JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 Cr. P.C. convict Dipan Lal has assailed judgment dated 02.06.2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 3-S/7 of 2007 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Dipan Lal, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve imprisonment for life and pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. It is the case of prosecution that accused Dipan Lal, the only son, was residing with his parents Sant Lal (PW.1) and Smt. Harkali (deceased) in village Jakhi, P.O. Kheshdhar, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. In the night intervening 31.01.2007-01.02.2007, at about 12.30 AM-1.00 AM, Tara Singh (PW.2) heard noise coming from the house of his neighbour Sant Lal (PW.1), who from the verandah of his house, could see the accused quarrelling with his mother. He also heard Sant Lal (PW.1) say Bete isko Chhor de. At that time Harkali was crying. Tara Singh went to the house of Sher Singh (PW.3), real brother of the deceased, who was also residing closeby, wherefrom he went to the house of Sohan Lal (PW.4). Both Sohan Lal and Suresh Kumar came to the house of Sant Lal, where they were informed that accused had murdered Harkali with a Darat. Police was informed of the incident by Sant Lal, information whereof was recorded in the daily diaryRapat (Ex.PW.8/A). Police party headed by SHO Pritam Singh (PW.13) visited the spot where Sant Lal got his statement (Ex.PW.13/A) recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. on the basis of which FIR No. 21/07 dated 01.02.2007 (Ex.PW.10/A) was registered by MHC Tenjen Chhering (PW.10), under the provisions of Section 302 IPC at Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., against the accused. Pritam Singh conducted the investigation on the spot. Sample of blood stained soil as also weapon of offence (Ex.P-1), left by the accused was taken into possession and sealed. Inquest report (Ex.PW13/H) prepared and dead body sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Ranveer Vardhan (PW.11), who issued postmortem report (Ex.PW.11/B). Seized articles were deposited with MHC Tenjen Chhering (PW.10). The accused was arrested and his blood soiled clothes, so seized by the police sent for chemical analysis. Inquest report (Ex.PW13/H) prepared and dead body sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Ranveer Vardhan (PW.11), who issued postmortem report (Ex.PW.11/B). Seized articles were deposited with MHC Tenjen Chhering (PW.10). The accused was arrested and his blood soiled clothes, so seized by the police sent for chemical analysis. Reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (Ex.PW.13/N and Ex.PW.11/G) were taken on record by the police. Accused was also got medically examined from Dr. Ranveer Vardhan. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challanwas presented in the Court for trial. 3. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence. In defence he placed on record report (Ex.DX), establishing factum of his blood group to be the one found on his clothes so seized by the police. 5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel, on behalf of the appellant as also Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Addl. Advocate General, on behalf of the State. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. 7. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Prosecution case rests upon three sets of witnesses (i) Neighbours Tara Singh (PW.2) and Sohan Lal (PW.4) who supported the prosecution and Sant Lal (PW.1) and Sher Singh (PW.3), relatives of the accused, who were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor; (ii) Witnesses of recovery of incriminating articles linking the accused to the crime, namely Pritam Singh (PW.13), Kewal Ram (PW.5), Kirpa Ram (PW.7), Tenjen Chhering (PW.10), Dr. Gian Thakur (PW.14) and Rajesh Kumar (PW.15). (iii) And police officials Ramesh Chand (PW.6), Ramesh Chand (PW.8), Mohinder Singh (PW.9) and Dr. Ranveer Vardhan (PW.11). 8. Tara Singh (PW.2) in his unrebutted testimony categorically states that in the middle of night he heard noise coming from the house of Sant Lal. He came out and from the verandah, saw the accused quarrelling with the deceased. Sant Lal asked the accused to leave her. He categorically states that in spite of darkness he could see the accused pull the deceased who was crying. He went to the house of Sher Singh, who in turn went to the house of Sant Lal who narrated the entire incident. He saw the dead body on the spot. Thereafter, he returned home. In the morning police came. It is not in dispute that accused is the only son of Sant Lal hence his version, in cross-examination, that he could not see, who was pulling the deceased stands clarified for he heard Sant Lal saying Bete isko Chhor de. This witness thus clearly establishes the presence of accused on the spot; who was quarrelling with the deceased who was crying; and father of the accused pleading to leave her. Significantly there is no cross-examination to the fact that the witness went to the house of Sher Singh and Sohan Lal, which version in fact stands corroborated by both of them. 9. Significantly there is no cross-examination to the fact that the witness went to the house of Sher Singh and Sohan Lal, which version in fact stands corroborated by both of them. 9. Sohan Lal (PW.4) in his uncontroverted testimony deposes that soon after Tara Singh approached him, he alongwith Suresh Kumar went to the house of Sant Lal, where he found both Sant Lal and Sher Singh sitting, who informed that accused had cut his mother. Sant Lal informed the police, who asked them to guard the body. Thereafter all four of them went to the place where dead body was lying and kept sitting till the time police came. The weapon of offence i.e. Darat was lying near the body. Significantly this version goes unrebutted as there is no cross-examination to this part of the testimony of the witness. 10. Trial Court has returned findings to the effect that Sant Lal (PW.1) and Sher Singh (PW.3) being father and uncle turned hostile only to save the accused. We are in agreement with the same. In Court, Sant Lal states that on the date of incident he was living in Doghri (second house) in Village Kharua. His daughter Susheela, who is deaf and dumb came and informed him that quarrel had taken place in village Jakhi. He immediately left for the village. When he reached home, only his blind brother was there. He called for Tara Singh (PW.2), who instead of coming went towards the house of Sher Singh (PW.3), who was not aware about the whereabouts of the deceased. Thereafter alongwith Sher Singh, he went to search for his wife and on way towards to the cremation ground, near the Bowri, he saw the dead body of his wife lying on the land. At this juncture this witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 11. It is a settled principle of law that part of the testimony which inspires confidence, even if the witness is declared hostile, can be considered for proving the prosecution case. [See: Haradhan Das Versus State of West Bengal, (2013) 2 SCC 197 ; Bhajju Versus State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 327 ; Krishan Versus State of Haryana, (2013) 3 SCC 280 ; Attar Singh Versus State of Maharashtra, (2013) 11 SCC 719 and Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another Versus State of Mahrasthra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 ]. [See: Haradhan Das Versus State of West Bengal, (2013) 2 SCC 197 ; Bhajju Versus State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 327 ; Krishan Versus State of Haryana, (2013) 3 SCC 280 ; Attar Singh Versus State of Maharashtra, (2013) 11 SCC 719 and Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another Versus State of Mahrasthra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 ]. This witness admits that accused was physically fit. Though witness denies having made statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. with which he was confronted, we find this version of his not to be inspiring in confidence. He tries to protect the accused by stating that his mental condition is not good, but admits not to have got him medically treated anywhere. The witness admits to have searched for the accused during the night. Why so? He does not explain. Also with whom fight had taken in the village, he does not state. Also he states that there are enemies in the village but then no finger of suspicion is pointed towards anyone of them. He has further deposed that “I cannot say that some of my enemies killed my wife and foisted a false case against the accused (then stated), it is just possible.” He admits to have appended his signatures on memos (Ex.PW.1/A) form S-3 and S-4 but does not furnish any explanation or assign any reason as to why he signed the same. He admits that dead body of the deceased, blood soiled sample of the earth, grass and Darat were taken into possession by the police on the spot. Version of this witness that villagers had given beatings to the accused, in his cross-examination, is not corroborative of medical evidence on record. As per statement of Dr. Ranveer Vardhan (PW.11), when he examined the accused, so produced by Ramesh Chand (PW.6), no marks of injury were found on his body. 12. Sher Singh (PW.3) has also not supported the prosecution. But when confronted with his statement (Ex.PW.13/J) so recorded by the police, he admits his signatures thereupon. There is no explanation as to why he signed the same, for it is not his case that police coerced him to sign document or that he did so under any fear or threat. Version of this witness that on the night of incident accused was not in Village Jakhi, is uninspiring in confidence. There is no explanation as to why he signed the same, for it is not his case that police coerced him to sign document or that he did so under any fear or threat. Version of this witness that on the night of incident accused was not in Village Jakhi, is uninspiring in confidence. For if it were so, then why is it that he and Sant Lal went to look for the accused after they found the dead body lying at a walking distance of just 5 minutes from the house. 13. We find that even by way of link evidence, prosecution case stands proved on record. Kewal Ram (PW.5) took the Darat, so seized by the Investigating Officer, in a sealed parcel and handed it over to MHC Tenjen Chhering (PW.10). Reports of the Chemical Analyst (Ex.PW.11/G and Ex.13/N), so proved by Dr. Ranveer Vardhan (PW.11) and Pritam Singh (PW.13), clearly establish that soil and vegetative material so examined was similar to the one found on the clothes of the accused and the deceased. Also blood group of the deceased matched with the blood group found on the clothes of the accused. Attempt on the part of the accused to establish his blood group being similar to that of the deceased does not lead him anywhere. He justifies blood on his clothes by suggesting that it was on account of beatings given by local residents. Ex facie contention is untenable on fact and in law, for the doctor has opined that no injury was found on the body of the accused. 14. That it is a case of homicidal death, is not in dispute. In any event it stands proved through the testimony of Dr. Ranveer Vardhan (PW.11), who on examination in the postmortem report (Ex.PW.11/B) recorded as under:- “IInjuries 1. Approximately 20 CMs clean cut chopped wound at the base of skull posteriorly almost equally distributed on the outside of neck from mid line (posteriorly) and equally deep on all sides. Wound was wide open causing head to hang towards right side from the left out structures in the neck, that is, Trachea and part of skin at the anterior aspect of neck. Edges of wound were clean cut and at some points interrupted by the new cuts inside the wound broken bony pieces of vertebrae were present. Wound was wide open causing head to hang towards right side from the left out structures in the neck, that is, Trachea and part of skin at the anterior aspect of neck. Edges of wound were clean cut and at some points interrupted by the new cuts inside the wound broken bony pieces of vertebrae were present. Structures inside the widely open neck wound that is, muscles nerves and blood vessels found lacerated. It seemed that as if area has been hit by sharp edged weapon 3 to 4 times. All major blood vessels nerves and spinal cord at the level of second to fourth vertebrae were found cut. 2. A small bruise approximately 0.5 CM found over middle of the shin right sides leg was observed. Postmortem changes Hypostasis - present but the colour was very much faint over back and buttocks. Rigormortis - present in elbow joints and small joints of hands and feet. It had almost disappeared at hip and shoulder joint. Scalp: Incised posteriorly over the lower part of the occipital area. Hairs were entangled due to drying of blood that had seeped from wound area towards the scalp area. Skull was found normal. No fracture was visible or observed. Vertebrae Second to fourth cervical vertebrae were found cut and broken into pieces which were lying inside the widely open neck wound. Membranes of the brain were found intact a cut through injury at the level of involved vertebra was found at the spinal cord. Everything was normal over the thorax and abdomen. A cut injury (through and through) at the level of thyroid cartilage was found. Mouth and pharynx were otherwise normal. Certificate of cause of death:-Postmortem examination of the body suggested that the death was caused due to excessive heamorrhage (bleeding) from major vessels as a result of antermortem injury (described above) caused by the sharp edged weapon. Probable time that had elapsed: (a) Between injury and death. Death instantaneously to few minutes of the infliction of injuries. (b) Between death and postmortem examination approximately between 12 to 24 hours.” He has identified the weapon of offence i.e. the Darat (Ex.P-1) 15. Probable time that had elapsed: (a) Between injury and death. Death instantaneously to few minutes of the infliction of injuries. (b) Between death and postmortem examination approximately between 12 to 24 hours.” He has identified the weapon of offence i.e. the Darat (Ex.P-1) 15. Investigating Officer, Pritam Singh (PW.13), stepped into the witness box and proved to have correctly recorded statement of Sant Lal under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW.13/A) which was read over to the complainant, who signed the same after accepting contents thereof, to be true and correct. We see no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Investigating Officer has clearly proved the investigation so conducted by him on the spot, already referred to in the opening paragraphs of the judgment. In fact, he clarified that even in a dark night, person walking can be identified from the gallery of the house of Tara Singh. While finding holes in the prosecution case, much focus has been laid upon the spot memo (Ex.PW.13/B) and site plan (Ex.PW.13/L). Emphasis is laid on the fact that spot of crime was not visible from the house of Tara Singh. Submission on first brush appears to be plausible, but then close scrutiny of the prosecution case would only reveal that accused dragged the deceased from her hair (pleat) over a particular distance. Tara Singh had also heard Sant Lal saying Bete isko Chhor de. Both he and the Investigating Officer have clarified the position on this count. 16. We find conduct of the accused to have run away from the spot to be an additional circumstance pointing finger towards his guilt. Sant Lal (PW.1) does state that when I came to Jakhi from my Doghari, I did not find accused Deepan Lal in my house or in the village. In Court, he mentions presence of Susheela, who called him from his Dogri. This was at the time when quarrel was going on. Now why is it that Susheela has not examined in defence or he did not inform this fact to the police. Also this witness does state that he went out to search for the accused. 17. Thus, from the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, that accused committed murder of deceased Harkali 18. Also this witness does state that he went out to search for the accused. 17. Thus, from the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, that accused committed murder of deceased Harkali 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the 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 complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Findings cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.