JUDGMENT 1. - This Appeal has been filed by accused-appellants, (1) Mohabbat Singh, (2) Chhagan Singh, and (3) Khet Singh, all by caste Rawna Rajpoot, residents of Village-Odd, District-Sirohi (Rajasthan) against the Judgment dated 28.4.2005 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 2/2005 (44/2004) by which that Court had convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as follows:- (1) Mohabbat Singh Section 302 I.P.C. : Life imprisonment with fine of L 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's R.l. Section 341/34 I.P.C. : One month's S.l. (2) Chhagan Singh Section 302/34 I.P.C. : Life imprisonment with fine of L 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year R.l. Section 341/34 I.P.C. : One month's S.l. (3) Khet Singh Section 302/34 I.P.C. : Life imprisonment with fine of L 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's R.l. Section 341 I.P.C. : One month's S.l. 2. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that Shaitan Singh was returning in a car with his distant cousin Hanuman Singh at 9.30 A.M. on 12.11.2004 to his village and when they reached bus stand Odd, then they met Mohabbat Singh who started badly abusing to Hanuman Singh and then accused Chhagan Singh and accused Khet Singh caught hold of Hanuman Singh from back side and then Khet Singh told Mohabbat Singh ( ekj lkys dks vius ihNs iM+ x;k gS ) then Mohabbat Singh picked out a knife from his pocket and stabbed repeatedly in the left side of stomach of Hanuman Singh. Hanuman Singh died before reaching District Hospital, Sirohi because at village Javal and at village Barloot, no medical facility was available. 3. The arguments of the accused-appellants are as follows : (1) that the prosecution has not proved its story beyond reasonable doubt and so that benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused-appellants. (2) that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses and so the parrot-like statements of the witnesses should have been discarded by the Trial Court. (2) that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses and so the parrot-like statements of the witnesses should have been discarded by the Trial Court. (3) that the telephonic information given from Barloot Hospital to the S.H.O. by the complainant should be treated as F.I.R. and since that information does not discloses the names of the accused, so the prosecution story should not have been accepted. (4) that F.I.R. Ex. P-8 reached the concerned Magistrate Court on the next date, i.e. 13.11.2004 at 8.00 P.M. in the night and no explanation for the delay has been given by the prosecution, so on this count also, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants. (5) that the prosecution had relied upon all the interested witnesses who were of the same caste and so conviction cannot be sustained. (6) that no blood was found on the clothes of PW-3 Shaitan Singh, PW-7 Om Singh and PW-9 Doongar Singh, though they have stated that they had put the body of the deceased in the car after the occurrence. On this count also, the benefit of doubt is claimed by the accused-appellants. (7) that no person from the locality of the bus stand have turned up as a witness, causing suspicion in the prosecution story. (8) that the recovery of knife made from the accused is from an open place and further more, the knife was not shown to the doctor to ascertain that injuries caused in the present case was from that weapon or not. (9) that the defence story has wrongly been discarded by the Trial Court. (10) that no role to the two other accused-persons has been assigned by any of the witnesses and so Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh have also wrongly been convicted by the Trial Court. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and we have heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor also. 5. This is an admitted fact in the case that deceased Hanuman Singh had been allegedly implicated in a molestation case relating to sister of accused Mohabbat Singh and so, there was previous enmity between Mohabbat Singh and Hanuman Singh. 5. This is an admitted fact in the case that deceased Hanuman Singh had been allegedly implicated in a molestation case relating to sister of accused Mohabbat Singh and so, there was previous enmity between Mohabbat Singh and Hanuman Singh. Enmity is a double edged weapon and so the police as well as the prosecution both want to take benefit of the factum of previous enmity in this case so as to substantiate their arguments. 6. In this case, we have not to decide the factum of alleged molestation of sister of Mohabbat Singh by Hanuman Singh, but we have to examine the role of Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh in the accident. All the important witnesses have stated in the case that Hanuman Singh was caught hold of by Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh and with their support and instigation, Mohabbat Singh took it upon himself to kill Hanuman Singh and for this purpose, he repeatedly stabbed Hanuman Singh, because of which Hanuman Singh died soon after the stabbing. 7. Looking to the number of fatal injuries caused to Hanuman Singh, it cannot be said that the intention of Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh was only to beat Hanuman Singh and it can also not be said that there was no common intention to cause the death of Hanuman Singh amongst three accused-persons. The way in which Hanuman Singh was killed by successive stab injuries caused by Mohabbat Singh while being caught hold of by other two accused-persons clearly indicates that there was common intention amongst the accused-persons to cause death of Hanuman Singh. Had it not been so, after the first attack by knife, caused by Mohabbat Singh, other two would have run away from the spot or would have tried to rescue Hanuman Singh from murderous attack by their friend. Stab injuries caused to Hanuman Singh are directly suggestive of the fact that he had not fallen down after the first stab injury because all the injuries were caused to him while he was standing and looking to the depth of injuries, it can safely be said that deceased Hanuman Singh was under the clutches of accused Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh and so he did not fell down or could not try to save his life by moving from the place where he was attacked. 8. 8. Let us examine the statement of the doctor in the case. The post-mortem was conducted by the Medical Board consisting of Dr. Rajendra Arora (PW-5), Dr. Bhagawan Sahai and Dr. R.K. Malviya. Dr. 8. Let us examine the statement of the doctor in the case. The post-mortem was conducted by the Medical Board consisting of Dr. Rajendra Arora (PW-5), Dr. Bhagawan Sahai and Dr. R.K. Malviya. Dr. Rajendra Arora has stated that at the time of post-mortem of Hanuman Singh, he found following injuries in his body: ( 1 ) [kjkSp 3 x 2 ls0eh0 Nkr ij ckbZ rjQ fuiy ls 5 ls0eh0 uhpsA vkSj 4 ls0eh0 e/;js[kk ls nwj tks vkM+h pksV FkhA ( 2 ) LVsc oq.M % 4 ls0eh0 yEck 2 ls0eh0 pkSM+k LihaMy lsQ e; uqdhyh /kkj tks frjNh Fkh] cka, isV esa mijh rjQA ( 3 ) LVsc oq.M % 2x1.5 ls0eh0 [kM+h Fkh] pksV la0] nks ls ,d ls0eh0 uhps dh vkSj o nks ls0eh0 ckgj dh rjQA pksV elyMhi Fkh] pksV la0 nks rd tk jgh FkhA ( 4 ) LVsc oq.M v)ZpUnzkdkj vkdkj dk] 3 ls0eh0 yack] ektZu lh/ks o vUn:uh Fkh o FkksM+h frjNh FkhA pksV mij dh vksj tkrh gqbZ Fkh rFkk ckgjh ilyh dh Vhi rd FkhA ( 5 ) dVk gqvk ?kko 2x0.5 ls0eh0 gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd ckabZ dksguh ijA e`rd dk 'kjhj [kksyus ij fuEu vUn:uh pksVsa ikbZ xbZ%& ( 6 ) xzsVj vksesaVe ( isV ds vanj dk mijh vkoj.k ) ij nks txg QVk gqvk Fkk ,d txg 5 ls0eh0 o nwljh txg 18 ls0eh0 o [kwu tek gqvk FkkA M~;qje o tstwue ds tksM+ ij ,d ls0eh0 yEck dVk gqvk ?kko o felsaUVjhd vkVhZd Hkh dVh gqbZ Fkh o isjksfVfu;e ds ihNs 7x4 ls0eh0 ds Hkkx esa [kwu tek gqvk FkkA ijksfVfu;e dsfoVh ds vanj djhc <+kbZ yhVj [kwu dk teko FkkA ( 7 ) vkek'k; esa xzsVsdjospj ds uhps ds Hkkx esa 1-5 ls0eh0 x 0-4 ls0eh0 dk isfuVsafVax ?kko FkkA vkek'k; ds vanj yxHkx 200 ,e0,e0 vk/kk ipk gqvk Hkkstu [kwu ds lkFk feDl FkkA isfuV~sfVax oq.M 1-5 ls0eh0 x -4 ls0eh0 dk FkkA mijksDr lHkh pksVsa e`R;q iwoZ dh Fkh o izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr FkhA iksLVekVZe ds ckn cksMZ dh jk; esa e`rd guqekuflag dh e`R;q vR;kf/kd van:uh jDrL=ko ls mRiUu gqbZ 'kkd ls gqbZ FkhA jDrL=ko esalsUV~hd oslYl vksesaVy oslYl] bUV~kisfjVkfu;e gsejst ls gqvk FkkA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&13 gS] ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSa] lh ls Mh Mk0 Hkxoku lgk; ds o bZ ls ,Q Mk0vkj0ds0 ekyoh;k ds gLrk{kj gSA pksV la0 nks] dsoy] gh izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr Fkh e`R;q lHkh pksVsa ds lkeqfgd izHkko ls gqbZ FkhA " 9. In Cross-examination, Dr. Rajendra Arora has clarified that the deceased must have been attacked while he was in standing position. He further states that the deceased could have walked hardly for ten yards after infliction of injuries on him. He has further stated that injury No. 1 could have been caused by a blunt weapon and all other four external injuries could have been caused by one and the same knife and two internal injuries were also caused by a sharp weapon. 10. Thus, Dr. Rajendra Arora has fully supported the prosecution story that deceased Hanuman Singh was attacked by a knife repeatedly so as to cause his death even before reaching the hospital. Previous enmity is also not disputed in this case. No doubt, previous enmity has not been alleged against accused Chhagan Singh and Khet Singh but being friends of accused Mohabbat Singh, they must also be having common intention to eliminate Hanuman Singh, as might have been desired by Mohabbat Singh, as is apparently proved in this case. 11. PW-3 Shaitan Singh is the most important witness of prosecution in this case. He states that accused Chhagan Singh asked him to stop the car and when lanuman Singh along with him were coming out of car, Mohabbat Singh startea edly abusing Hanuman Singh and then Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh caught old of Hanuman Singh from back side and then Mohabbat Singh picket out a knife from his own pocket and then he attacked Hanuman Singh in his stomach on the left side reputedly by the knife. Shaitan Singh states that blood was oozing out from the stomach of Hanuman Singh and so he was terrified and started carrying for help and then Om Singh and Doongar Singh rushed to the pot, after which all the three accused-persons ran away from the spot leaving Hanuman Singh in a badly injured condition. 12. PW-7 Om Singh states that on hearing the cries of complainant, they rushed to the spot and found that, Chhagan Singh, Mohabbat Singh and Khet Singh were running away after killing Hanuman Singh. 13. PW-9 Doongar Singh has also supported the prosecution story. 12. PW-7 Om Singh states that on hearing the cries of complainant, they rushed to the spot and found that, Chhagan Singh, Mohabbat Singh and Khet Singh were running away after killing Hanuman Singh. 13. PW-9 Doongar Singh has also supported the prosecution story. He also states that Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh caught hold of Hanuman Singh from back side and then Khet Singh instigated others to kill Hanuman Singh Thereupon Mohabbat Singh picket out a knife from his pocket and caused repeated attacks of knife in the stomach of Hanuman Singh. He says that on fearing cries of Shaitan Singh, he along with Shanker Singh, Jeewan Singh and Arjun rushed to the spot. He states that he and Om Singh helped Shaitan Singh to carry Hanuman Singh to the hospital and before reaching District Hospital, Sirohi, Hanuman Singh succumbed to his injuries. 14. PW-8 Bhabhuta Ram states that a knife was recovered at the instance of accused Mohabbat Singh by police from the residence of Mohabbat Singh. The seized memo (Ex. P-15) has been exhibited by this witness. FSL report Ex. P-25 has been exhibited in this case, according to which sized articles, Chola (jabba), blood smeared stones. T-Shirt, shirt (from-e), Chaku and shirt (from-s) were found stained with human blood of Group-A. This fact proves that the recovered knife was the same knife which was used in the murder of Hanuman Singh. We And no lacuna in the statement of this important witness also. 15. PW-1 Balu Ram is a formal witness of memos Ex. P-l, Ex. P-2, Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. Similarly, PW-2 Surendra Singh is also a formal witness of site plan Ex. P-5and seizure memo Ex. P-6. 16. PW-3 Shaitan Singh was stated in his cross-examination that while informing the police about the incident on telephone, he had also given the names of the assailants. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that telephonic information mentions that Hanuman Singh was attacked by some youngster's of Rawna-Rajpoot community. P-5and seizure memo Ex. P-6. 16. PW-3 Shaitan Singh was stated in his cross-examination that while informing the police about the incident on telephone, he had also given the names of the assailants. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that telephonic information mentions that Hanuman Singh was attacked by some youngster's of Rawna-Rajpoot community. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that names of the assailants are missing in the telephonic information, so on this ground benefit of doubt has been claimed by them, but this Court is convinced that cryptic information on telephone cannot take place of the detailed F.I.R. and in cryptic information on telephone, generally full details of the incident are not supposed to be recorded and hence memo of information Ex. P-23 cannot be said to be causing any doubt in the prosecution story.PW-4 Amilal, Constable is also a formal witness of memos Ex. P-9, Ex. P-10, Ex. P-ll and Ex. P-12. He proves that accused Khet Singh was wearing a blood stained shirt which was seized by the police through seizure memo Ex. P-12. 17. PW-6 Dr. Darshan Kumar has been examined to prove the injuries of accused Mohabbat Singh. He states that following injuries were found in the finger of left hand of accused Mohabbat Singh:- "( 1 ) dVk gqvk ?kko 2x1 ls0eh0 ckbZ rtZuh vaxqyh ds tM+ ls FkksM+k mij gFksyh dh rjQ tks vkM+h pksV FkhA ( 2 ) dVk gqvk ?kko 1.5 x 0.25 ls0eh0 [kM+h ckbZ gkFk dh chp vaxqyh o rtZuh vaxqyh ds chp esa FkhA ( 3 ) dVk gqvk ?kko 1 x 0.25 ls0eh0 vkM+h ckbZ chp okyh vaxqyh ds ,eih tksM+ ij ihNs dh rjQ fLFkr Fkh vkjh;saVy FkhA " 18. It has been argued that the prosecution has not given any explanation for the injuries of accused-appellant Mohabbat Singh but this Court is convinced that if a person badly and repeatedly attacks on another person with a sharp edged knife then the assailant may also get some injuries in his fingers and the injuries of Mohabbat Singh, rather prove the prosecution story because his injuries are apparently outcome of the use of knife by him. 19. 19. PW-10 Jeta Ram, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi states that accused Chhagan Singh was arrested by him and information given by Chhagan Singh was recorded by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and memo Ex. P-18 was prepared by him and the blood stained shirt was recovered at the instance of Chhagan Singh, who was arrested by him through, seizure memo Ex. P-19. He further states that he had recorded by supplementary statement of the witness Shanker Singh also. 20. PW-11 Anop Singh, the then In-charge of Police Station, Barloot states that F.I.R. No. 102 under Section 302 I.P.C. (Ex. P-8) was entered by him on the basis of the report Ex. P-7 which was sent to him by Police Station, Barloot through HC Pura Ram. 21. PW-13 Amar Singh, the then S.H.O. of Police Station, Barloot states that cryptic telephonic information was recorded in Rojnamcha (Ex. P-23) and when he reached Government Hospital, Sirohi, then Shaitan Singh had submitted a written report (Ex. P-7) before him. He states that by that time, Hanuman Singh had succumbed to his injuries. He proves the formalities of investigation. He further states that accused Mohabbat Singh and Khet Singh were arrested by him. He states that as per information (Ex. P-24) which was given by Mohabbat Singh to him, he had recovered a blood stained knife from the residential room of accused Mohabbat Singh at his instance. He says that the knife was sealed soon after the recovery by him in presence of the witnesses and then it was handed over to Malkhana In-charge in sealed condition. It was sent to the F.S.L He admits that F.I.R. of the case had reached at the residence of Magistrate on 13.11.2004 at 8 P.M. He denies that the F.I.R. is back dated document. 22. PW-12 Jagdish Chandra is carrier of Malkhana articles, who had deliberately not been cross-examination by the accused-persons in the Trial Court. PW-14 Thana Ram, LC states that seven sealed packets were handed over to Jagdish Chand, LC with a forwarding letter of S.P. and then Jagdish Chand had taken the packets to F.S.L. and after examination at the F.S.L., packets in sealed condition, were return for deposit in the Malkhana. PW-15 Ramesh Chandra is Malkhana-ln-charge and he also states that the seized articles were sent in a sealed condition through constable Jagdish Chandra. 23. PW-15 Ramesh Chandra is Malkhana-ln-charge and he also states that the seized articles were sent in a sealed condition through constable Jagdish Chandra. 23. The accused-persons produced two witnesses in defence. Presence of these witnesses, DW-1 Vinod Kumar @ Bharat Kumar and DW-2 Prakash Prajapat at the place of incident has not been duly proved and so their statements have not been relied upon by the Trial Court and this Court is also of the view that these two witnesses are false witnesses, who have appeared in the witness box just to save the accused-appellants from their conviction in the matter irrespective of the acts committed by the accused-persons. 24. In the circumstances of the case, looking to the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has convicted the appellants without considering all the material facts available on record. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in the case. We find no material contradictions or omissions in the statements of these witnesses. Parrot-like version of the incident should not be expected from the witnesses. Similarly, undue importance cannot be given to the telephonic information (Ex. P-23) because Ex. P-23 is not an F.I.R. and so, omission in Ex. P-23 is meaningless in the context. This Court is of the view that there was no undue delay in sending the J.R. to the concerned Magistrate in this case. It is also not the case of the accused-appellants that the delay, if any, has caused any prejudice to the case of accused. There was not abnormal delay in sending the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate. 25. This Court is further of the view that it cannot be said that all or any of the prosecution witnesses are interested and closely related to the deceased, Merely because the witnesses are of the same caste as that of the deceased, does not mean in all cases that the witnesses are interested or false witnesses. In this case all the material witnesses have been found reliable by this Court as well as by the Trial Court. 26. In this case all the material witnesses have been found reliable by this Court as well as by the Trial Court. 26. The arguments that no blood was found on the clothes of PW-3, PW-7, and PW-9 is also of no importance because blood stains on the clothes of accused-persons are important in the investigation of a case and if blood stains have been caused while carrying the injured to the hospital, on the clothes of the persons accompanying the injured, then this is not an important fact to be noticed by the Investigating Officer. Similarly, it was not necessary for the prosecution to produce all the witnesses of the locality to prove the prosecution story. The prosecution has already examined a good number of witnesses to prove its story. 27. It was also argued that recovery of knife was from an open place and it was also argued that knife was not shown to the doctor to ascertain that injuries in the present case was from that knife or not. We do not think that in every case, weapon of offence should be shown to the doctor. Whenever there is a doubt in the mind of the Trial Court that injuries could have been caused by the seized weapon or not only then it is necessary that weapon of offence should be shown to the doctor. In the present case, neither the Court nor the prosecutor thought it necessary to show the weapon of offence to the doctor because there was no doubt in the mind of the Court as well as of the prosecution and further more there was no ambiguity in the statement of the doctor about the weapon of offence. The learned Counsel for the accused-persons also thought it better not to ask for the production of the knife in the Court while the doctor was being examined because the learned Counsel was also apprehensive that the doctor will definitely say that the injuries of Hanuman Singh were certainly caused by the knife which was allegedly seized from accused Mohabbat Singh. The recovery of knife from the house of accused cannot be equated with the recovery from an open place and the argument of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant in this regard is also not tenable. 28. The recovery of knife from the house of accused cannot be equated with the recovery from an open place and the argument of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant in this regard is also not tenable. 28. Lastly, it can be said that the argument regarding absence of common intention on the part of accused Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh is also n acceptable to this Court. We have already discussed this argument in earlier p of this judgment. Certainly, there was common intention of three accused persons to kill Hanuman Singh and only because of the common intention, accused-persons caught hold of Hanuman Singh and the third person was therefore, able to inflict repeated fatal blows by knife in the stomach Hanuman Singh causing him to succumb to the injuries before reaching t hospital. In this case, the defence story is also neither probable nor plausible. 29. The accused-appellants have not been able to probabilise their defeno story at all and hence it can be said that arguments raised in this appeal do no help the accused-appellants to come out of the clutches of law and, according this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment passed by Addition; Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sirohi on 28.2.2004 deserves no inference. 30. Hence, this Appeal deserves dismissal, which is hereby dismissed and the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court against all the the accused-appellants under different sections of the Indian Penal Code are upheld as such. Accused-appellants Mohabbat Singh is said to be in jail undergoing the sentence. A copy of this Judgment be sent to him though the concerned Jai Superintendent. Other two accused-appellants Chhagan Singh and Khet Sing are said to be on bail, so they should surrender before the Trial Com immediately to serve the sentence imposed upon them. If within ten days from today, they do not surrender in the Trial Court, then the Trial Court will b expected to forfeit their bail bonds taken at the time of their suspension sentence and then they should be called by warrant of arrest. Copy of the Judgment along with the bail bonds, if any taken under Section 389 of Code Criminal Procedure and the record of the Trial Court be sent back immediately the Trial Court within three days.Appeal dismissed. *******