the nose. Clotted blood present from both nostrils. 3. Swelling on the both eyes (bleak eyes) present. 4. Active bleeding from right ear present. According to Dr. Uttam Kharola, the injuries could have been caused by some hard and blunt object. All injuries were fresh in nature. The doctor proved the medical report (Ext. A-6). 5. Investigation of the case was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Kamal Kumar Lunthi (PW-7)-Investigating Officer, who, during investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses, made corresponding entry in the G.D., and prepared site plan. After the accused was apprehended, on his pointing, the baton, used in the crime, was recovered. The I.O., took in his possession the blood stained articles, recovered from the place of occurrence, which were sent for Forensic examination. Report of Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory is Ext. A-42 on record. After the investigation was concluded, it culminated into filing of charge sheet against the accused/appellant. 6. As a result, the trial commenced, the trial Court framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302/34, 307, 394 and 411 I.P.C. against the accused/ appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused/appellant did not produce any evidence in his defence. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 IPC. 7. We have heard Mr. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused/appellant did not produce any evidence in his defence. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 IPC. 7. We have heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate General for the State and have gone through the entire material available on record. 8. First and foremost argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the very foundation of the prosecution story is erected upon the ocular version of PW-2 i.e. the injured, but there is no corroboration of his testimony. He submits that prosecution has miserably failed to show any motive or enmity behind the crime. It is contended that besides the victims, there were three other persons sleeping in the restaurant at night and probably, they were responsible for committing the crime. Our attention is drawn to the cross-examination of injured witness (PW2), who has stated that he never met appellant, before the day of incident. He contended that PW-2 did not disclose the role of absconder i.e. Jaibeer. It is vehemently contended that FIR, written at the behest of Karan Bahadur, was scribed by one Sardar Singh Pundir, but none of these witnesses were produced in evidence. He lastly argued that it was a case of sudden provocation and appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. 9. The injured witness (PW-2), while tendering evidence, has categorically stated that on the day of incident, he was serving in the hotel of the complainant. On the day of incident, after departure of the owner, there were only four persons in the hotel i.e. he himself, Narendra, Gopal and Jaibeer. (This version of the injured witness is fully corroborated with the evidence tendered by PW-1 i.e. the complainant). PW-2 also identified the appellant while recording his testimony. He also stated that on the day of incident, all of them slept after taking meal. There was tube light and electric bulb light in the room. At 12:00 in the night, he heard the shrikes of Gopal. He saw that appellant was hitting baton on Gopal, and on his intervention, the appellant hit baton on his head too, as a result thereof, he became unconscious. There was tube light and electric bulb light in the room. At 12:00 in the night, he heard the shrikes of Gopal. He saw that appellant was hitting baton on Gopal, and on his intervention, the appellant hit baton on his head too, as a result thereof, he became unconscious. We find no reason to disbelieve the ocular version of the injured witness and conviction can be based on the solitary evidence tendered by the victim. Minor contradictions, as pointed out by the defence, are not, at all, tenable. 10. Insofar as the argument in respect of motive is concerned, the accused/ appellant could not show as to what was the reason to implicate him falsely, leaving the real culprits, therefore, taking shelter of absence of motive in commission of the crime, cannot be accepted and should be rejected at the threshold. 11. It is then contended that at the most, it was a case of sudden provocation, and appellant cannot be punished under Section 302 IPC, and could only be punished under Section 304 IPC. This argument is without basis, as at no point of time, this was the case of the defence. Even no suggestion was made that the accused/appellant was not present at the place of incident. 12. The factum that the weapon i.e. the baton, used in the crime, recovered on the pointing of the appellant, is unchallenged. Moreover, the doctors, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and that of conducted medical examination of the injured, have opined that the injuries would have been inflicted with some hard and blunt object. The defence could not show otherwise, about the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims. Besides it, the bloodstained seized by the I.O. from the place of occurrence and the report thereof submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, suggest that all, on the articles thus sent, were found with human bloodstain. The defence also could not show that the articles so sent were tempered with or exchanged, inasmuch as, unsafe during the period, it sent for Forensic examination. 13. The defence also could not show that the articles so sent were tempered with or exchanged, inasmuch as, unsafe during the period, it sent for Forensic examination. 13. We, accordingly, conclude the matter and hold that, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case, as brought on record in the form of evidence by the prosecution, the trial Court had no other option but to convict the appellant in the manner he has been convicted by the judgment under appeal. Having regard to the conviction, we are of the view that the sentence awarded is commensurate with the conviction and, accordingly, there is no scope of interference with the judgment and sentence under appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this judgment, be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned and a copy, alongwith the Lower Court Records, be sent to the concerned trial Court.