Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 744 (HP)

Santosh Kumar alias Mungi Ram v. State of H. P.

2014-06-16

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. This appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 27.03.2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.22-B/2006/RBT No. 22-B/VII/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2004, Shri Bhagat Ram was at his house and he had sent his daughter Jinna Kumari for fetching grocery articles from a shop, at Gunehar. Jinna Kumari on returning home, informed Bhagat Ram that Shri Vija Ram, her uncle, was being beaten up by Santosh Kumar alias Mungi Ram at the back yard of the cow shed of Bishan Dass. On receiving this information, Bhagat Ram, along with his daughter Jinna Kumari, proceeded to the spot. On their arrival near the spot, his daughter Jinna Kumari pointed to him the place where Mungi Ram was beating Vija Ram. Bhagat Ram is stated to have seen along with his daughter Jinna Kumari, Santosh Kumar alias Mungi Ram lifting and pelting stones on the head of Vija Ram and subsequently, Santosh Kumar alias Mungi Ram fled away. Both Jinna Kumari and Bhagat Ram lifted Vija Ram. He was noticed by them to have suffered injuries on his head wherefrom blood was copiously oozing out. Vija Ram, the injured with the help of the villagers of Guneher was taken to hospital and enroute he succumbed to the injuries. Bhagat Ram recorded his statement before the police. An FIR No. 185 of 2004 came to be registered against the accused/appellant for his having committed an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The dead body of the deceased Vija Ram was taken into possession and inquest papers were prepared. The dead body of deceased Vija Ram was subjected to post mortem examination and post mortem report was obtained. The medical Officer obtained the blood sample of deceased Vija Ram, one packet of clothings, one packet of belongings and handed over the same to the police. The dead body of deceased Vija Ram was subjected to post mortem examination and post mortem report was obtained. The medical Officer obtained the blood sample of deceased Vija Ram, one packet of clothings, one packet of belongings and handed over the same to the police. During the course of investigation, the police obtained revenue papers and the accused Santosh, made a disclosure statement, that he could show the place of occurrence. Pursuant thereto, he, led the police party and showed the place of occurrence. He also rendered a statement that he had concealed his clothes and that he could get them recovered. His statement was recorded. In pursuance to the recording of his disclosure statement qua the aforesaid fact, he produced clothes i.e. blood stained jacket, one pant and one pair sports shoes, which the police seized through a separate memorandum. Police also seized soil and blood stained gravel and put in a phial and sealed with seal ‘X’ and took them into possession, through separate memorandum, besides, obtaining control sample of the spot. Two blood stained stones were taken into possession, through, separate memorandum. The various articles and samples were sent to the FSL, Junga, Shimla for rendition of opinion. 3. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused was charged for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined many witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused. 5. PW-1 Dr. O.P. Ram Dev, Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem on the body of Vija Ram, has deposed that on 31.12.2004, the police requisitioned the conducting of postmortem of the dead body of Vija Ram under application Ex.PW1/A accompanied with inquest papers Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. He deposes that he, along with Dr.Sunita Kashyap, had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased on 1.1.2005. He deposed that on examination of the dead body of the deceased, he observed as under : “Regor mortis present on four limbs. Postmortem staining present over back of the chest, abdomen, axillary region, back of shoulder of upper limbs and back of both limbs, including gluteal region. CLW of size 2’ x ½’ just above left eyebrow present. Blood oozing out from the wound. On opening skull, Hematoma present over left frontal region. Fracture of frontal bone present on left side with subdural hematoma with blood of approximate 100-150 C.C. pressing upon the brain. Walls of the chest normal, pleurae normal. Larynx and traches normal. Lungs balck in colour. Heard normal. Walls normal. Peritioneum normal. Mouth lyarynx and ocsophagus normal. Stomach and its contents containing semidigested food material. Small intestines and their contents containing semidigested food material. Large intestines and their contents were faecal matter. Liver, spleen, kichey were normal. Bladder was empty. Organs of generation external and internal was normal.” 6. On the basis of the observations of the injuries found by PW-1 Dr. O.P. Ram Dev on the body of the deceased, he, deposed that in his opinion, comprised in postmortem report Ex.PW1/D, the, cause of death was “head injury leading to fracture to skull bones. Rupture of subdural vessels leading to bleeding from nose and leading to shock cardio respiratory failure with death”. He further deposed that in his opinion, comprised in Ex.PW-1E, these injuries could be caused with stones. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he admitted the suggestion that the cause of injury could be of the deceased in consequence to his being inebriated rolling down a hill and his head being struck with stone. 7. PW-2, Ms. Jeena Kumari, is, the star witness of the incident. She has narrated an ocular version of the incident. She deposed that on 31.12.2004, at about 5.00 p.m., she had gone to a shop in village Guneher to purchase certain articles. On returning from the shop, when she reached near the house of Mali Ram, she saw Santosh Kumar and Vija Ram altercating with each other. On inquiry by her from them qua the cause of quarrel, they moved ahead, however, after covering some distance, they started re-altercating. On returning from the shop, when she reached near the house of Mali Ram, she saw Santosh Kumar and Vija Ram altercating with each other. On inquiry by her from them qua the cause of quarrel, they moved ahead, however, after covering some distance, they started re-altercating. At that time Jiya Lal, co-villager came there, who intervened and after his intervention Jiya Lal asked her to bring both of them together, where-after said Jiya Lal is deposed to have left the place. After lapse of some time, the accused is deposed to have told Vijay Ram to marry his sister, at which the deceased Vija Ram got offended and told accused Mungi Ram to bring his mother ‘Randi’ which sequelled the eruption of another bout of fight inter-se them. Thereafter, she left for her house and called her father Bhagat Ram to the place where both of them were fighting with each other and when both reached the spot, the said accused Mungi Ram started pelting stones at Vija Ram which struck his head, in consequence whereto, he fell down and became unconscious and thereafter Mungi Ram, is, deposed to have run away from the spot. She, along with her father and with help of other co-villagers, lifted the injured to her house, where efforts to revive the injured were made by massaging and thereafter he was lifted to hospital by her father and paternal uncle, yet, injured, Vija Ram, is deposed to have succumbed to the injuries enroute to hospital. The accused has been identified by her in Court to be the same person. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she previously narrated to the police the place and cause of the quarrel inter-se the accused and the deceased. However, on this witness being confronted with her previous statement comprised in Mark-X2, it was noticed that, no such statement, comprising the above fact, had been made by her to the police. It was also suggested to her that she had narrated to the police that on intervention, the accused and deceased Vija Ram, after some distance, had again started quarreling with each other. Again, this fact is not recorded by her in her previous statement, made by her to the police. It was also suggested to her that she had narrated to the police that on intervention, the accused and deceased Vija Ram, after some distance, had again started quarreling with each other. Again, this fact is not recorded by her in her previous statement, made by her to the police. In addition, she deposes that she had narrated to the police that when the accused and Vija Ram again started quarreling, then Jiya Lal intervened and stopped them from quarreling. This fact, as deposed by her in Court, has not come to be previously stated to the police. She also deposed that she narrated to the police that Jiya Lal had directed her to bring the accused and Vija Ram to his house, yet this fact is omitted to be stated by her to the police. Moreover, she has deposed to have narrated to the police, that, accused Mungi Ram proposed his sister to marry the deceased and the deceased got offended by asking Mungi Ram to propose the hand of his mother ‘Randi’. This fact appears to have been deposed by her for the first time in the Court, in as much, as, it has not been deposed previously by her to the police. This witness has also deposed that the accused pelted a stone at the stage when she, along with her father, visited the site of occurrence and not earlier. However, the above fact is contradicted by her previous statement Mark X-2, wherein, it is recorded that even before her father has arrived at the site of occurrence, the accused pelted stones at the deceased. 8. PW-3 (Bhagat Ram), is, the deposition of the father of PW-2, Jeena Kumari, who, in a clear, candid and categorical manner, has corroborated the version qua the incident as spelt out by his daughter, PW-2 Jeena Kumari. PW-5 (Subhash Chand) deposes, that, on an application Ex.PW5/A, addressed to Tehsildar, Baijnath, he delivered to the investigating officer, the revenue documents qua the place of occurrence. 9. PW-6 (Jiya Lal) has deposed qua the fact of having seen the accused and the deceased engaged in a verbal wrangle over the issue of marriage and thereafter both of them were seen fighting with each other. He further deposes that he intervened and separated them and accompanied Vija Ram for some distance, whereas, accused Mungi Ram followed behind. 9. PW-6 (Jiya Lal) has deposed qua the fact of having seen the accused and the deceased engaged in a verbal wrangle over the issue of marriage and thereafter both of them were seen fighting with each other. He further deposes that he intervened and separated them and accompanied Vija Ram for some distance, whereas, accused Mungi Ram followed behind. Subsequently, Vija Ram, as well, as he went to his house. In cross-examination, no suggestion has been put to him to contradict his version, that the cause of quarrel inter-se the accused and the deceased was over the issue of marriage. 10. PW-7 (Suresh Kumar) deposes that on 31.12.2004, at about 5.00 p.m., Jeena Kumari, daughter of Bhagat Ram had come to his shop to purchase certain articles and after purchasing the same, she left to her house. He deposes that on the same evening he came to learn that Vija Ram had quarreled with Mungi Ram alias Santosh Kumar, in which Vija Ram had died. 11. PW-8 (Pradeep Kumar) deposes that on 4.1.2005, he was associated by the police in the investigation into the offence, besides him Veena Devi, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Guneher, was also associated by the police. The accused, has also been deposed by this witness to have been arrested by the police and his having made a disclosure statement to the police for getting identified the site of occurrence qua which memorandum Ex.PW8/A was prepared, in which he and Smt. Veena Devi appended their signatures and thereafter the accused led them to the spot and identified the place of occurrence, qua which memorandum Ex.PW8/B was prepared, which was signed by him and Veena Devi, as also, by the accused. The accused is stated to have disclosed to the police the fact of his having concealed, the blood stained clothes in a box in his house and to have undertaken, to get them recovered. His disclosure statement, qua the above fact, was recorded in Ex.PW8/C which was deposed to be signed by this witness and Veena Devi. The accused is stated to have disclosed to the police the fact of his having concealed, the blood stained clothes in a box in his house and to have undertaken, to get them recovered. His disclosure statement, qua the above fact, was recorded in Ex.PW8/C which was deposed to be signed by this witness and Veena Devi. In consequence thereto, the accused led this witness and Veena Devi to his house and thereafter produced the blood stained clothes, one shirt and a pair of shoes, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW8/D. Ex.P-1 Pant, Ex.P-2 shirt/Jacket, a pair of shoes Ex.P-3 have been deposed to be the same which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. This witness, as well, as Veena Devi, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Guneher and the accused have been deposed to have signed the seizure memo Ex.PW-8/D. In his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that entire police proceedings were completed after the visiting of the spot by the police in the company of the accused and PW-8 and PW-9. 12. PW-9 (Veena Devi) corroborated the testimony of PW-8 qua the facts as deposed by PW-8. However, in her examination-in-chief, she has deposed that she was associated by the police in the investigation on 31.12.2004 in contradiction to the testimony of PW-8 who had deposed that he had been associated by the police in to the investigation conducted by them on 4.1.2005. On 31.12.2004, she has deposed that the accused Mungi Ram was already in the police station. Besides, she has deposed that she was not accompanied by PW-8, but by one Shiv Pal, Ward Panch. 13. PW-14 (Dalip Singh), is, the investigating officer. He has deposed to have received a telephonic information on, 31.12.2004 from Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Guneher. He visited the spot along with other police officials and recorded the statement, Ex. PW3/A of Bhagat Ram under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. He has deposed to have prepared inquest reports Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C and made an application Ex.PW1/A, for, conducting the postmortem of dead body, of, the deceased to the Medical Officer. He prepared the spot maps Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C with respect to the recovery of the dead body of the accused. He has further stated to have collected the photographs of the dead body of the deceased Ex.PW14/D to Ex.PW14/F and negatives thereof Ex.PW14/D-1 to Ex.PW14/F-1. He prepared the spot maps Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C with respect to the recovery of the dead body of the accused. He has further stated to have collected the photographs of the dead body of the deceased Ex.PW14/D to Ex.PW14/F and negatives thereof Ex.PW14/D-1 to Ex.PW14/F-1. He took into possession blood stained soil and gravels Ex.P-4 from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A in presence of witnesses. He also took into possession sample of soil Ex. P-5 from the spot vide memorandum Ex.PW9/B in presence of witnesses. He took also into possession two stones Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, having blood stains from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/D in presence of the witnesses. He is stated to have prepared the site map of the occurrence, Ex.PW14/G on the identification of the accused. On 4.1.2005, the accused is stated to have made disclosure statement, Ex.PW8/C, in presence of the witnesses, to get the clothes, which were worn by him on the date of occurrence and pant Ex.P1, shirt/jacket Ex.P2 and pair of shoes Ex.P-3, recovered. The same were recovered at the instance of the accused and spot map with respect to the recovery of these articles comprised in Ex.PW14/H was prepared. He is also stated to have moved an application, Ex.PW5/A to the Tehsildar, Baijanath for obtaining the revenue record of the spot and in pursuance thereto, he obtained copy of jamabandi, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and aks shazra Ex.PW5/D. In cross-examination, he has deposed that telephonic information was received at 9.30 p.m. from Veen Devi, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and accordingly he reached the spot at 11 p.m. The Pradhan Gram Panchayat was also accompanying them to the place of occurrence, as her house was adjacent to the site of occurrence. He denied the suggestion of the accused being present on the spot. He stated that the quarrel had started at 5:30 p.m. as disclosed to him during investigation. When he reached the spot, the dead body was lying in the verandah of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Gunehar. The distance between the site of occurrence and the place, where the dead body was kept, is about 2 ½ kilometers. He has denied the suggestion that the accused as well as the deceased had consumed the liquor. He has also denied the suggestion that the deceased had died as a result of fall. The distance between the site of occurrence and the place, where the dead body was kept, is about 2 ½ kilometers. He has denied the suggestion that the accused as well as the deceased had consumed the liquor. He has also denied the suggestion that the deceased had died as a result of fall. He feigned his ignorance whether the stones Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 can cause death of a person. He has also denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused in connivance with the brother of the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that no disclosure statements, with respect to the identification of the spot, as well, as, qua the concealment of the clothes, were made by the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that that no spot map was prepared pursuant to such disclosure statement. 14. We have heard the learned defence counsel, as well, as, the learned Additional Advocate General at length. 15. The entire evidence on record has been scrutinized thoroughly and with threadbare precision. The imminent fact, which emerges, on perusal of the testimony of PW-1 Dr. O.P. Ram Dev, Medical officer, who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and proved the postmortem report Ex.PW1/D, is of the demise of the deceased being sequelled by head injury and its leading to fracture of skull bones, “rupture of subdural vessels leading to bleeding from nose and consequently to shock cardio respiratory failure” leading to the demise of the deceased Vija Ram. He has been firm and formidable in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief, qua the fact of the injuries observed on the dead body of the deceased, being caused with stones Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7. The medical evidence, on record, has come to be corroborated by the testimony of PW-2 Jeena Kumari, the eye witness to the occurrence. She has squarely, forthrightly and categorically deposed qua the fact of hers having, on the fateful day, observed both the accused and the deceased (both related to her) being engaged in a verbal wrangle, though, on inquiry by her from them qua the cause of quarrel, they started moving ahead, yet, after some distance, they started re-wrangling. She has squarely, forthrightly and categorically deposed qua the fact of hers having, on the fateful day, observed both the accused and the deceased (both related to her) being engaged in a verbal wrangle, though, on inquiry by her from them qua the cause of quarrel, they started moving ahead, yet, after some distance, they started re-wrangling. On the intervention of Jiya Lal, the quarrel ceased for a brief moment and both of them together moved with her towards their house, however, despite some respite, on the accused having proposed his sister’s hand to the deceased in marriage, invited the annoyance of the deceased, who, rather, took to propose that the accused propose the hand of his mother ‘randi’ in marriage. It intensified the quarrel inter-se them. She left for her home and called her father Sh.Bhagat Ram to the place of occurrence and on the arrival of her father, she as well as her father, both saw the accused lifting and pelting the stone on Vija Ram resulting in head injury being caused on the person of the deceased. The deposition of this eye witness to the occurrence has to be read, as a whole, in as much, as, a conjoint reading of her deposition in Court vis-à-vis her previous statement recorded by police unravels, may bring to the fore some improvements or contradictions. The improvements which this witness has made over the previously recorded statement in writing are (b) her having not previously stated to the police that on her intervention the accused and the deceased ceased the quarrel for a brief moment and started re-wrangling on covering some distance; (c) she having not previously stated to the police that Jiya Lal intervened when both had started rewrangling and stopped them from quarrelling; (d) she having not previously stated to the police that Jiya Lal having directed her to bring the accused and the deceased together to her house, they being her uncles and; (e) she having not previously stated to the police that when accused Mungi Ram proposed his sister’s hand in marriage to deceased, the deceased got offended and retorted to the proposal, by asking the accused to propose the hand of his mother “randi” in marriage. She also contradicted herself over her previous statement, recorded in writing by the police, in as much, as, she had stated to the police that even before the arrival of her father, along with her, at the site of occurrence, when both saw the accused pelting stone at the deceased, she had seen the accused pelting the stone at the deceased, yet, she omitted to depose so in Court. However, even given the fact, that, the eye witness to the occurrence, PW-2, may even have previously stated to the police then even before the arrival of her father along with her, at, the site of occurrence when both noticed the accused pelting the stone at the deceased, she had previously stated hers having seen the accused pelting stones at the deceased, which fact she omitted to depose in Court, hence, her omission constituting and comprising an embellished improvement. Nonetheless, when the fact of hers, along with her father, having arrived at the site of occurrence and both having seen the accused pelting the stones at the deceased has come to be unequivocally corroborated by the deposition of PW-3 Bhagat Ram. Consequently, her square and forthright version of hers along with her father having both simultaneously seen the accused and the deceased together, on their arrival, at the site of occurrence and theirs also having both seen the accused pelting the stones at the deceased, is, hence, believable. It over shadow the effect, if any, of hers having omitted to depose in Court the fact of hers even prior to her arrival along with her father at the site of occurrence, she had seen the accused pelting stones at the deceased. Consequently, her testimony is neither engulfed with an aura of untruthfulness, besides her testimony remains trustworthy and inspiring qua the substratum the fact deposed, in, tandem with the testimony of PW-3 Shri Bhagat Ram, her father, in as much, as, both having witnessed the accused pelting stones at the deceased. 15. Consequently, her testimony is neither engulfed with an aura of untruthfulness, besides her testimony remains trustworthy and inspiring qua the substratum the fact deposed, in, tandem with the testimony of PW-3 Shri Bhagat Ram, her father, in as much, as, both having witnessed the accused pelting stones at the deceased. 15. In addition, though, a concerted attempt has been made by the learned defence counsel to dispel the presence of Jiya Lal at the site of occurrence, as purportedly evident from the fact, of hers, having improved upon her previous statement made to the police, in as much, as, only in her deposition in Court, she states the fact of Jiya Lal, co-villager having intervened and having stopped the deceased and the accused from wrangling. As such, the presence at the site of occurrence of PW-6 Jiyal Lal, is hence, to be canvassed to be dispelled. However, on a close and keen reading and in wholesome fashion, of the statement of PW-6, Jiya Lal, in examination-in-chief, as also in his cross-examination, it overwhelmingly surfaces that when PW-6, Jiya Lal, has unequivocally deposed qua his presence at the site of occurrence and when in his cross-examination, no suggestion has been put to him to convey that he was not present at the site of occurrence. On the contrary, when a suggestion has been put to him that both Vija Ram and accused had taken the liquor, rather, portrays, that, hence, in the defence making the suggestion, it intends to convey the fact of both being together and consuming liquor. Consequently, the presence of PW-6 at the site of occurrence has remained neither over come nor dispelled. As sequel, then, the effort on the part of the learned defence counsel for the accused, on the basis of or on the strength of improvement purportedly dispelling the presence of PW-6 at the site of occurrence, canvassing to erode the efficacy of the prosecution version, is, a wholly futile exercise. In consequence, it does not erode nor whittle the truthfulness of PW-2 Jeena Kumari and PW-3 Bhagat Ram qua the fact, they depose in tandem with each other, of them having noticed simultaneously the accused pelting stones at the deceased. 16. In consequence, it does not erode nor whittle the truthfulness of PW-2 Jeena Kumari and PW-3 Bhagat Ram qua the fact, they depose in tandem with each other, of them having noticed simultaneously the accused pelting stones at the deceased. 16. The learned defence counsel, has, also made submission qua the efficacy of the recoveries of the various articles vide recovery memo Ex.PW8/D in pursuance to disclosure statement Ex.PW8/C, in as much, as, with PW-8 Pradeep Kumar deposing, that, on 4.1.2005, he, along with PW-9 Smt. Veen Devi, was associated by the police in the investigation conducted into the offence and theirs having seen the accused getting effectuated the recoveries of various articles/items reflected in the recovery memos, yet, when PW-9 deposes that she was not accompanied by PW-8 Pradeep Kumar, rather, has contrarily deposed that not on 4.1.2005, but on 31.12.2004, she was accompanied by one Shiv Pal, Ward Panch, renders the disclosure statement, as well, as the consequent recoveries, made thereto, nugatory, hence, are of no avail to the prosecution. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution cannot capitalize on the recoveries, as such, the fatal and pivotal link in connecting the accused with the offence has been broken. Furthermore, it is also contended that given the deposition of PW-8 Pardeep Kumar, that the entire proceedings had concluded in the police station, obliges this Court to render findings that (a) the recoveries were not made at the spot where they have been shown to be made at the instance of the accused nor memos qua the recoveries were prepared at the spot; (b) hence, the recoveries are vitiated, theirs having been effected at the police station. In testing, the strength of the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, this Court is constrained, to, irrevere them, as, only in a case of circumstantial evidence, the inefficacious manner of recoveries of articles/items at the instance of the accused would have sequelled the breaking of links in the chain of circumstances. In testing, the strength of the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, this Court is constrained, to, irrevere them, as, only in a case of circumstantial evidence, the inefficacious manner of recoveries of articles/items at the instance of the accused would have sequelled the breaking of links in the chain of circumstances. However, when the instant case is not of circumstantial evidence, consequently, even if, there is some contradiction in the testimony of PW-8, Pradeep Kumar and PW-9 Veena Devi inter-se the aforesaid fact, as also, assuming that the recoveries of the various items and proceedings thereto having been concluded at the police station, as such, rendering them to be construable to be a charade may be then, negating the role of the accused, yet, pre-ponderantly and overwhelmingly, qua the fact that (a) both PW-2 Jeena Kumari and PW-3 Bhagat Ram have in unanimity and forthrightly deposed theirs having seen the accused pelting the stones at the deceased; (b) medical evidence, supporting and corroborating the testimony of the eye witnesses and (c) the report of the FSL, comprised in Ex.PW14/J and Ex.PW14/K, besides, with its voicing the fact of human blood being noticed on the soil gravels, T-shirt of the accused and the shoes of the accused, is, forcibly communicative of the fact of pelting stones by the accused on the person of the deceased, resulting in copious oozing of blood from that portion of the head, which portion was struck by stones, hence, sequelling blood dripping on the clothes of the accused, whereupon the stones as also the soil having come to be stained/smeared with blood. Therefore, renders frail the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the inefficacy of recoveries, the prosecution case founders. The report of FSL, too, convincingly and formidably, corroborates the medical evidence as well as the eye witnesses account, hence, cumulatively dispel any aura of doubt which may purportedly make inroads into it, on score of the purportedly inefficacious recoveries of various items/articles under various memos which for the reasons aforesaid, are to be concluded to have no bearing on the case, anvilled upon eye witnesses account, medical evidence and FSL reports Ex.PW14/J and Ex.PW14/K. 17. Consequently, this Court, is, hence, led to the conclusion that the findings of the learned trial Court, qua the fact of it having imputed credence to the eye witnesses, as well, as, to the medical evidence or scientific evidence, comprised in FSL repots Ex.PW14/J and Ex.PW14/K, does not necessitate irreverence, nor findings are to be denounced. However, the learned trial Court has omitted to attach significance to the fact of PW-2 Jeena Kmari, in, her examination-inchief having deposed that preceding her departing from the site of occurrence to summon her father to the place where the accused and the deceased were quarreling, she had heard the accused to be proposing the hand of his sister to the deceased in marriage, which ignited his annoyance leading him to retort by asking the accused to propose the hands of his mother (randi) in marriage to him. Even though, the said fact has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General to be comprising an improvement, in as much, as, the said fact was deposed for the first time in Court. Hence, its having been deposed by PW-2 Jeena Kumari, yet, it having been omitted to be stated by her to the police previously, renders it to be tainted by the vice of embellishment, as such, discardable. However, when PW-6 Jiya Lal, too, has deposed in tandem qua the fact, as deposed by PW-2 Jeena Kumari, in as much, as, he has deposed that both the accused and the deceased were engaged in verbal wrangle qua the issue of marriage. As a sequel, then, it appears that, hence, PW-2 Jeena Kumari is rendering a truthful version qua the fact of the deceased having asked the accused that instead of his proposing the hands of his sister in marriage to him, he offer the hand of his mother (randi) in marriage to him. 18. The above utterances comprised a dire and sudden provocation. The provocation, hence, fomented or actuated the accused to, during the course of their ensuing fight/scuffle, lift a stone and pelt it on the deceased, sequeling his death. It being a natural and spontaneous reaction, ignited by proven inflammatory utterances, does, hence, give it the hue of its comprising a dire and sudden provocation rendering it to fall within the exception to Section 300 of the IPC. It being a natural and spontaneous reaction, ignited by proven inflammatory utterances, does, hence, give it the hue of its comprising a dire and sudden provocation rendering it to fall within the exception to Section 300 of the IPC. In aftermath, it can be convincingly concluded that the death of the deceased was not intentional, rather, the fatal injuries were sequelled by sudden and grave provocation, as such, the case falls within the ambit and scope of exception to Section 300 IPC. Consequently, the appeal, preferred by the appellant, is partly allowed and the judgment, rendered on 27.3.2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharamshala, is modified to the extent, indicated above. 19. To be heard on quantum of sentence on 2nd July, 2014.