JUDGMENT : P. S. Rana, J. : ” Both appeals filed against the same judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2008 titled State of HP v. Nikhil Soni and another decided on 25.10.2008. Hence both appeals are consolidated and disposed of by way of same judgment in order to avoid repetition. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. at Sujanpur near Post Office the accused persons intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Hari Chand resident of Ward No. 2 Baba Swarup Gir locality Sujanpur District Hamirpur H. P. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Kaku was working along with his father in the tea shop at Sidhu Chowk Sujanpur and on dated 16.4.2008 he had gone to the market at Sujanpur at about 8.15 p.m. and sister of deceased Seema Kumari had gone to the shop for cleaning utensils and was sitting on a bench outside the shop and her parents were sitting inside the shop. It is alleged by prosecution that accused persons came on a bike from post office side towards the shop of deceased Rajesh Kumar. It is alleged by prosecution that PW1 Seema Kumari heard the cries of quarrel and on hearing such cries she ran towards the place from where the cries were coming and when she reached near post office Tyala (small platform) she found that accused persons were giving beating to deceased Rajesh Kumar with kick and fist blows and deceased was lying on the ground with face upward the sky. It is alleged by prosecution that PW1 Seema Kumari asked accused persons as to why the accused persons were beating her brother deceased Rajesh Kumar and thereafter she cried for help and when she raised alarm accused persons driven the bike on the road by pushing PW1 Seema Kumari and fled away towards Hamirpur side. It is alleged by prosecution that PW1 Seema Kumari asked her deceased brother Rajesh Kumar about the reason of beating by accused persons and thereafter deceased told his sister PW1 Seema Kumari that accused persons had called the deceased a drunkard and in reply the deceased called accused persons as blind thereupon quarrel took place. It is alleged by prosecution that PW1 Seema Kumari asked her deceased brother Rajesh Kumar about the reason of beating by accused persons and thereafter deceased told his sister PW1 Seema Kumari that accused persons had called the deceased a drunkard and in reply the deceased called accused persons as blind thereupon quarrel took place. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar became unconscious. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW1 Seema Kumari came back to the shop and she called her mother. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter mother and father of deceased Rajesh Kumar also came at the spot. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW1 Seema Kumari also called her brother Raj Kumar and her sister Sunita Devi to the spot and thereafter deceased was lifted from the spot to the shop where he was laid on a bench. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter Sh Surjit Singh medical practitioner was called to the shop who checked deceased Rajesh Kumar and advised them to take the deceased to hospital for medical treatment and thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was taken to CHC Sujanpur. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter medical officer CHC Sujanpur informed the police by way of telephone and thereafter daily diary report Ext. PW5/A was recorded and ASI Karam Singh along with other police officials were deputed to visit the hospital. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter ASI moved an application Ext. PW11/A for conducting medical examination of deceased Rajesh Kumar and also sought the opinion of the medical officer whether the deceased was fit to make the statement or not. It is alleged by prosecution that medical officer had given the opinion that deceased was not fit to make the statement. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter medical officer referred deceased Rajesh Kumar to Rajinder Prasad Medical College and Hospital Tanda. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter statement of PW1 Seema Kumari Ext. PW1/A was recorded and thereafter FIR Ext. PW20/A was registered against accused persons at Police Station Sujanpur. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased Rajesh Kumar died in the way to Tanda hospital and inquest papers Ext. PW8/A and Ext. PW21/A were prepared and an application Ext. PW18/A was filed for conducting autopsy on the body of deceased Rajesh Kumar. It is alleged by prosecution that post-mortem of deceased Ext. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased Rajesh Kumar died in the way to Tanda hospital and inquest papers Ext. PW8/A and Ext. PW21/A were prepared and an application Ext. PW18/A was filed for conducting autopsy on the body of deceased Rajesh Kumar. It is alleged by prosecution that post-mortem of deceased Ext. PW18/B was conducted and final opinion Ext. PW18/D was obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter Investigating Officer visited at the spot on dated 17.4.2008 and prepared spot map Ext. PW22/B. It is alleged by prosecution that dead body of the deceased was got photographed vide Ext. PW6/A-1 to A-5 and negatives are Ext. PW6/A-6 to A/10. It is alleged by prosecution that MHC sent the viscera of deceased Rajesh Kumar along with relevant papers to Forensic Science Laboratory Junga vide road certificate Ext. PW13/C. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter application Ext. PW16/A was moved to Tehsildar for obtaining tatima and jamabandi and thereafter tatima Ext. PW16/B and jamabandi Ext. PW16/C obtained from halqua Patwari namely Prabhat Chand. Charge was framed against the accused persons by learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur on dated 7.8.2008 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined as many as twenty two witnesses in support of its case: Sr.No. Name of Witnesses PW1 Smt. Seema Kumari PW2 Smt. Reshma Devi PW3 Vinod Kumar PW4 Pankaj PW5 Kuldeep Kumar PW6 Surinder Kumar PW7 Sunil Kumar PW8 Sanjay Kumar PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh PW10 Vipan Kumar alias Vikku PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri PW12 Dr. Renu Sharma PW13 HC Ranjit Singh PW14 Constable Malkiat Singh PW15 Constable Suresh Kumar PW16 Parbhat Chand PW17 Jiwan Rishi PW18 Dr. D.P.Swami PW19 Raj Kumar PW20 SI Anil Kumar Verma PW21 ASI Shamsher Singh PW22 ASI Karan Singh 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr. No. Description Ext.PW1/A State of Smt. Seema Devi under Section 154 Cr PC Ext.PW3/A Statement of Vinod Kumar under Section 161 Cr PC Ext.PW4/A Statement of Pankaj under Section 161 Cr PC Ext.PW5/A Statement of Kuldeep Kumar under Section 161 Cr PC Ext. PW6/A-1 Photographs of dead body to A5 Ext. PW6/A-6 Negatives to A-10 Ext.PW7/A-1 Photographs of the spot to A-10 Ext. PW8/A & Inquest papers PW21/A Inquest papers Ext. PW11/A Application address to Medical Officer Ext. PW11/B MLC Ext. PW6/A-1 Photographs of dead body to A5 Ext. PW6/A-6 Negatives to A-10 Ext.PW7/A-1 Photographs of the spot to A-10 Ext. PW8/A & Inquest papers PW21/A Inquest papers Ext. PW11/A Application address to Medical Officer Ext. PW11/B MLC Ext. PW12/A Application address to Medical Officer Ext. MLCs. PW12/B&C MLCs. Ext. Abstracts of Register No.19 PW13/A&B Abstracts of Register No.19 Ext. PW13/C Road Certificate Ext.PW15/A Copy of rapat No.34 Ext. PW16/A Letter addressed to Tehsildar Ext. PW16/B Shajra Latha Ext. PW16/C Copy of jamabandi Ext. PW17/A Recovery memo qua motorcycle Ext. PW18/A Application for post-mortem Ext. PW18/B Post-mortem report Ext. PW18/C FSL Report Ext. PW19/A Statement of Raj Kumar under Section 161 Cr PC Ext. PW20/A Copy of FIR Ext. PW22/B Spot map Ext. DA & DB Copy of statements of Sanjay Kumar 5. Learned trial Court convicted both the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced both the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine both accused persons would undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court convicted persons filed present appeals. 7. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused entire record carefully. 8. Points for determination in both present appeals are whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and caused miscarriage of justice to the appellants as alleged in the grounds of appeal. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9. PW1 Seema Kumari has stated that she was married on dated 21.4.2008. She has stated that her father is running a tea shop at Sidhu Chowk at Sujanpur and her younger brother deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Kaku was working along with her father. She has stated that when she was unmarried she used to go to shop for cleaning utensils. She has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 6 p.m. she went to the shop. She has stated that her parents were present inside the shop. She has stated that when she was unmarried she used to go to shop for cleaning utensils. She has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 6 p.m. she went to the shop. She has stated that her parents were present inside the shop. She has stated that she inquired about her deceased brother and her parents told that deceased had gone to market and would come after some time. She has stated that at about 8.15 p.m. when she was sitting on a bench outside the shop accused persons came on a bike from post office side and she heard cries of quarrel. She has stated that thereafter she ran towards the place from where the cries came and she saw that both accused persons were giving beating with kick and fist blows to deceased Rajesh Kumar who was lying on the ground with face upwards the sky. She has stated that she asked the accused persons as to why they were beating her deceased brother and thereafter accused persons did not stop beatings and when she raised alarm accused persons went back by pushing her upon a bike. She has stated that accused persons fled towards Hamirpur road and thereafter she asked deceased Rajesh Kumar as to why the accused persons have beaten him. She has stated that deceased told her that accused persons had called him a drunkard and deceased Rajesh Kumar called the accused persons as blind and thereafter accused persons beaten the deceased. She has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar fell unconscious and thereafter she called her mother and her mother came at the spot. She has stated that thereafter her brother Raj Kumar also came at the spot and she sent her brother Raj Kumar to call her father from the shop. She has stated that thereafter her sister Sunita Devi, Viku and Hunny also came at the spot and they lifted deceased Rajesh Kumar and took him to the shop. She has stated that thereafter one Shri Surjit Singh medical practitioner was called who checked deceased Rajesh Kumar and advised them to take the deceased to hospital. She has stated that thereafter they took the deceased in a vehicle to CHC Sujanpur. She has stated that thereafter medical officer informed the investigating agency and investigating agency came to the hospital. She has stated that she gave statement Ext. PW1/A to the police. She has stated that thereafter they took the deceased in a vehicle to CHC Sujanpur. She has stated that thereafter medical officer informed the investigating agency and investigating agency came to the hospital. She has stated that she gave statement Ext. PW1/A to the police. She has stated that thereafter deceased was referred to Dharamshala for medical treatment from CHC Sujanpur. She has stated that deceased had sustained injuries on his forehead, face and on his eye. She has stated that deceased had died on the way to hospital. She has stated that investigating agency also inspected the spot in her presence. She has stated that she is the only eye-witness of the incident of beating. She has denied suggestion that no talk took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and herself. She denied suggestion that deceased Rajesh Kumar had died due to fall after intake of excessive alcohol. 9.1 PW2 Reshma Devi has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was her son. She has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was working in the shop along with her husband. She has stated that in the evening she and her daughter PW1 Seema Kumari used to visit the shop for cleaning utensil. She has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 she went to the shop at about 5 p.m. and her husband and deceased Rajesh Kumar were present in the shop. She has stated that after some time deceased Rajesh Kumar left towards the local market from shop. She has stated that PW1 Seema Kumari came at the shop at about 6 p.m.. She has stated that Seema Kumari was sitting on a bench outside the shop and she and her husband were sitting inside the shop. She has stated that at about 8 p.m. PW1 Seema Kumari went towards the place of incident and told that accused persons were beating deceased Rajesh Kumar. She has stated that thereafter she went to the spot. She has stated that her deceased son was lying unconscious. She has stated that thereafter her son Raj Kumar and daughter Sunila also came at the spot. She has stated that Hunny and Vikku also came at the spot. She has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was lifted and brought to the shop and thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was checked by Surjit Singh medical practitioner who advised them to take deceased Rajesh Kumar to Government hospital. She has stated that Hunny and Vikku also came at the spot. She has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was lifted and brought to the shop and thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was checked by Surjit Singh medical practitioner who advised them to take deceased Rajesh Kumar to Government hospital. She has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was shifted to Sujanpur hospital and thereafter he was shifted to medical college Tanda. She has stated that investigating agency recorded her statement in the hospital. She has stated that her husband, son Raj Kumar and other persons accompanied deceased Rajesh Kumar to Tanda hospital where he was declared brought dead. She has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar had sustained injuries on eye, head and other parts of the body. She has stated that her son Rajesh Kumar died due to beating given by accused persons. She has stated that no quarrel between accused persons and her son Rajesh Kumar took place in her presence. She has stated that she did not talk with deceased Rajesh Kumar at the spot because he was unconscious. She has denied suggestion that people present at the spot were saying that deceased Rajesh Kumar had fallen from Tyala (small platform) on the stones due to intake of liquor. She denied suggestion that accused persons have not assaulted deceased Rajesh Kumar. She denied suggestion that being mother of deceased Rajesh Kumar she deposed falsely before the Court. 9.2 PW3 Vinod Kumar has stated that he is running a shop at Sujanpur. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. he was at his shop. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Nikhil Soni had caught hold of the collars of shirt of each other. He has stated that co-accused Chhotu alias Sanjiv was standing near a bike at some distance. He has stated that Raj Kumar has separated them. He has stated that he told them to go away to their houses. He has stated that he asked Chhotu alias Sanjiv to take co-accused Nikhil Soni to his house and deceased Rajesh Kumar went away with Raj Kumar towards his house. He has stated that thereafter he did not know what happened. Witness was declared hostile. He denied suggestion that co-accused Nikhil Soni gave fist blows to deceased Rajesh Kumar near Tyala (small platform). He has stated that thereafter he did not know what happened. Witness was declared hostile. He denied suggestion that co-accused Nikhil Soni gave fist blows to deceased Rajesh Kumar near Tyala (small platform). He denied suggestion that thereafter he and Pankaj went to the spot. He denied suggestion that he, Pankaj and Raj Kumar rescued deceased Rajesh Kumar from the clutches of co-accused Nikhil Soni. He has stated that during night he received a telephone call from the brother of deceased Rajesh Kumar that Rajesh Kumar was serious and he died during that night. He has stated that he is familiar with accused persons since childhood because they are residing at the same locality. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was also known to him from childhood. He has denied suggestion that he deposed falsely intentionally to save accused persons. He has stated that both the parties were abusing to each other. He has stated that Raj Kumar brother of deceased Rajesh Kumar is posted in Home Guard department. 9.3 PW4 Pankaj has stated that he is running a hotel near Venu Gate Sujanpur along with his father. He has stated that about 3/4 months back deceased Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Nikhil Soni were quarrelling amongst themselves in front of the shop of Vinod Kumar at Sujanpur. He has stated that co-accused Chhotu alias Sanjiv was also standing at one side with a motor cycle. He has stated that he, Bhola and Raj Kumar separated them. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar and Raj Kumar went towards Sidhu Chowk and thereafter he returned to his shop. He has stated that he did not go near Tyala (small platform). Witness was declared hostile. He has admitted that accused persons are familiar with him since his childhood. He has denied suggestion that he deposed falsely to help accused persons. He has stated that he called co-accused Chhotu alias Sanjeev and asked him to take away co-accused Nikhil Soni. 9.4 PW5 Kuldip Kumar has stated that he is working as labourer with Rana Trading Company at Sujanpur. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 7.40 p.m. he was coming from the market with vegetables. He has stated that he came to the Venu Gate from the market and there were 5/7 persons present near Tyala (small platform) near the post office. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 7.40 p.m. he was coming from the market with vegetables. He has stated that he came to the Venu Gate from the market and there were 5/7 persons present near Tyala (small platform) near the post office. He has stated that co-accused Nikhil Soni was quarrelling with deceased Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Sanjiv Soni was at a distance with his motorcycle and thereafter he went away towards his residence. He has denied suggestion that he deposed falsely to help the accused persons. He has admitted that deceased Rajesh Kumar was of heavy weight and healthy person. 9.5 PW6 Surender Kumar has stated that he is running a shop for the last five years. He has stated that on dated 17.4.2008 he was called by the investigating agency to Tanda hospital for taking photographs of the dead body. He has stated that he took the photographs of dead body in the dead (sic) house. He has stated that positive photographs are Ext. PW6/A-1 to Ext. PW6/A-5 and its negatives are Ext. PW6/A-6 to Ext. PW6/A-10 and the same were handed over to police. 9.6 PW7 Sunil Kumar has stated that he is running a shop of photograph at Sujanpur in the name of Jagriti Digital Studio for the last seven years. He has stated that on dated 17.4.2008 in the morning he was called by police to post office near Tyala (small platform) at Sujanpur. He has stated that he took photographs of the spot by digital camera. He has stated that photographs are Ext. PW7/A-1 to Ext. PW7/A-10. He has stated that photographs were handed over to the police. 9.7 PW8 Sanjay Kumar has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 8.45 p.m. while he was at home he came to know that deceased Rajesh Kumar who was his cousin was beaten by accused persons. He has stated that he also went to post office near Tyala (small platform) where he found that deceased Rajesh Kumar was lying unconscious and his cousin sister Seema Kumari, uncle Hari Chand, aunt Reshma Devi and other people were present at the spot. He has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was lifted to the shop of the father of deceased where he was laid on a bench and Dr. Surjit Singh was called who advised them to take deceased Rajesh Kumar to CHC Sujanpur. He has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was lifted to the shop of the father of deceased where he was laid on a bench and Dr. Surjit Singh was called who advised them to take deceased Rajesh Kumar to CHC Sujanpur. He has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar was referred to Tanda hospital. He has stated that he reached at Tanda hospital at about 11.30 p.m. where deceased Rajesh Kumar was declared dead. He has stated that he also identified dead body of deceased Rajesh Kumar before the medical officer. He has denied suggestion that he did not go to the spot. He denied suggestion that being a cousin of deceased Rajesh Kumar he deposed falsely. 9.8 PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh has stated that he is B.A. M.S. and running a private clinic near Sidhu Chowk Sujanpur. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 8.45 p.m. he was called to the house of father of deceased Rajesh Kumar by a relative of deceased Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was lying unconscious. He has stated that he advised his family members to take deceased Rajesh Kumar to Government hospital. He has stated that rigor mortis was not present on the body of deceased Rajesh Kumar when he checked him. He has stated that pulse was alive. He has stated that he did not give first aid to deceased Rajesh Kumar. 9.9 PW10 Vipan Kumar has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 8.45 p.m. he and Kapish were returning to home. He has stated that when they reached near post office deceased Rajesh Kumar was lying unconscious. He has stated that his mother was also present at the spot. He has stated that mother of deceased Rajesh Kumar asked them to lift him up to the shop. He has stated that they tried to lift deceased Rajesh Kumar but they could not do so. He has stated that thereafter his father and sisters Seema Devi and Sunita of deceased Rajesh Kumar also came at the spot. He has stated that all of them lifted deceased Rajesh Kumar and made him lie on a bench outside the shop. He has stated that thereafter he and Kapish left to their house. 9.10 PW11 Dr.Gopal Beri has stated that he remained posted as Medical Officer in CHC Sujanpur Tihri w.e.f. April 2006 to September 2008. He has stated that all of them lifted deceased Rajesh Kumar and made him lie on a bench outside the shop. He has stated that thereafter he and Kapish left to their house. 9.10 PW11 Dr.Gopal Beri has stated that he remained posted as Medical Officer in CHC Sujanpur Tihri w.e.f. April 2006 to September 2008. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 on the request of investigating agency vide application Ext. PW11/A he examined deceased Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Hari Chand at about 9 p.m. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was very serious. He has stated that B.P. and pulse of deceased Rajesh Kumar was not recordable but the heart auscultation was 96 and pupils on both sides were normal and he noticed the following injuries. He has stated that there was a diffused swelling bluish pinkish in colour about 10 inch in diameter with a pinkish abrasion over it of the size of 5 cm x 4 cm in the left lower half of back on upper part of gluteal region. He has stated that there was another diffuse swelling of the size of about 5 cm diameter in the right parieto occipital region of the scalp. He has stated that another bluish pink abraded contusion over the posterior aspect of the middle of right forearm was found. He has stated that left eye was black and the patient was stuperous and irritable and was unable to speak. He has stated that for these injuries X-ray of skull, C.T.Scan of skull and then ultra-sound of abdomen and CT scan of abdomen was advised. He has stated that weapon used for the above injuries was blunt and probable duration of the injuries was within 24 hours. He has stated that he issued MLC Ext. PW11/B and bears his signature. He has stated that above stated injury was caused with fist and kick blows. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was referred to medical college Tanda as his condition was serious. He has stated that he could not state that injured was under the influence of liquor at the time of examination. He has stated that he did not collect blood or urine sample of the injured as there was no facility for taking out blood or other investigation therefore patient was referred to Medical College Tanda. 9.11 PW12 Dr. He has stated that he could not state that injured was under the influence of liquor at the time of examination. He has stated that he did not collect blood or urine sample of the injured as there was no facility for taking out blood or other investigation therefore patient was referred to Medical College Tanda. 9.11 PW12 Dr. Renu Sharma has stated that PW12 was posted as Medical Officer CHC Sujanpur on dated 17.4.2008. PW12 has stated that on application Ext. PW17/A co-accused Nikhil Soni was medically examined. PW12 has stated that co-accused Nikhil Soni was complaining pain and tenderness at the root of nose and nasal bridge and there was no swelling or external sign of any injury. PW12 has stated that co-accused Nikhil Soni also complaining of pain on the left temporal region and no external signs of injury were found. PW12 has stated that there was abrasion of the size of 1 x 5 cm over distal phalanx of left middle finger and scab was not formed, movements of phalanx were normal. PW12 has stated that there was an abrasion of the size of 3 x.5 cm over upper 1/3rd of left shin and scab was not formed and movements of knee joint were normal. PW12 has stated that patient was referred for expert Radiologist opinion and management and final opinion was kept reserved. PW12 has stated that weapon used was hard blunt. PW12 has stated that probable duration of the injuries was less than 12 to 24 hours. PW12 has stated that he issued MLC of co-accused Nikhil Soni Ext. PW12/B and also issued MLC of co-accused Sanjiv Kumar Ext. PW12/C. 9.12 PW13 Ranjit Singh has stated that he was posted at Police Station Sujanpur w.e.f. 2008. He has stated that on dated 17.4.2008 ASI Shamsher Singh deposited with him three parcels duly sealed with seal impression DHD. He has stated that the entry was made in rapat roznamcha register vide entry Ext. PW13/A. He has stated that on dated 19.4.2008 ASI Karam Singh had deposited with him motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 which was entered in rapat roznamcha Ext. He has stated that the entry was made in rapat roznamcha register vide entry Ext. PW13/A. He has stated that on dated 19.4.2008 ASI Karam Singh had deposited with him motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 which was entered in rapat roznamcha Ext. PW13/B. He has stated that one parcel containing viscera of deceased Rajesh Kumar along with one sealed envelope containing copy of FIR, copy of MLC, post-mortem report and sample seal DHD were sent to FSL Junga through constable Malkiat Singh vide RC No. 43 of 2008 on dated 22.4.2008. He has stated that after depositing the above case property he handed over RC to him. He has stated that case property was not tampered with in any manner. 9.13 PW14 Malkiat Singh has stated that he was posted at Police Station Sujanpur for the last six months. He has stated that MHC Ranjit Singh handed over to him three sealed parcels on dated 22.4.2007 vide RC No. 43 of 2008 for handing over the same at FSL Junga. He has stated that seals of the samples were not tampered. He has stated that rukka Ext. PW1/A was also brought by him on dated 16.4.2008 from Sujanpur hospital and he handed over the same to Station House Officer on the basis of which FIR was registered. He has stated that thereafter he took the file to hospital and handed over to ASI Karan Singh. He has stated that his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded on dated 16.6.2008. 9.14 PW15 Suresh Kumar has stated that he brought original rapat roznamcha register on dated 16.4.2008 and Ext. PW15/A which is correct copy of rapat No.34 dated 18.4.2008. 9.15 PW16 Prabhat Chand has stated that on the request of Investigating Officer vide application Ext. PW16/A he prepared tatima Ext. PW16/B and copy of jambandi Ext. PW16/C of the spot and thereafter he handed over the same to police. 9.16 PW17 Jeevan Rishi has stated that on dated 19.4.2008 police took into possession motor cycle No.HP-22B-2000 vide memo Ext. PW17/A. 9.17 PW18 Dr. D.P Swami has stated that he was lecturer in Medical College since August 1998. He has stated that on dated 17.4.2008 on the application Ext. PW18/A along with inquest form Ext. PW8/A he had conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Rajesh Kumar. PW17/A. 9.17 PW18 Dr. D.P Swami has stated that he was lecturer in Medical College since August 1998. He has stated that on dated 17.4.2008 on the application Ext. PW18/A along with inquest form Ext. PW8/A he had conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that body of deceased Rajesh Kumar was brought by police officials and was identified by one Sanjay Kumar. He has stated that there was a history of beating by Nishu son of Pradeep Kumar and Chhotu son of Sant Ram on dated 16.4.2008 at 8.30 p.m. and injured had undergone unconscious at the spot. He has stated that injured was declared dead on dated 16.4.2008 at 11.45 p.m. He has stated that rigor mortis were fully developed. He has stated that injuries were anti mortem. He has stated that he observed the following injuries. He has stated that there was a black eye left side 2 x 1 reddish in colour and there was a bruise 2 x 2 inches on left temporal area and reddish irregular. He has stated that there was bruise on right mid forearm, irregular reddish 1.75 x 1 inches with grazed irregular abrasion on outer side. He has stated that there was bruises 2x1 inches on right upper arm outer side reddish and grazed abrasion on right side of elbow outer side and irregular 2 x 1 inches reddish. He has stated that scratch on right mid, upper inguinal region was one inch long and reddish oblique. He has stated that there was bruise with abrasion, irregular on left lower mid back 2 x 1.½ inches reddish and bruise 1.½ x ½ inch reddish on lower right back and the brain was congested. He has stated that in his opinion deceased Rajesh Kumar died by haemor-rhagic shock due to anti mortem injuries to mesenteric vessels near left side area of spleen and small intestine caused with fist blows. He has stated that probable time between injury and death was 1-2 hours and between death and post-mortem was 12-24 hours. He has stated that shirt, trousers and under wear were handed over to the police after sealing the same with seal mark DHD. He has stated that body was handed over to police with original post-mortem report. He has stated that probable time between injury and death was 1-2 hours and between death and post-mortem was 12-24 hours. He has stated that shirt, trousers and under wear were handed over to the police after sealing the same with seal mark DHD. He has stated that body was handed over to police with original post-mortem report. He has stated that he also handed over to police three sample seals, cloths packet, viscera packet and forwarding letter addressed to FSL Junga. He has stated that he issued post- mortem report Ext. PW18/B which bears his signature. He has stated that after going through FSL report Ext. PW18/C dated 2.6.2008 in his final opinion deceased Rajesh Kumar died by haemorrhagic shock and due to anti mortem injuries caused near left side area of spleen and small intestine caused with fist blows. He has stated that contribution towards death is approximately 20% due to consumption of alcohol and 80% due to injury. He has stated that injuries were caused by fist and kick blows. He has stated that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has stated that in the present case the quantity of alcohol consumed by deceased Rajesh Kumar was mild. He has denied suggestion that injury could be caused due to fall on stones. He has stated that he could not state that injury could be caused by other than kick and fist blows. He has denied suggestion that a person having injury on spleen area, liver or cranium could survive if immediate medical treatment is provided. He has admitted that if spleen and liver parts are damaged including intestines then timely medical help would save the person subject to the condition of injured and standard of treatment given to the injured. 9.18 PW19 Raj Kumar has stated that he is a labourer. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 there was a Jagrata (Religious function) at Sujanpur and he had gone to bring vegetables from the market. He has stated that when he reached ' Venu Gate” deceased Rajesh Kumar was abusing coaccused Nikhil Soni. He has stated that he requested both of them to go to their houses but they did not accept his request. He has stated that co-accused Nikhil Soni was also accompanied by co-accused Sanjiv Soni. He has identified both accused persons in Court. He has stated that he requested both of them to go to their houses but they did not accept his request. He has stated that co-accused Nikhil Soni was also accompanied by co-accused Sanjiv Soni. He has identified both accused persons in Court. He has stated that he took deceased Rajesh Kumar up to the shop of Vinod Kumar alias Bhola. He has stated that in the meantime both accused persons again came at the place of incident. He has stated that both parties again grappled with each other. He has stated that in the meantime Vinod Kumar alias Bhola arrived at the spot and he separated the parties. He has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar went away from the place of incident. He has stated that thereafter shoes of co-accused Nikhil Soni were misplaced and they searched for the shoes. He has stated that thereafter co-accused Nikhil Soni kept on standing near the shop. He has stated that after some time accused persons found the shoes and thereafter both accused persons again followed deceased Rajesh Kumar on the motor cycle. He has stated that when accused persons reached nearby deceased Rajesh Kumar he slapped co-accused Nikhil Soni and his spectacles were broken. He has stated that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Nikhil Soni again started physical quarrelling. He has stated that thereafter he and Vinod Kumar alias Bhola again went at the spot and separated them. He has stated that thereafter both accused persons went from place of incident on a motor cycle. He has stated that he requested deceased Rajesh Kumar to go to his house but deceased Rajesh Kumar kept standing at the place of incident. He has stated that the shop of the father of deceased Rajesh Kumar was nearby the place of incident. He has stated that thereafter he informed the parents of deceased Rajesh Kumar thereafter his parents came to Tyala (small platform) where deceased Rajesh Kumar was present. He has stated that thereafter sister of deceased Rajesh Kumar also came at the place of incident. He has stated that thereafter he went to his house. He has stated that thereafter the parents of deceased Rajesh Kumar called him to help them to lift injured Rajesh Kumar from the place of incident. He has stated that in the meantime other local boys also came at the spot. He has stated that thereafter he went to his house. He has stated that thereafter the parents of deceased Rajesh Kumar called him to help them to lift injured Rajesh Kumar from the place of incident. He has stated that in the meantime other local boys also came at the spot. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was not in a position to walk and he was made to lie on a bench outside the shop. 9.19 PW20 Anil Kumar has stated that he was posted as SHO in Police Station Sujanpur since 2007. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 4 p.m. telephonic information was received by him from Medical Officer CHC Sujanpur that deceased Rajesh Kumar was brought to hospital in an injured condition. He has stated that he entered information in daily diary Ext. PW15/A and thereafter he sent ASI Karan Singh to hospital along with other police officials to look into the matter. He has stated that thereafter he received rukka Ext. PW1/A. He has stated that FIR Ext. PW20/A was registered. He has stated that on completion of investigation he prepared challan. 9.20 PW21 Shamsher Singh has stated that he accompanied injured Rajesh Kumar to Tanda hospital. He has stated that Rajesh Kumar was declared dead in the hospital. He has stated that thereafter he moved application Ext. PW18/A for conducting post- mortem and also filed inquest reports Ext. PW8/A and Ext. PW21/A. He has stated that he recorded the statements of Sanjay Kumar, Rajneesh and photographer Surinder Kumar. He has stated that he also brought parcels of the case property from the hospital and deposited the same with MHC. 9.21 PW22 Karan Singh has stated that he was posted as Investigating Officer in Police Station Sujanpur since April 2008. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 he was deputed by SHO Anil Verma to CHC Sujanpur along with other police officials. He has stated that when he went to hospital deceased Rajesh Kumar was in the hospital. He has stated that he moved application Ext. PW1/A to the Medical Officer and sought opinion whether deceased Rajesh Kumar was fit to make the statement. He has stated that thereafter he recorded the statement of Seema Devi Ext. PW1/A and sent the same through Constable Malkiat Singh after making endorsement Ext. PW22/A for registration of FIR. He has stated that he moved application Ext. PW1/A to the Medical Officer and sought opinion whether deceased Rajesh Kumar was fit to make the statement. He has stated that thereafter he recorded the statement of Seema Devi Ext. PW1/A and sent the same through Constable Malkiat Singh after making endorsement Ext. PW22/A for registration of FIR. He has stated that injured was referred to Tanda hospital for further medical treatment. He has stated that statement of Reshma Devi was also recorded in the hospital. He has stated that thereafter spot was inspected. He has stated that thereafter accused persons were arrested and interrogated. He has stated that information was received that deceased Rajesh Kumar had died during the night and thereafter the case was converted into under Section 302 IPC. He has stated that on the next day he prepared site plan Ext. PW22/B and also recorded supplementary statement of PW1 Seema Kumari. He has stated that on dated 19.4.2008 one Pradeep produced motor cycle along with its documents which was took into possession vide Ext. PW17/A. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 deceased Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Nikhil Soni had indulged in a quarrel at about 7.30 p.m. near Veno Gate. He has stated that again quarrel took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Nikhil Soni near the shop of Vinod Kumar. He has stated that thereafter both accused persons went away and returned after some time. He has stated that thereafter accused persons gave beatings to deceased Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that thereafter PW1 Seema Kumari and accused persons left from the place of incident. He has stated that quarrel took place several times between deceased and accused persons hence incident was pre-planned by accused persons. Findings in Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2008 titled Nikhil Soni v. State of H.P. Testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari is fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 10. In the present case eye-witness PW1 Seema Kumari who is the sister of deceased Rajesh Kumar has specifically stated that accused persons have given beatings to her deceased brother Rajesh Kumar in her presence by way of kick and fist blows. PW1 Seema Kumari eye-witness has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar had sustained injury upon his body. Testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. PW1 Seema Kumari eye-witness has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar had sustained injury upon his body. Testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari. Testimony of PW3 Vinod Kumar another eye-witness of the incident is fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 11. PW3 Vinod Kumar eye-witness of the incident has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni have caught hold the collars of shirt of each other in his presence. Testimony of PW3 Vinod Kumar that appellant Nikhil Soni had caught hold the collars of shirt of deceased Rajesh Kumar in his presence is fatal to the appellant. Hence the testimony of PW3 is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3. Testimony of PW4 Pankaj eye-witness also fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 12. PW4 Pankaj has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni were quarrelling in front of the shop of PW3 Vinod Kumar at Sujanpur. Testimony of PW4 Pankaj is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW4. Testimony of PW5 Kuldeep Kumar eye- witness is also fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 13. PW5 Kuldeep Kumar has specifically stated in positive manner that appellant Nikhil Soni was quarrelling with deceased Rajesh Kumar and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5. Testimony of PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh is fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 14. PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that immediately after the incident on dated 16.4.2008 at about 8.45 p.m. he examined deceased Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was lying unconscious and he advised the family members of deceased to take deceased Rajesh Kumar to Government hospital for his medical treatment. Testimony of PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh that he examined deceased Rajesh Kumar in unconscious condition immediately after the incident on dated 16.4.2008 at 8.45 p.m. is also trusty worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW9. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh has hostile animus against appellant Nikhil Soni. Testimony of PW11 Dr. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW9. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh has hostile animus against appellant Nikhil Soni. Testimony of PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri is fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 15. PW11 Dr. Gopal Berri has specifically stated in positive manner that on dated 16.4.2008 he examined deceased Rajesh Kumar immediately after the incident. He has stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar was in very very serious condition. Testimony of PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri is also trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW11 who examined deceased Rajesh Kumar in very very serious condition due to injury inflicted by appellant Nikhil Soni. Testimony of PW18 Dr.D.P.Swami is also fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 16. PW18 Dr. D.P. Swami has specifically stated in positive manner that he conducted post-mortem of deceased Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that injured had undergone unconscious at the spot and injured was declared dead on dated 16.4.2008 at about 11.45 p.m. PW18 has specifically stated in positive manner that injuries were anti mortem. PW18 has specifically stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar had died by haemorrhagic shock due to anti mortem injuries sustained by deceased Rajesh Kumar near left side area of spleen and small intestine caused with fist blows. PW18 has specifically stated in positive manner that probable time between injury and death was within 1 to 2 hours and between death and post-mortem was 12 to 24 hours. PW18 has specifically stated in positive manner that contribution of injuries towards death was 80% and he has specifically stated in positive manner that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Testimony of PW19 Raj Kumar is also fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 17. PW19 Raj Kumar eye witness has specifically stated that deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni physically started quarrelling in his presence. The factum of quarrel between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni is proved on record as per testimony of PW19 Raj Kumar. Testimony of corroborative witness is also fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 18. PW8 Sanjay Kumar has specifically stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 8.45 p.m. deceased Rajesh Kumar was lying unconscious at the spot and thereafter he was brought to medical hospital. Testimony of corroborative witness is also fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 18. PW8 Sanjay Kumar has specifically stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 8.45 p.m. deceased Rajesh Kumar was lying unconscious at the spot and thereafter he was brought to medical hospital. Even PW10 Vipan Kumar corroborative witness has stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar was unconscious at the spot and deceased was initially laid down upon a bench and thereafter he was brought to hospital for medical treatment. PW13 Ranjit Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that parcels were deposited containing viscera, post-mortem report and sample of seals in Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. PW14 Malkiat Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that he deposited parcels in the office of chemical examiner Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. As per testimony of PW15 Suresh Kumar rapat roznamcha Ext.PW15/A is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. As per testimony of PW16 Prabhat Chand Tatima Ext. PW16/B and copy of jamabandi Ext. PW16/C are also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. It is held that testimonies of corroborative witnesses are also fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni. Post mortem report Ext. PW18/D is fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 19. As per post-mortem report deceased Rajesh Kumar died due to haemorrhagic shock and due to anti mortem injuries sustained by deceased Rajesh Kumar near left side of spleen and small intestine. As per post mortem report the probable time lapsed between injury and death was 1 to 2 hours. Hence as per post mortem report the deceased had died due to injuries given by appellant Nikhil Soni with kick and fist blows upon spleen and small intestine of deceased Rajesh Kumar. Time gap between death and injuries are fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 20. As per testimony of medical officer and as per post-mortem report time gap between injuries sustained by deceased and death was between 1-2 hours only. It is held that deceased had died due to direct effects of injuries given by appellant. 80% contribution of injuries to death is fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 21. As per medical officer testimony there was 80% effects of injuries for death and same fact is fatal to appellant. 22. It is held that deceased had died due to direct effects of injuries given by appellant. 80% contribution of injuries to death is fatal to appellant Nikhil Soni 21. As per medical officer testimony there was 80% effects of injuries for death and same fact is fatal to appellant. 22. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that learned trial Court has wrongly believed the testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari and failed to appreciate the statement of PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Pankaj, PW5 Kuldeep and PW19 Raj Kumar and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that quarrel took place four times after short intervals. Initially the quarrel took place at 7.35 p.m. in the presence of different witnesses and last quarrel took place in the presence of PW1 Seema Kumari. Hence it is held that testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari could not be disbelieved in view of the testimony of PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Pankaj, PW5 Kuldeep Kumar and PW19 Raj Kumar because when last quarrel took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni at that time only PW1 Seema Kumari was present at the place of incident. 23. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that it was the mother of deceased Rajesh Kumar who reached first at the place of incident followed by the father of deceased and thereafter PW1 Seema Kumari reached at the spot and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the last fight PW1 Seema Kumari reached at the spot and thereafter she went back to call her mother and other relatives and thereafter when the deceased was lying unconscious after the incident the mother of deceased followed by the father of deceased reached at the spot. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the last fight PW1 Seema Kumari reached at the spot and thereafter she went back to call her mother and other relatives and thereafter when the deceased was lying unconscious after the incident the mother of deceased followed by the father of deceased reached at the spot. It is proved on record that when father and mother of deceased Rajesh Kumar reached at the spot by that time appellant has left the place of incident after committing criminal offence and after causing fatal injuries upon deceased Rajesh Kumar who died due to fatal injuries caused by the appellant within 1 and 2 hours as per testimony of post- mortem report placed on record. 24. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that learned trial Court has illegally disbelieved the testimony of PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Pankaj and PW19 Raj Kumar and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that quarrel took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant four times after short intervals and when the last quarrel took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni at that time PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Pankaj and PW19 Raj Kumar were not present and at that time only PW1 Seema Kumari was present who had witnessed the last quarrel between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant. 25. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that PW1 Seema Kumari has improved her statement and her testimony is not trust worthy is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. There is no material improvement in the testimony of prosecution witness. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in a criminal case when testimony of the witnesses recorded after a gap of lapse of sufficient time. In the present case incident took place on dated 16.4.2008 and testimony of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 4.9.2008 after a gap of four months. 26. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that statement of PW1 Seema Kumari under Section 154 Cr. In the present case incident took place on dated 16.4.2008 and testimony of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 4.9.2008 after a gap of four months. 26. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that statement of PW1 Seema Kumari under Section 154 Cr. P.C. was recorded after due deliberation and consultation is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case first Investigating Officer tried to record the statement of injured but injured was in unconscious condition and medical officer had reported that injured was not in a position to give his statement and thereafter Investigating Officer under compelling circumstances recorded the statement of PW1 Seema Kumari who was the eye witness of last quarrel which took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant. 27. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that PW1 Seema Kumari is not eye witness of the incident and prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and on this ground the appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. The plea of the appellant that prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident is not proved on record and the same is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof) 28. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that finding of the learned trial Court that PW1 Seema Kumari eye-witness was first to reach at the spot is contrary to the evidence on record and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that fight took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant four times after short intervals and it is also proved on record that earlier three fights took place between the deceased and appellant in the presence of other witnesses but last fight took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant in the presence of PW1 Seema Kumari. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the last fight other prosecution witnesses were not present as they have gone to their houses due to night period i.e. 8.30 p.m. 29. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the last fight other prosecution witnesses were not present as they have gone to their houses due to night period i.e. 8.30 p.m. 29. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that as per testimony of PW19 Raj Kumar appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW19 Raj Kumar. It is well settled law that testimony of witness should not be read in isolation but it should be read as a whole. It is well settled law that Court is under legal obligation to take grain from chaff and court is not under legal obligation to take chaff from the grain. PW19 has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni started practically quarrelling with each other in his presence and thereafter he and PW3 Vinod Kumar alias Bhola separated deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni. PW19 has specifically stated in positive manner that thereafter both the accused persons went away from the place of incident upon a motor cycle. PW19 has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar was not in a position to walk so he was made to lie on a bench outside the shop. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that thereafter any third person inflicted injury upon deceased Rajesh Kumar. It is proved on record that deceased died within 1 and 2 hours after the incident due to haemorrhage shock and anti mortem injury caused upon spleen and intestines of deceased Rajesh Kumar. There is no explanation as to how the deceased had sustained anti mortem injury upon the spleen and small intestines. There is proximity of death and anti mortem injury sustained by deceased Rajesh Kumar. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that some other persons have inflicted injury upon deceased Rajesh Kumar because at the spot the deceased became unconscious and thereafter he died within 1 and 2 hours due to anti mortem injuries sustained by deceased Rajesh Kumar upon his spleen and small intestines. 30. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the co-appellant Nikhil Soni that medical evidence of PW18 Dr. D.P.Swami qua the number of injuries and evidence of PW11 Dr. 30. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the co-appellant Nikhil Soni that medical evidence of PW18 Dr. D.P.Swami qua the number of injuries and evidence of PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri qua injuries are contrary and on this ground appeal filed by appellant Nikhil Soni be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri and PW18 Dr. D. P. Swami. PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri has specifically stated that on dated 16.4.2008 at about 9 p.m. he examined injured Rajesh Kumar and the condition of injured Rajesh Kumar was very very serious. PW18 Dr. D.P.Swami has specifically stated that all the injuries were anti mortem. Hence both PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri and PW18 Dr. D.P.Swami have proved the fact that deceased Rajesh Kumar died immediately after the incident due to anti mortem injuries. Deceased Rajesh Kumar was medically examined by Dr. Gopal Beri when he was in unconscious condition. PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri has stated that condition of deceased Rajesh Kumar was very very serious when he examined deceased immediately after the incident. We are of the opinion that minor contradiction is not fatal to the prosecution in the present case because it is proved on record that deceased was unconscious and he did not regain consciousness after the incident. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had died within 1 and 2 hours after the incident due to anti mortem injuries sustained by deceased Rajesh Kumar upon his spleen and small intestines caused by the appellant. 31. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that even if the prosecution is believed in the manner as urged by the prosecution the present case is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder because there was no pre plan evidence to kill deceased Rajesh Kumar and there is no evidence on record that appellant intended to kill the deceased or intended to cause bodily injury and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that quarrel took place between deceased Rajesh Kumar and appellant Nikhil Soni four times after short intervals and appellant came on motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 four times after short intervals and thereafter caused fatal injuries with kick and fist blows upon spleen and small intestines of deceased Rajesh Kumar. The fact that appellant came four times after short intervals upon his motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 proves the fact of culpable homicide amounting to murder on the part of appellant Nikhil Soni. Even PW18 Dr. D. P. Swami has specifically stated in positive manner that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. The kick blows with hard sole shoes and fist blows with force upon spleen and small intestines upon deceased Rajesh Kumar were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is held that appellant had knowledge that fist blow and kick blow with hard sole shoes upon spleen and small intestines would cause death of deceased Rajesh Kumar. Hence it is held that present case is the case of culpable homicide amounting to murder on the part of appellant Nikhil Soni. 32. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that deceased Rajesh Kumar had consumed wine and he felled upon the stone and thereafter he died and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. As per testimony of PW18 Dr. D.P Swami contribution of death due to alcohol was 20% and contribution of death due to injury was 80%. PW18 Dr D. P Swami has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased had died due to 80% injuries caused by appellant Nikhil Soni upon the body of deceased Rajesh Kumar. Hence it is held that 80% injuries were caused by appellant Nikhil Soni with fist and kick blows upon spleen and small intestines of deceased Rajesh Kumar which were fatal to deceased and caused death of deceased. 33. Hence it is held that 80% injuries were caused by appellant Nikhil Soni with fist and kick blows upon spleen and small intestines of deceased Rajesh Kumar which were fatal to deceased and caused death of deceased. 33. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that learned trial Court has illegally held that accused persons have common intention of causing bodily injury upon deceased Rajesh Kumar which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. All the prosecution witnesses have stated in positive manner that both accused persons came at the spot on motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 four times after short intervals. The fact that both accused persons came at the spot in four times upon motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 after short intervals, the fact that deceased Rajesh Kumar became unconscious at the spot due to fatal ante mortem injuries and the fact that deceased had died within 1 and 2 hours after the incident and the fact that co-accused Sanjiv Soni did not try to rescue deceased Rajesh Kumar prove common intention to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder on the part of both accused persons. 34. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that there is material contradiction and improvement in the prosecution case and on this ground appeal filed by the appellant be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant did not point out any material contradiction which goes to the root of the case. It is well settled law that principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal trial. See AIR 1980 SC 957 , Bhe Ram v. State of Haryana. Also see AIR 1971 SC 2505 titled Rai Singh v. State of Haryana. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1328 titled Dalbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it was held that each case should be decided as per proved facts. 35. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1328 titled Dalbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it was held that each case should be decided as per proved facts. 35. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that learned trial Court took into account inadmissible evidence and failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence in a proper manner is also rejected being devoid any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law with cogent, positive and reliable reason. 36. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Nikhil Soni that conviction could not be sustained on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in the present case is also rejected for the reason hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any act. It was held in case reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 titled Lalu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand that court may classify the oral testimony into three categories (1) Wholly reliable (2) Wholly un-reliable (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was held that in the first two categories there would be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of single witness. It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 SC 944 , Jose v. The State of Kerala that conviction could be given on the testimony of single witness in criminal case if testimony of single witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. Also See AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and also see AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras. It was held in case reported in AIR 2004 SC 2688 titled Chakko v. State of Kerala that conviction could be given on testimony of single witness if the testimony of single witness is reliable. It was held in case reported in AIR 2004 SC 2688 titled Chakko v. State of Kerala that conviction could be given on testimony of single witness if the testimony of single witness is reliable. It was held that culpable homicides are of three degrees (1) Culpable homicides of the first degree is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section 300, IPC as ' murder” . (2) Culpable homicide of the second degree is punishable under the first part of Section 304, IPC. (3) Culpable homicide of the third degree is lowest type of culpable homicide punishable under second part of Section 304, IPC. It is held that learned trial Court had properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence against appellant Nikhil Soni. It is held that there is no illegality and no miscarriage of justice in the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court qua appellant Nikhil Soni. Findings in Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2008 titled Sanjiv Soni v. State of H.P. 37. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that in view of the testimony of independent witnesses PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Pankaj, PW5 Kuldip Kumar and PW19 Raj Kumar appeal filed by appellant Sanjiv Soni be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Pankaj, PW5 Kuldip Kumar and PW19 Raj Kumar. PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW19 have specifically stated in positive manner that both accused persons came on motor cycle No HP-22B-2000 at the place of incident after short intervals continuously for four times. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that quarrel took place four times between deceased Rajesh Kumar and co-appellant Nikhil Soni after short intervals continuously. It is also proved on record that after first quarrel accused persons left the place of incident and thereafter again they came upon motor cycle No HP 22B-2000 after short interval at the place of incident continuously and committed quarrel with deceased Rajesh Kumar. It is also proved on record that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar had sustained fatal injury upon his spleen and small intestines caused with kick and fist blows. It is proved on record that thereafter at the place of incident deceased became unconscious and he did not regain consciousness till his death. It is also proved on record that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar had sustained fatal injury upon his spleen and small intestines caused with kick and fist blows. It is proved on record that thereafter at the place of incident deceased became unconscious and he did not regain consciousness till his death. It is proved on record that deceased died within 1 and 2 hours after the incident. It is also proved on record that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Appellant Sanjiv Soni has been charged for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. PW1 Seema Kumari who is the eye-witness of the last quarrel has specifically stated in positive manner that accused persons have inflicted injuries upon deceased Rajesh Kumar with kick and fist blows in her presence. She has specifically stated in positive manner that thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar became unconscious and he did not regain consciousness and died after 1 and 2 hours after the incident due to ante mortem injuries sustained upon spleen and small intestines of deceased Rajesh Kumar. Hence we are of the opinion that in view of the above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to acquit co-appellant Sanjiv Soni on the testimony of PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW19 because co-appellant Sanjiv Soni had actively participated in commission of crime by way of coming along with co-accused Nikhil Soni four times after short intervals upon motor cycle. Testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW1 Seema Kumari has hostile animus prior to the incident or after the incident against co-appellant Sanjiv Soni. 38. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that PW1 Seema Kumari and PW2 Reshma Devi are interested witnesses being sister and mother of deceased Rajesh Kumar is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari and PW2 Reshma Devi are corroborated by the testimony of PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh, PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri and PW18 Dr. D.P Swami. We are of the opinion that testimony of PW1 Seema Kumari and PW2 Reshma Devi are corroborated by the testimony of PW9 Dr. Surjit Singh, PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri and PW18 Dr. D.P Swami. It was held in case reported in AIR 1981 SC 1390 titled State of Rajasthan v. Kalki and another that relative witnesses are not equivalent to interested witnesses. It was held in case reported in 1980 Cr LJ 1330 : ( AIR 1981 SC 82 ) titled Hari Obula Reddi and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh that testimony of relative could be the basis of conviction if the testimony of relative witness is reliable and trustworthy. It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 SC 863 titled State of UP v. Iftikhar Khan and others that evidence of relative witness need not necessarily be disbelieved and it was held that merely because the witnesses are partisan or interested their evidence is not liable to be discredited. Also see AIR 1968 SC 1323 titled Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and another v. The State of Gujarat. Also see AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Also see AIR 1956 SC 460 titled Gurcharan Singh and another v. State of Punjab. Also see AIR 1974 SC 1168 titled The State of Punjab v. Hari Singh and another. Also see AIR 1968 SC 1438 titled Bhupendra Singh v. State of Punjab. See AIR 1977 SC 472 titled Mst. Balbir Kaur and others v. State of Punjab. Also see AIR 1976 SC 2499 titled Molu and others v. State of Haryana. Also See AIR 1976 SC 2304 titled Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab. 39. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that deceased Rajesh Kumar had consumed alcohol at the time of incident and he was not in a position to state anything and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force the reason hereinafter mentioned. PW18 Dr. D.P Swami has specifically stated that contribution of death was 20% due to alcohol and 80% was due to injuries inflicted by accused persons. The testimony of PW18 Dr. D.P Swami to this effect is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. PW18 Dr. D.P Swami has specifically stated that contribution of death was 20% due to alcohol and 80% was due to injuries inflicted by accused persons. The testimony of PW18 Dr. D.P Swami to this effect is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. In the present case it is proved on record that contribution of death was 80% due to fatal injuries sustained by deceased Rajesh Kumar in his left side spleen and small intestines caused with kick and fist blows by accused persons. 40. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that benefit of doubt be given to the appellant in the present case is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that appellant has been charged for the offence culpable homicide amounting to murder with common intention as defined under Section 34, IPC. It is proved on record that accused persons came four times at the place of incident after short intervals upon motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 on dated 16.4.2008 between 7.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Hence common intention of both accused persons to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder is proved on record when they came at the place of incident four times after short intervals. It is well settled law that to attract Section 34, IPC it is not necessary that each one of the accused must assault injured. In the present case it is proved on record that motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 after short intervals was used for the commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder by accused persons. It is proved on record that appellant Sanjiv Soni came along with appellant Nikhil Soni four times at the place of incident upon motor cycle No.HP-22B-2000 after short intervals. Hence common intention of both accused persons to cause fatal injury to deceased Rajesh Kumar is proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. It is proved on record that co-accused Sanjiv Soni had took active part in the commission of offence when he came along with co-accused Nikhil Soni four times at the place of incident upon motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 after short intervals. It is proved on record that co-accused Sanjiv Soni had took active part in the commission of offence when he came along with co-accused Nikhil Soni four times at the place of incident upon motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 after short intervals. It was held in case reported in AIR 2004 SC 2764 titled State of M.P. v. Deshraj and others that a direct proof of common intention is not available and therefore such intention could only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case. In the present case it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Sanjiv Soni came along with appellant Nikhil Soni on motor cycle No. HP-22B-2000 in four times at the place of incident after short intervals and thereafter injuries were inflicted upon deceased Rajesh Kumar and thereafter deceased Rajesh Kumar became unconscious and he died due to anti mortem injury within 1 and 2 hours of injuries given by accused persons. It is well settled law that Section 34, IPC imposes vicarious liability upon the co-accused persons. 41. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that there was no motive on behalf of the appellant to commit the crime and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that motive to commit criminal offence is not material in the presence of eye-witness. In the present case PW1 Seema Kumari has specifically stated in positive manner that accused persons have inflicted injuries upon deceased Rajesh Kumar in her presence with kick and fist blows and immediately thereafter deceased became unconscious. It is proved on record that after the incident deceased did not regain consciousness and he died within 1 and 2 hours due to anti mortem injuries sustained by deceased Rajesh Kumar on the left side of spleen and small intestines. 42. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that there is difference in number of injuries in the MLC report and post mortem report and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case the MLC of deceased Rajesh Kumar was issued by PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri and post mortem report of deceased Rajesh Kumar was prepared by PW18 Dr. In the present case the MLC of deceased Rajesh Kumar was issued by PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri and post mortem report of deceased Rajesh Kumar was prepared by PW18 Dr. D.P Swami. PW11 Dr. Gopal Beri has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar was in very very serious condition when he was brought to hospital on dated 16.4.2008 at about 9 p.m. PW18 Dr. D.P Swami has specifically stated in positive manner that deceased Rajesh Kumar had died due to anti mortem injuries sustained by deceased upon spleen and small intestines caused with kick and fist blows. 43. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that witnesses Hari Chand, Sunita Devi, Raj Kumar, Kuldip Singh, Kapish Chaudhry, Rajneesh Kumar and Pradeep Soni have not been examined and adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that in order to prove the fact number of witnesses is not required as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. Appellant was at liberty to examine the witness in defence but appellant has stated before the learned trial Court that he does not want to lead any evidence in defence despite opportunity granted by learned trial Court to adduce evidence in defence. 44. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that deceased Rajesh Kumar was himself aggressor and deceased was abusing appellant Nikhil Soni and deceased has slapped appellant Nikhil Soni and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the medical certificate of appellant Nikhil Soni placed on record. Appellant Nikhil Soni was not medically examined on dated 16-4-2008 on the date of incident. Appellant Nikhil Soni was examined on dated 17.4.2008 at 10.30 p.m. after the death of deceased Rajesh Kumar. As per medical certificate appellant Nikhil Soni did not sustain any external injury and had sustained only abrasion. On the contrary deceased Rajesh Kumar had sustained fatal injury upon his spleen and small intestines and death of deceased Rajesh Kumar took place within 1 and 2 hours of the incident and deceased did not regain consciousness after incident. As per medical certificate appellant Nikhil Soni did not sustain any external injury and had sustained only abrasion. On the contrary deceased Rajesh Kumar had sustained fatal injury upon his spleen and small intestines and death of deceased Rajesh Kumar took place within 1 and 2 hours of the incident and deceased did not regain consciousness after incident. Even appellant did not took the plea of self defence during cross- examination and the plea of self defence is not proved on record in the present case as required under law. It is well settled law that in right of private defence injury which is inflicted by a person exercising the right of private defence should be commensurate with the injury with which accused was threatened. See AIR 2012 SC 2181 titled Arjun v. State of Maharashtra. 45. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that learned trial Court did not examine the father of the deceased as a Court witness and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Appellant did not file any application before learned trial Court to examine the father of deceased Rajesh Kumar. On the contrary the appellant has stated in positive manner before the learned trial Court that he does not want to lead any defence evidence. 46. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that appellant Sanjiv Soni took away appellant Nikhil Soni from the spot and acted as a saviour and he could not be convicted with the aid of Section 34, IPC is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that both accused persons came at the spot for four times continuously after short intervals. No reason has been assigned by accused persons as to why they came four times upon motor cycle No.HP-22B-2000 at the place of incident continuously after short intervals. The fact that accused persons came at the place of incident for four times continuously after short intervals proves common intention on the part of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni for the commission of criminal offence i.e. culpable homicide amounting to murder because deceased died within 1-2 hours after sustained ante mortem injuries upon his body. 47. The fact that accused persons came at the place of incident for four times continuously after short intervals proves common intention on the part of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni for the commission of criminal offence i.e. culpable homicide amounting to murder because deceased died within 1-2 hours after sustained ante mortem injuries upon his body. 47. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that deceased Rajesh Kumar was healthy and well built man of heavy weight and he had fallen down on the road due to intoxication and sustained injuries is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. The plea of the appellant that deceased Rajesh Kumar himself fallen on the road in intoxication condition and sustained injuries is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). In the present case criminal case is proved against accused persons as per trustworthy and reliable testimony of eye-witnesses. 48. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that learned Sessions Judge did not frame issues for consideration and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Learned trial Court has framed point for determination in para-25 of the judgment and thereafter learned trial Court has given findings in the judgment. It is held that in criminal law issues are not framed but points are framed for determination. Learned trial Court has framed the points as required under criminal law. Issues are framed only in civil cases and issues are not framed in criminal cases and in criminal cases points are framed for determination by the criminal Courts. 49. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that learned trial Court has failed to frame proper and necessary charge against co-appellant Sanjiv Soni and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the charge framed by learned trial Court against co-appellant Sanjiv Soni. We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in framing the charges against co-appellant Sanjiv Soni. We have carefully perused the charge framed by learned trial Court against co-appellant Sanjiv Soni. We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in framing the charges against co-appellant Sanjiv Soni. Even as per Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 there is no effect of errors in the charge in criminal trial unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission and unless it occasion failure of justice. In the present case we are of the opinion that appellant is not misled by any error or omission in framing the charge and we are of the opinion that no failure of justice is caused to co-appellant Sanjiv Soni in framing the charge. Even co-appellant Sanjiv Soni during the trial did not file any application before learned trial Court for amendment of charge. No reason has been assigned by the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni as to why he did not file application before learned trial Court for amendment of criminal charge. 50. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellant Sanjiv Soni that all incriminating circumstances have not been put to the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and the same have caused prejudice to the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni in his defence is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that if accused has well understood all circumstances appearing against him and had met them squarely in cross-examination then failure of putting any question to the accused under Section 313 would not entail any irregularity. In the present case co-appellant Sanjiv Soni did not point out any failure of justice by way of not putting any question to co-appellant Sanjiv Soni. It is held that co-appellant Sanjiv Soni had understood all circumstances appearing against him and had met them in cross-examination. It is held that no failure of justice has been caused to the co-appellant Sanjiv Soni by way of non-putting any question under S. 313, Cr. P.C. 51. In view of the above stated facts it is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that learned trial Court did not cause any miscarriage of justice to both appellants. P.C. 51. In view of the above stated facts it is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that learned trial Court did not cause any miscarriage of justice to both appellants. Both appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2008 titled Nikhil Soni v. State of H.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2008 titled Sanjiv Soni v. State of H.P. are dismissed. Judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court are affirmed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of. Certified copy of this judgment be placed in Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2008 titled Sanjiv Soni v. State of H.P. Record of learned trial Court along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith. Appeal dismissed.